The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism (1851)

In presenting the English Reader with a translation of the Theological Lectures of Dr. Ursinus, upon the Heidelberg Catechism, it is presumed no apology is necessary, at least as far as the German Reformed Church is concerned. Considering the character of Ursinus, his acknowledged ability, and relations to the whole Reformed interest it is a matter of great surprise, that some one has not long since been found to undertake the arduous and difficult task which we have very imperfectly accomplished. Many other works greatly inferior to this, have been favored with translations, whilst no pains have been spared to give them an extensive circulation, and yet no attempt has been made of late years to place these lectures in the hands of the English reader. And what is stranger still, is the fact that the name of Ursinus himself, than whom no one is more worthy of grateful and honorable recollection, is in a great measure unknown. We have, therefore, been led to undertake the difficult task of translating these lectures, being fully convinced that we shall in so doing contribute no little to the dissemination of sound theological views, and at the same time bring to favorable notice one whose memory deserves to be held in grateful recollection. The writings of Ursinus are well deserving of a place in every minister’s library, by the side of the works of Luther, Melancthon, Zuingle, Calvin, and others of blessed memory, and will not suffer in the least by a comparison with them.

The old English translation by Parry, made over two hundred years ago, is not only antiquated and unsuited to the taste of the modern English reader, but is also out of print, and not to be had except by the rarest chance. Few copies are to be found at the present day. The copy now in our possession, which we constantly consulted in making the present translation, was printed in the year 1645, and seems to have been gotten up with much care and expense. We had seen notices of the work, and had for several years made constant efforts to secure it, but without success, until about two years ago an esteemed friend placed in our hands a number of foreign catalogues in which we saw three copies of the works of Ursinus, one Latin and two English, advertised. We immediately gave orders to have them imported, and in this way came into possession of the copies we now have. The Latin copy from which we have made the present translation, was published in Geneva in the year 1616, and is without doubt a copy of the best and most complete edition made by Dr. David Pareus, the intimate friend and disciple of Ursinus. It is in every respect greatly superior to another Latin copy, the use of which we secured from the Rev. Dr. Hendron of the Presbyterian church, after having made very considerable progress in the work of translation. This last copy was published in the year 1585, and is probably a copy of one of the earliest editions of the works of Ursinus, of which notice is taken in the excellent “Introduction” from the pen of Dr. Nevin, which will be read with much interest, and throw much light upon the life and character of the author of these Lectures.

Great pains have been taken with the translation so as to render it as complete as possible. In every instance we have been careful to give the exact sense of the author, so that the translation is as literal as it could well be, without being slavishly bound to the text, the style of which we found in a number of instances to be of such a peculiar character as to require some liberty on the part of the Translator. Yet with all the care that has been taken, a number of errors will no doubt make their appearance, in reference to which we ask the indulgence of the reader. The work has been gotten out under many disadvantages, the translation having been made, whilst attending to our regular pastoral duties in the congregation which we have been called to serve in this city.

The old English translation contains considerable matter which is not to be found in either of the Latin copies now in our possession. We have in several instances taken the liberty of inserting short extracts, changing the style, and construction of many of the sentences so as to adapt it to the taste of the modern reader. Whenever this is done it is marked by the word “addenda.”

It is not deemed necessary to say any thing in reference to the merits of these lectures. All who have any acquaintance with the character of Ursinus, and of the important position which he occupied in the church in the sixteenth century—the time of the glorious Reformation—can have but one opinion respecting their merits. We may add, however, that a number of important testimonies might readily be furnished; but we prefer rather to let the Book speak for itself, having the assurance that none can peruse its pages with proper care, without being instructed and profited.

These lectures present a complete exposition of all the leading doctrines of the Christian religion in a most concise and simple form, adapted not only to those who are accustomed to read and think, but also to a very great extent to the common reader. Nor is this done in an outward, mechanical manner, but it introduces us at once into the inmost sanctuary of religion, which all are made to feel is not a mere form or notion, or doctrine, but life and power, springing from Christ, “the Way, the Truth and the Life.”

To the German Reformed Church these lectures should possess much interest. No work could well be published at this time, which should be in greater demand. It may indeed, be said to meet a want which has been extensively felt in our church, not only by the ministry, but also by the laity. Many persons have often asked for some work which would give a complete and faithful exposition of the doctrines contained in our excellent summary of faith—the Heidelberg Catechism. Such a work has been greatly needed for years past, and cannot fail to accomplish a number of important and desirable ends. And as Ursinus was the chief compiler of this symbol, he must always be regarded as the most authoritative expounder of the doctrines which it contains. Great exertions should, therefore, be made to have his Commentary placed in every family belonging to our Reformed Zion.

But whilst these Lectures possess a peculiar interest to the German Reformed Church, it should not for a moment be supposed that they have merely a denominational interest, which may be said to be true of many works. They are like the excellent symbol of which they profess to give a complete and faithful exposition, truly catholic and general. Nor could the book well be otherwise if true to itself. A faithful exposition of the Apostles’ creed, the Decalogue and Lord’s Prayer, which enter so largely into the Heidelberg Catechism, cannot fail to be of general interest to all those who love and pray for the prosperity and coming of Christ’s kingdom. May we not therefore, fondly anticipate a rapid and extensive circulation of the book in the different branches of the Christian Church.

We do not of course intend to be understood as giving an unqualified approval of every view and sentiment contained in these lectures. It is sufficient to say that they are, as a whole, truly orthodox, and well adapted to promote the cause of truth and godliness. They are characterized throughout by earnestness and independence of thought. The writer every where speaks as one who feels the force and importance of the views which he presents. It should also be borne in mind that the value of a book does not consist in its agreement and harmony with the views and opinions generally received and entertained, which may be said to be true of many works which after all do not possess any great value, containing nothing more than a repetition of what has been often said in a more impressive manner. Such, however, is not the chief recommendation of the book which we here present to the Christian public: for whilst it may be said to be in harmony with the doctrines which have been held by the church from the very beginning, it is at the same time earnest, deep, and independent, and well calculated at every point to awaken thought and enquiry.

Conscious of having labored hard and diligently to give a good and faithful translation of these lectures, we now commit them to the public, not without much diffidence, with all the imperfections attending the present translation, with the hope and prayer that they may accomplish the objects we have had in view, and that the reputation of the lectures themselves may be made to suffer no injury from the form in which they now appear.

GEO. W. WILLIARD.

Columbus, Ohio, Sept. 1851.

Among the reformers of the second generation, the race of distinguished men, who, though themselves the children of the reformation, were yet in a certain sense joined with the proper original Apostles of that great work, in carrying it out to its final settlement and conclusion, no one can be named who is more worthy of honorable recollection, than the learned and amiable author of the far-famed Heidelberg Catechism. In some respects, indeed, the authorship of this symbol must be referred, we know, to different hands. But in its main plan, and reigning spirit, it is the genial product, plainly, of a single mind, and to the end of time, accordingly, it will be known and revered as a monument, sacred to the memory of Zacharias Ursinus.

In one view we may say of the Catechism, that it forms the best history, and clearest picture of the man himself; for the materials of his biography, outwardly considered, are comparatively scanty, and of no very striking interest. He had neither taste nor talent for the field of outward adventure and exploit. His whole nature shrank rather from the arena of public life. In its noise and tumult, he took, comparatively speaking, but little part. The world in which he moved and acted mainly, was that of the spirit; and here, his proper home, was the sphere of religion. To understand his history and character, we need not so much to be familiar with the events of his life outwardly taken, as to know the principles and facts which go to make up its constitution in an inward view; and of this, we can have no more true or honorable representation, perhaps, than the likeness that is still preserved of him in his own Catechism. Here, most emphatically may it be said, that “he being dead, yet speaketh.”

Ursinus was a native of Bresslau, the capitol of Silesia. He was born on the 18th of July, in the year 1534, of respectable parents, whose circumstances, however, in a worldly view, appear to have been of the most common and moderate order. The proper family name was Beer, (Bear) which, according to the fashion of the learned world in that period, was exchanged subsequently, in his case, for the more sonorous corresponding Latin title, Ursinus. He discovered at a very early period, a more than usual talent and disposition for acquiring knowledge, and was sent in his sixteenth year accordingly, to Wittemberg, for the prosecution of his studies in the celebrated University of that place, then under the auspices mainly, of the amiable and excellent Melancthon. Here he was supported, in part it seems, for a time at least, by foreign assistance, and particularly by an allowance from the Senate of his native city; while he was enabled soon to help himself also, in part, by a certain amount of service in teaching.

He remained in connection with this University, altogether, seven years, though not without some interruption. The breaking out of the plague in Wittemberg, was the occasion of his spending a winter, in company with Melancthon, at Torgaw; and for some other reason, the threatening aspect, perhaps, of the political heavens, he left the institution again in 1552, and returned with honorable testimonials to the place of his birth. The year after, however, we find him back once more in his beloved Wittemberg, where his studies were continued now with great diligence and success, on to the year 1557.

During this period, his proficiency in the arts and sciences, was such as to win for him general approbation and favor. He is represented as excelling particularly in classical literature, philosophy and theology. He was considered besides, quite a master of poetry; and composed himself various productions in Latin and Greek verse, which were much admired. Along with all this intellectual culture too, went hand in hand a corresponding culture of the inner spiritual man, which formed the crowning grace of his education, and added new value to every gift besides. Naturally gentle, modest, amiable and sincere, these qualities were refined and improved still farther, by the power of religion, which was with him a matter of living sense and inward heart-felt experience, the deepest and most comprehensive habit of the soul. It speaks with special significance to his praise, that Melancthon, the ornament of the University, conceived a very high regard for his abilities and moral qualities, and continued on terms of intimate personal friendship with him to the end of his own life. The high opinion in which he held his pupil, is shown strikingly by the encyclical letter of recommendation which he placed in his hands, when he proposed, at the close of his course in Wittemberg, to go abroad for a time, on a tour of observation and acquaintance in other parts of the learned world as it then stood.

This sort of travel, which served to bring the young apprentice of letters into personal contact with foreign scholars, was considered in that age necessary in some sense to a finished theological training; and it shows the importance attached to it, as well as the honorable relation in which he stood to his native place, that the Senate of Bresslau saw proper, in the case of Ursinus, to provide for the expenses of his journey out of the public funds. It was on the ground of this municipal generosity mainly, that he felt himself bound subsequently, to devote his first professional labors to the service of this city.

Melancthon describes him, in his circular, as a young man of respectable extraction, endowed of God with a gift for poetry, of upright and gentle manners, deserving the love and praise of all good men. “He has lived in our Academy,” he goes on to say, “about seven years, and has endeared himself to everybody of right feeling among us, by his sound erudition, and his earnest piety towards God.” Then follows a notice of his pilgrimage, undertaken to make himself acquainted with the wise and good in other lands; who are affectionately asked, accordingly, to receive him in a spirit answerable to his learning and modesty.

Provided with this high recommendation, he accompanied Melancthon first to the memorable conference, held in 1557, at Worms, from which place he proceeded afterwards to Heidelberg, Strasburg, Basel, Lausanne and Geneva. This brought him into acquaintance with the leaders generally of the Reformed Church; who seem to have been gained, in a short time, to as favorable a judgment of his character, as that just quoted from Melancthon himself. From Switzerland he passed, by Lyons and Orleans, to the city of Paris, where he spent some time perfecting himself in French and Hebrew. After this, we find him again in Switzerland, making himself at home, especially in Zurich, where he enjoyed the intimate confidence and friendship of Bullinger, Peter Martyr, Gessner and other distinguished men, then belonging to that place.

On his return to Wittemberg, he received a call (Sept., 1558) from the authorities of Bresslau, to take charge of its principal school, the Elizabethan Gymnasium.

Here his services gave great satisfaction. But it was not long before a difficulty rose, which brought the first settlement to an abrupt termination. This was nothing less than a charge against him of unsound faith in regard to the sacraments. It was a time when Lutheran Germany was passing into a general hurricane of excitement, under the progress of the second great sacramental war, which resulted in its rupture, finally, into two confessions. Ursinus was found to hold the Calvinistic view of Christ’s presence in the Lord’s supper, as distinguished from the high Lutheran doctrine of such men as Westphal and Tilemann Hesshuss. An alarm was raised accordingly, by the clergy of the place, on the subject of his orthodoxy. As in the case of the celebrated minister Hardenberg, of Bremen, so here one great ground of suspicion, was Melancthon’s friendship and favor. It seemed to be taken for granted, by the zealots for high Lutheranism, that no one could be in close intimacy with Melancthon, who was not at bottom a Crypto-Calvinist. Ursinus published a small tract in his own justification, setting forth in clear and compact summary, his views of the sacramental presence. This was his first theological production. It exhibited what might be regarded as the Melancthonian doctrine of the eucharist, and was in fact approved and commended by Melancthon himself in terms of the highest praise. It did not serve, however, to silence the spirit of persecution in Bresslau. The author was still held up to reproach as a sacramentarian. In these circumstances, he made up his mind in a short time to withdraw. The magistracy would gladly have retained him, in spite of the industrious clamor of his enemies. But he had a strong constitutional aversion to all strife and commotion; and he retired accordingly, with an honorable dismission, a voluntary martyr to the holy cause of peace, to seek a more quiet sphere of action in some different quarter.

When asked by a friend at this time, whither he would now go, his reply was in keeping with the union of gentleness and firmness, that entered so largely into his character. “I am well content to quit my country,” he said, “when it will not tolerate the confession of truth which I cannot with a good conscience renounce. Were my excellent preceptor, Philip, still alive, I would betake myself to no one else than him. As he is dead, however, my mind is made up to turn to the Zurichers, who are in no great credit here, indeed, but whose fame stands so high with other churches, that it cannot be obscured by our preachers. They are pious, learned, great men, in whose society I am disposed, henceforth, to spend my life. As regards the rest, God will provide.”

He reached Zurich on the 3d of October, 1560, and devoted the following winter here, to the active prosecution of his studies; under the guidance, more particularly, as it would seem, of the distinguished theologian, Peter Martyr. His relations to this learned and excellent man were in some respects of the same kind, with those in which he had stood previously with Melancthon. Among all the Swiss reformers, there was no one to whom he attached himself so closely, or who exerted over him the same influence, as this may be traced still in his subsequent writings. So far as the Reformed complexion is found to prevail directly in Ursinus, the pupil of Melancthon, the modification is to be referred mainly to Peter Martyr.

In the meantime God was preparing a proper theatre for his activity in the Church of the Palatinate, for which, also, his whole previous history and training might seem to have been designed and ordered, in the way of special Providence.

This interesting country, had hardly become well settled on the side of the Reformation, before it was thrown into violent commotion, in common with other parts of Germany, by the breaking out of the second sacramental war, to which we have already referred, as leading to the rupture of the two confessions. Out of this rupture, and in the midst of these storms of fierce theological debate, grew the German Reformed Church, over against the cause of high Lutheranism, as this came to its natural completion finally in the Form of Concord.

The great point at issue in the controversy, as it now stood, was the mode simply of Christ’s mystical presence in the holy eucharist. The fact of a real communication with his true mediatorial life, the substance of his body and blood, was acknowledged in general terms on both sides. The rigid Lutheran party, however, were not satisfied with this. They insisted on a nearer definition of the manner in which the mystery must be regarded as having place; and contended in particular for the formula, “In, with and under,” as indispensable to a complete expression of the Saviour’s sacramental presence. He must be so comprehended in the elements, as to be received along with them by the mouth, on the part of all communicants, whether believers or unbelievers. It was for refusing to admit these extreme requisitions only, that the other party was branded with the epithet, “sacramentarian,” and held up to malediction in every direction as the pest of society. The heresy of which it was judged to be guilty, stood simply in this, that the presence of Christ was held to be, after the theory of Calvin, not “in, with and under” the bread, but only with it; not for the mouth, but only for faith; not in the flesh, but only by the Spirit, as the medium of a higher mode of existence; not for unbelievers, therefore, but only for believers. This was the nature of the question, that now kindled all Germany into conflagration. It respected altogether the mode or manner of Christ’s substantial presence in the Lord’s supper, not the awful fact of the mystery itself as always owned by the Christian Church.

The controversy soon reached the Palatinate. The city of Heidelberg especially, and its University, were thrown by it into complete confusion. It was in the midst of this tempestuous agitation, that the wise and excellent Prince Frederick the Third, surnamed the Pious, succeeded to the electorate. Under his auspices, as is generally known, the Reformed or Calvinistic tendency became established in the Palatinate. In the first place, the public quiet was restored by the dismission of the two factious spirits, Hesshuss and Klebiz, who, as leaders on different sides, made the pulpit ring with intemperate strife, and were not to be silenced in any more gentle way. It was then felt necessary, in the next place, to have the subject of this controversy brought to some such settlement, if possible, as might preserve the peace of the country in time to come. The Elector conceived the design, accordingly, of establishing a rule of faith for his dominions, which might serve as a common measure to compose and regulate the existing distraction. The Augsburg Confession, plainly, was not enough for this object; for the point to be settled was mainly, in what sense that Confession was to be taken on the question here in debate. Melancthon was consulted in the case, and one of the last acts he performed, is found in the celebrated Response, by which he gave his sanction to the general course proposed by the Elector Frederick; although, of course, he could not be supposed to have in view the end to which the movement came finally, as a formal transition to the Reformed Church. Such, however, was in a little time the result. There was no violent revolution in this change. The reigning spirit of the University, and of the land, was already more Reformed than Lutheran. Some alterations were made in the forms of worship. In all new appointments, preference was given to Calvinistic divines, and several were called from abroad to occupy places of trust and power. Finally, the whole work may be said to have become complete by the formation of the Heidelberg Catechism.

Among the new appointments of which we have just spoken, no name deserves to be regarded as more important or conspicuous, than that of Zacharias Ursinus. The direct occasion of his call, appears to have been an invitation of the same kind addressed in the first place to his friend, Peter Martyr, which this last saw proper to decline on account of his advanced age, while he used his influence afterwards, to secure the situation for Ursinus. In this way he was brought to Heidelberg, A. D. 1561, where he became honorably settled as principal of the institution known as the “Collegium Sapientiæ,” in the twenty-eighth year of his age.

The year following, he was promoted to the degree of Doctor of Divinity, which imposed on him the duty of delivering theological lectures in the University.

It soon became plain, that he was formed to be the ruling spirit of the new movement, which had commenced in the Church of the Palatinate. He gained completely the confidence of the Elector; his learning and piety, and excellent judgment, secured for him the general respect of his colleagues; and from all sides, the eyes of men were turned to him more and more, as the best representative and expounder of the cause in whose service he stood, and to whose defence he had cheerfully consecrated his life. In this way, with all the natural quietness of his character, we find him gradually placed in the very heart and centre of the great ecclesiastical struggle, in which he was called to take part. His settlement at Heidelberg, continued till the death of his patron, Frederick, in 1576, a period of fifteen years. During this time, his labors were kept up with the most untiring constancy and diligence; the occasion and demand for them, being still in proportion to their generally acknowledged faithfulness and worth. His regular official services were extensive and heavy; the more especially so, as he could never consent to be loose or superficial in his preparations, but felt himself bound always to bestow on his lectures the most thorough and conscientious care. But in addition to all this, he was called upon continually, to conduct a large amount of other business, growing out of the public history of the times, and often of the most arduous and responsible kind. On every emergency, in which it became necessary to vindicate or support the Reformed faith, as it stood in the Palatinate, whether this was to be done in the name of the theological faculty of Heidelberg, or by the authority of the Elector, Ursinus was still looked to as the leading counsellor and spokesman of the transaction. With the high position, moreover, which the Church of the Palatinate very soon won, among the Churches generally of the same confession, associated as its distinctive genius and spirit were from the beginning with his name, the representative character now noticed took from year to year a still wider range, extending in time, we might almost say, like that of Calvin himself, to the entire Reformed communion. As the earlier chiefs of this faith were removed by death, there was no one who, by his personal connections, his extensive knowledge, his clear insight into the interior nature of the points in debate, and the admirable qualities of his spirit, could be said to be better fitted to represent the communion in any such general way; and there was no one probably, to whom in truth the confidence of all was so much disposed to turn, as the main prop and pillar, theologically, of the whole Reformed cause.

Among the public ecclesiastical services to which we have just referred, the first place belongs, of course, to the formation of the Heidelberg Catechism, which is to be regarded as in some sense, the foundation of his subsequent labors.

To this task he was appointed in 1562, by the Elector Frederick, in association with the distinguished theological professor and court-preacher, Caspar Olevianus. Each of them drew up separately, in the first place, his own scheme or sketch of what was supposed to be required, Olevianus in a popular tract on the Covenant of Grace, and Ursinus in a two-fold Catechism, the larger for older persons, and a smaller one for children. Out of these preliminary works was formed, in the first place, the Catechism as it now stands. It has been generally assumed from the first, that the principal agency in its production, is to be ascribed to Ursinus; and to be fully convinced of the correctness of this view, it is only necessary to compare the work itself with his larger and smaller Catechisms, previously composed, as well as with his writings upon it in the way of commentary and defence afterwards. Whatever use may have been made of foreign suggestion or help, it is sufficiently plain from the interior structure of the formulary itself, that it is no mechanical compilation, but the living product of a single mind; there is an inward unity, harmony, freshness and vitality, pervading it throughout, which show it to be, in this respect, a genuine work of art, the inspiration, in a certain sense, of one representing the life of many. And it is no less plain, we may say, that the one mind in which it has thus been moulded and cast, is that emphatically of Ursinus and of no one besides. The Catechism breathes his spirit, reflects his image, and speaks to us in the very tones of his voice, from the first page to the last.

It is well known, what widely extended favor this little work soon found in all parts of the Reformed Church. In every direction, it was welcomed as the best popular summary of religious doctrine, that had yet appeared on the side of this confession. Distinguished divines in other lands, united in bearing testimony to its merits. It was considered the glory of the Palatinate, to have presented it to the world. Some went so far, as to make it the fruit of a special and extraordinary influence of God’s Spirit, approaching even to inspiration. It rose rapidly into the character of a general symbol, answerable in such view to what Luther’s Catechism had already become as a popular standard for the other confession. Far and wide, it became the basis on which systems of religious instruction were formed, by the most excellent and learned divines. In the course of time, commentaries, paraphrases, and courses of sermons, were written upon it almost without number. Few works have passed into as many different versions. It was translated into Hebrew, ancient and modern Greek, Latin, Low Dutch, Spanish, French, English, Italian, Bohemian, Polish, Hungarian, Arabic and Malay. In all this, we have at once an argument of its great worth. It must have been admirably adapted, to meet the wants of the Church at large, as well as admirably true to the inmost sense of its general life, to come in this way so easily and so soon to such wide reputation and credit. Originally a provincial interest merely, it yet grew rapidly into the character of a general or universal symbol; while other older Catechisms and Confessions of Faith, had force, at best, only for the particular countries that gave them birth. It was owned with applause, in Switzerland, France, England, Scotland and Holland, as well as by all who were favorably disposed towards the Reformed faith, in Germany itself. Nor was this praise transient; an ephemeral burst of applause, succeeded again by general indifference and neglect. On the contrary, the authority of the symbol grew with its age. It became for the Reformed body, as we have just seen, the counterpart in full of the similar text book held by the Lutheran body from the hand of Luther himself. In this character, we find it quoted and appealed to on all sides, by both friends and foes. Such vast popularity, we say, of itself, implies vast merit. We may allow, indeed, that the terms in which some of the old divines have spoken of its excellence, are carried beyond due measure. But this general testimony of the whole Reformed Church in its favor, must ever be of force, to show that they had good reason to speak here with a certain amount of enthusiasm.

The fact of its wide spread and long continued popularity, is important, also, in another view; it goes to show that the formulary was the product, truly and fully, of the religious life of the Reformed Church, in the full bloom of its historical development, as this was reached at the time when the work made its appearance. No creed or confession can be of genuine force, that has not this inwardly organic connection with the life it represents. This must go before the symbol, creating it for its own use. The creed so produced, may come to its utterance, indeed, in the first place, through the medium of a single mind; but the single mind, in such case, must ever be the organ and bearer of the general life in whose name it speaks; otherwise it will not be heard nor felt. Here is the proper criterion of any true Church confession, whether it be in the character of a liturgy, catechism or hymn-book. It must be the life of the Church itself, embodied through some proper organ, in such form of speech, as is at once recognized and responded to by the Church at large, as its own word. This relation between word and life, is happily exhibited in the case now under consideration. Though in one sense a private work, the formulary before us, was by no means the product of simply individual reflection, on the part either of one or of several. Ursinus, in the preparation of it, was the organ of a religious life, far more general and comprehensive than his own. It is the utterance of the Reformed faith, as this stood at the time, and found expression for itself through his person. The evidence of this, we have in the free, full response with which it was met, on the part of the Church, not only in the Palatinate, but also in other lands. It was, as though the entire Reformed Church heard, and joyfully recognized, her own voice in the Heidelberg Catechism. No product of mere private judgment or private will, could have come thus into such universal favor.

The great merit which may be fairly inferred from this great reputation, is amply verified, when we come to consider the actual character of the work itself. The more it is carefully studied and examined, the more is it likely to be admired. Among all Protestant symbols, whether of earlier or later date, we hold it to be decidedly the best. It is pervaded throughout, by a thoroughly scientific spirit, far beyond what is common in formularies of this sort. But its science is always earnestly and solemnly practical. It is doctrine apprehended and represented continually in the form of life. The construction of the whole, is uncommonly simple, beautiful and clear, while the freshness of a sacred religious feeling, breathes through its entire execution. It is for the heart, full as much as for the head. The pathos of a deep toned piety, flows like an under current, through all its teaching, from beginning to end. This serves to impart a peculiar character of dignity and force, to its very style, which at times, with all its simplicity, becomes truly eloquent, and moves with a sort of priestly solemnity, which all are constrained to reverence and respect. Among its characteristic perfections, deserves to be noted particularly, its catholic spirit, and the rich mystical element, that is found to enter so largely into its composition. No other Reformed symbolical book can compare with it in these respects.

Its catholicity appears in its sympathy with the religious life of the old Catholic Church, in its care to avoid the thorny dialectic subtleties of Calvinism, in the preference it shows for the positive in religion as opposed to the merely negative and controversial, and in the broad and free character generally, which marks the tone of its instructions. Considering the temper of the times, and the relations out of which it grew, it is remarkably free from polemical and party prejudices. A fine illustration of the catholic, historical feeling now noticed, is found in the fact, that so large a part of the work is based directly upon the Apostle’s Creed. It not only makes use of this as a text, but enters with evidently hearty interest and affection also, into its general spirit, with the sound, and most certainly right feeling, that no Protestant doctrine can ever be held in a safe form, which is not so held as to be in truth a living branch from the trunk of this primitive symbol in the consciousness of faith. We have to regret indeed always, the turn given (Q, 44) to the clause in the fourth article, He descended into hell; where the authority of Calvin is followed, in giving to the words a signification which is good in its own nature, but at the same time notoriously at war with the historical sense of the clause itself. A great deal of offence too, as is generally known, has been taken with the unfortunate declaration, by which the Roman mass is denounced, at the close of the 80th Question, as being “nothing else than a denial of the one sacrifice and sufferings of Jesus Christ, and an accursed idolatry.” But it should never be forgotten, that this harsh anathema, so foreign from the spirit of Melancthon and Ursinus, and from the reigning tone also of the Heidelberg Catechism, forms no part of the original work as published under the hand of Ursinus himself. It is wanting in the first two editions; and was afterwards foisted in, only by the authority of the Elector Frederick, in the way of angry retort and counter-blast, we are told, for certain severe declarations the other way, which had been passed a short time before by the Council of Trent.

The mystical element of the Catechism, is closely connected with the catholic spirit, of which we have just spoken. It is that quality in religion, by which it goes beyond all simply logical or intellectual apprehension, and addresses itself directly to the soul, as something to be felt and believed even where it is too deep to be explained. The Bible abounds with such mysticism. It prevails, especially, in every page of the Apostle John. We find it largely in Luther. It has been often said, that the Reformed faith, as distinguished from the Catholic and the Lutheran, is unfriendly to this element, that it moves supremely in the sphere of the understanding, and so is ever prone to run into rationalism; and it must be confessed, that there is some show of reason for the serious charge. Zwingle’s great fault, as well as his chief strength, lay in the clear intellectuality of his nature. Calvin had a deeper sense of the mystical, but at the same time a still vaster power of logic also, which made it very difficult for such sense to come steadily to its proper rights. His theory of the decrees, for instance, does violence continually to his theory of the sacraments. It is only in its last and best form, as we find this brought out in the German Palatinate, that the Reformed system can be said fairly to have surmounted the force of the objection now noticed. The Heidelberg Catechism has regard throughout, to the lawful claims of the understanding; its author was thoroughly versed in all the dialectic subtleties of the age, and an uncommonly fine logic, in truth, distinguishes its whole composition. But along with this runs, at the same time, a continual appeal to the interior sense of the soul, a sort of solemn undertone, sounding from the depths of the invisible world, which only an unction from the Holy One, can enable any fully to hear and understand. The words are often felt in this way, to mean much more than they logically express. The Catechism is no cold workmanship merely of the rationalizing intellect. It is full of feeling and faith. The joyousness of a fresh, simple, childlike trust, appears beautifully and touchingly interwoven with all its divinity. A rich vein of mysticism runs every where through its doctrinal statements. A strain of heavenly music seems to flow around us at all times, while we listen to its voice. It is moderate, gentle, soft, in one word, Melancthonian, in its whole cadence; the fit echo and image thus, we may fairly suppose, of the quiet, though profoundly earnest soul of Ursinus himself.

It carries the palm, very decidedly, in our view, as we have before said, over all other Protestant symbols, whether formed before it or since.

But notwithstanding all that has now been said, the Catechism was received far and wide in Germany itself, at the time of its appearance, as a loud declaration of war; and became at once the signal for an angry, violent onset, in the way of contradiction and reproach, from all parts of the Lutheran Church. The high toned party which was now filling the whole empire with its alarm of heresy, could not be expected of course to tolerate patiently any religious formulary, that might be felt to fall short at all of its own vigorous measures of orthodoxy. From this quarter, accordingly, the Catechism was assaulted, more fiercely than even from the Church of Rome itself. Its very moderation, indeed, seemed to magnify the front of its offence. Had there been more of the lion or tiger in its mien, and less of the lamb, its presence might have proved possibly less irritating to the polemical humor of the times. As it was, there was felt to be provocation in its very meekness. Its outward carriage was held to be deceitful and treacherous; and its heresy was counted all the worse, for being hard to find, and shy of coming to the light. The winds of strife were let loose upon it accordingly, from all points of the compass.

Not only the unity and quiet of the German Church, but the peace also of the German empire, seemed in the eyes of the high Lutheran party, to be brought into jeopardy, by the new Confession. It was held to be not only heresy in religion, but treason also in politics. Both the Elector and his theologians found their faith severely tried, by the general outcry which was raised at their expense. But they were men of faith, and they stood the trial nobly and well.

The attack was opened by Tilemann Hesshuss and the celebrated Flaccius Illyricus, each of whom came out with an angry publication against the Calvinistic Catechism, as they called it, full of the most intolerant invective and abuse, and grossly misrepresenting at different points, the religious change which had taken place in the Palatinate. Among other calumnies, the new faith was charged with turning the Lord’s Supper into a profane meal, with undervaluing the necessity of infant baptism, with iconomachy, and with an attempt to alter the decalogue in departing from the old order of its precepts. Other blasts of warning and alarm were soon heard, in much the same tone, from different quarters. Wirtemberg in particular, issued a solemn censure, drawn up by her two best divines, in which eighteen questions of the Catechism were taxed with serious heresy, and no effort spared to bring into discredit especially its doctrine of the holy eucharist. It was necessary to meet this multitudinous outcry with a prompt and vigorous answer; and such an answer accordingly soon appeared, with all due solemnity, in the name of the united theological faculty of Heidelberg. The task of preparing it, however, fell on Ursinus, who showed himself at the same time well able to discharge the service in a truly efficient and becoming way. The honor of the Catechism was fully vindicated, and the effect of the whole controversy was only to render its authority in the Palatinate more firm than before.

Meanwhile the Elector was taken solemnly to account, in a more private way, by several of his brother princes, who seemed to think the whole empire scandalized by his unorthodox conduct. This led to the celebrated conference or debate of Maulbronn; in which the leading theologians of Wirtemberg and the Palatinate came together, for the purpose of bringing the whole difficulty, if possible, to a proper resolution and settlement. The Heidelberg divines, were not themselves in favor of the measure; apprehending more evil from it than good. But they allowed their objections to be over-ruled, not caring to show what might be construed in any quarter, into a want of confidence in their own cause. The conference took place in the month of April, 1564, and lasted we are told, a whole week, from the tenth day of the month to the sixteenth. Among the disputants from Heidelberg, were the Professors, Bocquin, Olevianus and Ursinus. On the other side appeared Brentius, two of the Tübingen Professors, and other distinguished divines. The burden of the debate, however, was thrown mainly upon Ursinus in the one case, and wholly upon James Andreæ, the great and good chancellor of the University of Tübingen, in the other.

The acts of this colloquy of Maulbronn are of the highest value for the history of the German Reformed Church, and serve at the same time to throw a most honorable light on the whole character of Ursinus. They furnish throughout a lively image of his keen penetration, his comprehensive science, and his clear doctrinal precision, as well as a brilliant exemplification of the firmness with which he adhered to his own convictions of truth and right. His distinctions and determinations, especially on the question of the Ubiquity, may be regarded as carrying with them a sort of truly classical authority for the Reformed theology in all subsequent times.

The colloquy itself, however, only led afterwards to new controversy. It ended with a compact, indeed, to abstain from public strife, but, unhappily, this was soon forgotten and broken. Both sides, as a matter of course, claimed the victory; and it was not long till an effort was made, on the part of the Wirtemberg divines, to establish this claim in their own favor, by publishing what they called an epitome of the debate in a form to suit themselves; placing the whole discussion, with no small ingenuity and address, in a light by no means fair or satisfactory to the other side. To meet this misrepresentation, the divines of the Palatinate published, in the first place, a copy in full of the proceedings of the colloquy from the official record made at the time; and then added a clear and distinct reply to the Wirtemberg epitome, exposing what they conceived to be its grave offences against truth. This called forth, in the year 1565, the great “Declaration and Confession of the Theologians of Tübingen on the Majesty of the Man Christ, and the Presence of his Body and Blood in the Holy Supper.” Then came in reply again from the side of the Palatinate, in 1566, a “Solid Refutation of the Sophisms and Cavils of the Wirtemberg Divines,” designed to make clean ground once more of the whole field. The controversy was renewed and continued thus in its full strength; and the author of the Catechism was still required to hold a weapon for its defence in one hand, while he labored on its proper exposition with the other. Both services were well fulfilled.

Among his various apologetic tracts, the chief place is due to the Exegesis verae doctrinae de Sacramentis et Eucharistia, published in the name of the Heidelberg Faculty and by order of the Consistory, whose sanction gave it at the same time the force of a public confession. It was translated also into the vernacular tongue, and in a short time went through several editions. It is still a work of great interest and value, as it furnishes the most authentic interpretation, which is anywhere to be found, of the real sacramental doctrine of the Catechism, in the sense which it had in the beginning for Ursinus himself, as well as for the whole theological faculty of Heidelberg.

As just intimated, however, the business of such public apology and defence, by no means exhausted the labors of Ursinus in regard to this truly admirable symbol. The Catechism was fully enthroned in the Palatinate, from the beginning, as the rule and measure of the public faith. It was made the basis of theological instruction in the University. It was introduced into all the churches and schools, under a regulation which required the whole of it to be gone over in course, in the way of familiar repetition and explanation, once every year. A regular system of catechisation was established in the churches, to which the afternoon of every Lord’s day was devoted, and which was so conducted, as to include grown persons as well as children. Ursinus, in his capacity of professor, accommodated himself also to the general rule, and made it a point to go over the text of the Catechism once a year with his theological lectures. This custom he is said to have kept up regularly, on to the year 1577. Notes of his lectures were taken down by the students, which were allowed soon after his death, at three different places, to make their appearance in print. As much injustice was done to him, however, by the defective character of these publications, his particular friend and favorite disciple, David Pareus, who possessed besides all necessary qualifications for the task, was called upon to revise the whole, and to put the work into a form that should be more faithful to the name and spirit of its illustrious author. This service of duty and love could not have fallen into better hands, and no pains were spared now to render the publication complete. Under such properly authentic form, it appeared first in the year 1591, at Heidelberg, in four parts, each furnished with a separate preface by Pareus; since which time, it has gone through numerous editions, in different countries. The Heidelberg Catechism has been honored with an almost countless number of commentaries of later date; but this first one, derived from Ursinus himself through David Pareus, has been generally allowed to be the best that has been written. No other, at all events, can have the same weight as an exposition of its true meaning.

In the midst of other agitations in the year 1564, the plague broke out with great violence in Heidelberg, causing both the court and the University to consult their own safety by withdrawing for a time from the place. During this solemn recess, Ursinus wrote and published a small work on Preparation for Death. It appeared first in Germany, but was translated afterwards into Latin, in which form it is found in the general collection of his Works, under the title of Pia Meditatio Mortis.

In the year 1571, he received an urgent call to Lausanne, which he seems to have been somewhat inclined to accept, in view chiefly of the undue burden of his labors at Heidelberg, which was found to be greater than his physical constitution, naturally weak, could well support. To retain him in his place, the Elector allowed him to transfer a portion of his college service to an assistant.

His marriage with Margaret Trautwein, followed the year after, and is represented as having added materially to his comfort and rest. He was at the time nearly forty years of age.

This domestic settlement, however, was not of long duration. With the death of his patron Frederick, in October 1576, the whole religious state of the Palatinate fell once more into disorder. He was succeeded in the electorate by his eldest son, Louis, whose previous connections had inspired him with a strong zeal for Lutheranism, in full opposition to the entire course of his father. Before his death, the old prince had sought an interview with his son, wishing to bring him under an engagement, if possible, to respect his views in regard to the church, as expressed in his last will and testament. Louis, however, thought proper to decline the interview, and subsequently showed no regard whatever to his father’s directions. On the contrary, he made it his business, from the start, to turn all things into an entirely different train. The clergy, together with the mayor and citizens of Heidelberg, addressed a petition to him, praying for liberty of conscience, and offering one of the churches for the particular use of those who belonged to his confession. His brother, Duke Casimir, lent his intercession also, to sustain the request. But it answered no purpose; Louis declared that his conscience would not suffer him to receive the petition. The following year, accordingly, he came with his court to Heidelberg, dismissed the preachers, filled all places with Lutheran incumbents, caused a new church service to be introduced, and in one word, changed the public religion into quite another scheme and form. The more prominent theologians were soon compelled to leave their places; among whom of course, were the authors of the Heidelberg Catechism, Olevianus and Ursinus.

Ursinus found an honorable refuge with Prince Casimir, second son of the late Elector, who exercised a small sovereignty of his own at Neustadt, and made it his business to succor and encourage there, as far as he could, the cause now persecuted by his Lutheran brother. The distinguished divine was constituted professor of theology in the Neustadt Gymnasium, which the prince now proposed to raise to the character of something like a substitute, for what the University of Heidelberg had been previously for the Reformed Church. The new institution, under the title of the Casimirianum, soon became quite important. It could hardly be otherwise, with such names as Ursinus, Jerome Zanchius, Francis Junius, Daniel Tossanus, John Piscator, in its theological faculty, and others of the like order in other departments. Here Ursinus continued to labor, true to the faith of his own dishonored Catechism, till the day of his death.

His last publication of any importance, was a work of some size, undertaken by order of Prince Casimir, and issued in the name of the Neustadt clergy, in 1581, in review and censure of the celebrated Form of Concord. This was executed with his usual ability, and did good service at the time to the cause of the Reformed Church.

The triumph of Lutheranism in the Palatinate, proved in the end to be short. Before the plan could be fully executed, by which it was proposed to extend the revolution of the capital over the entire province, Prince Louis died, in the midst of his days; and now at once the whole face of things was brought to assume again a new aspect. The administration of the government fell into the hands of Duke Casimir, who soon after took measures to restore the Reformed faith to its former power and credit. As far as possible, the old professors were once more brought back to the University. The Casimirianum of Neustadt, saw itself shorn by degrees of its transient glory. The Form of Concord sank into disgrace, while its rival standard, the Heidelberg Catechism, rose gloriously into view again as the ecclesiastical banner of the Palatinate. In due time, the whole order of the church was restored as it had stood at the death of Frederick the Pious.

But there was one among the banished theologians of Neustadt, who did not return at this time with his colleagues, to the scene of his former labors. The author of the Catechism himself, the learned and pious Ursinus, was not permitted to have part in the triumph to which it was now advanced. His feeble constitution, which had been for some time sinking more and more, under the untiring labors of his profession, gave way finally altogether; and on the 6th of March, 1583, the very year in which Prince Casimir came into power, he was quietly translated to a higher and better world. The event took place in the 49th year of his age.

He was buried in the choir of the church at Neustadt, where his colleagues erected also a suitable monument to his memory. The inscription describes him as a sincere theologian, distinguished for resisting heresies on the person and supper of Christ, an acute philosopher, a prudent man, and an excellent instructor of youth. A funeral oration was pronounced on the occasion in Latin, by Francis Junius, which is still important for the picture it preserves of his mind and character. Its representations, of course, are somewhat rhetorical, and some allowance must be made for the colorings of friendship and grief; but after all proper abatement on this score, it is such a glowing eulogy, as coming from one so intimately familiar with the man, must be allowed to tell greatly to his praise.

His works were published collectively, some time after his death, in three folio volumes, by his friend and disciple, David Pareus.

The leading traits of his character have been already brought into view in some measure, in the sketch now given of his life. An enduring witness of his theological learning, and of his intellectual abilities in general, is found in his works. The best monument of his virtues and moral merits is the influence he exerted while living, and the good name he left behind him throughout the whole Reformed Church at his death, the odor of which has come down to our own time. He was at once a great and a good man.

He seems to have excelled especially as an academic lecturer. His friend, Francis Junius, speaks with high commendation also of his talent for preaching; but his own estimate of himself here was probably more sound, which led him to withdraw from the pulpit in a great measure, as not being his proper sphere. His style and manner were too didactic for its use. For the ends of the lecture room, however, they were all that could be desired. At once full, calm, methodical and clear, his mind flowed here without noise or pomp, in a continuously rich stream, both gentle and profound, that was felt to diffuse the most wholesome instruction on all sides. He spared no pains to prepare himself fully for his work, and laid himself out to serve as much as possible the wants of his pupils; throwing his soul with living interest into the task in hand, and encouraging them to do so too by presenting difficulties or asking questions at the close of each exercise; which it was his habit then, however, not to answer on the spot, but to hold in reserve for a well studied judgment on the following day.

His diligence seemed to have no bounds. Of this we have the best evidence in the vast amount of the labors and services he performed, in the course of his public life. His parsimony of time, always as gold to the true student, is illustrated by the inscription which he is said to have had in full view, for the benefit of all impertinent visitors, over the door of his study: “Amice, quisquis huc venis, aut agito paucis, aut abi, aut me laborantem adjuva.” That is, “Friend, entering here, be short, or go, or else assist me in my work.”

This regard for time was with him a sense of duty, and flowed from the general feeling he had, that his powers and his talents were not his own, but belonged to his faithful Saviour, Jesus Christ, and that he had no right to divert them from his service. Altogether his conscientiousness was of the highest order. His funeral orator says of him, that he had never heard an idle word fall from his lips; so careful was he with the government of his thoughts and the regulation of his tongue. He may be said indeed to have fallen a martyr, in some sense, to his own faithfulness; for it was the hard service to which he put himself in the discharge of his professional engagements, that wore out his strength and brought him down finally to the grave.

The modesty and humility of the man were in full keeping with his general integrity, and contributed much to the pleasing effect of his other virtues. His manners were perfectly unassuming, as his spirit also was free from everything that savored of pride or pretension. He seemed to court obscurity, rather than notoriety. Such of his works as appeared in his own life-time, were published anonymously, or in the name of the Heidelberg faculty; while the greater part of them never saw the light at all in any such form, till after his death.

Altogether, as we have before seen, he was of a reserved, retiring nature; formed for meditation and self-communion; averse from all noise and strife; mystical as well as logical, and no less contemplative than intelligent and acute; a true heir in this respect of Melancthon’s spirit, as well as a true follower of his faith. For theological controversy, though doomed to live in it all his days, he had just as little taste as his illustrious preceptor himself; and when forced to take part in it, one might say of him that scarce the smell of its usual fire was allowed to pass on his garments; so equal was he still, and calm and mild, in the conduct of his own cause, avoiding as far as possible all offensive personalities, and bending his whole force only on the actual merits of the question in debate. On the other hand, however, no one could be more decided and firm in this calm way, when it was necessary to withstand error or maintain truth. In this respect he was superior to Melancthon, less yielding and more steadily true to the chart and compass of his own creed.

He was charged by some with being sour and morose. But this was nothing more, probably, than the construction, which his reserved and earnest character naturally carried with it for those who were not able to sympathise with such a spirit, or who saw him only as it were from a distance and not near at hand. It is characteristic of such a soft and quiet nature, to be at the same time ardent, and excitable on occasions even to passion; and it is not unlikely, that in the case of Ursinus, this natural tendency may have been strengthened at times by the morbid habit of his body, disturbing and clouding the proper serenity of his mind. Francis Junius describes him as just the reverse of the charges now noticed, and as made up of self-forgetting condescension and kindness towards all who came in his way.

The same witness, than whom we could have no better, bears the most honorable testimony also to his habits of devotion and personal piety. Religion with him was not a theory merely, but a business of life. He walked with God, and showed himself thus a worthy follower of those who through faith and patience have entered into the rewards of his kingdom.

On the whole, we may say, it is a great honor for the German Reformed Church to be represented in the beginning by so excellent a man; and it is not going too far perhaps to add, that the type of his character has entered powerfully into the true historical spirit of this communion, as distinguished from all other branches of the same faith. Such is the prerogative of genius, and such its high and lofty commission in the world. It stamps its own image, for ages, on what it has power to create.

J. W. N.

Note.—In the preparation of this article, use has been made of the following works: Alting’s Historia de Ecclesiis Palatinis; H. S. Van Alpen’s Geschichte und Literatur des Heidelberg’schen Katechismus; Planck’s Geschichte der protestantischen Theologie; Bayle’s Dictionary art. Ursinus; Seisen’s Geschichte der Reformation zu Heidelberg; K. F. Vierordt’s Geschichte der Reformation im Grossherzogthum Baden; Ebrard’s Das Dogma vom Heil. Abendmahl und seine Geschichte. Reference may also be made to the writer’s own work on the History and Genius of the Heidelberg Catechism.

With reference to the Catechism of the Christian Religion which was prepared for, and taught in the schools and churches of the Palatinate.

These Prolegomena are partly general, such as treat of the entire doctrine of the Church: and partly special, such as have respect merely to the Catechism.

The general prolegomena, concerning the doctrine of the church, may be included in the following questions:

I. What is the doctrine of the church?

II. What are the parts thereof and in what do these parts differ from each other?

III. Wherein does the doctrine of the Church differ from that of the various Sects, and from Philosophy, and why these distinctions should be retained?

IV. What are the evidences of the truth and certainty of this doctrine?

V. What are the various methods of teaching and studying this doctrine?

I. What is the Doctrine of the Church?

The doctrine of the church is the entire and uncorrupted doctrine of the law and gospel concerning the true God, together with his will, works, and worship; divinely revealed, and comprehended in the writings of the prophets and apostles, and confirmed by many miracles and divine testimonies; through which the Holy Spirit works effectually in the hearts of the elect, and gathers from the whole human race an everlasting church, in which God is glorified, both in this, and in the life to come.

This doctrine is the chief and most expressive mark of the true church, which God designs to be visible in the world, and to be separated from the rest of mankind, according to these declarations of scripture: “Keep yourselves from idols.” “Come out from among them, and be ye separate.” “If there come any unto you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your houses, neither bid him God speed.” “Be ye holy, touch no unclean thing, ye that bear the vessels of the Lord. Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.” (1 John 5. 21. 2 Cor. 6. 17. 2 John 10. Isa. 52. 11. Rev. 18. 4.)

God wills that his church be separate and distinct from the world, for the following considerations: First, on account of his own glory; for, as he himself will not be joined with idols and devils, so he will not have his truth confounded with falsehood, and his church with her enemies, the children of the devil; but will have them carefully distinguished and separated. It would be reproachful to God to suppose that he would have and acknowledge as his children, such as persecute him; yea, it would be blasphemy to make God the author of false doctrine, and the defender of the wicked; for “what concord has Christ with Belial.” (2 Cor. 6. 14.) Secondly, on account of the consolation and salvation of his people; for it is necessary that the church should be visible in the world, that the elect, scattered abroad among the whole human race, may know with what society they ought to unite themselves, and that, being gathered into the church, they may enjoy this sure comfort, that they are members of that family in which God delights, and which has the promises of everlasting life. For it is the will of God that all those who are to be saved, should be gathered into the church in this life. Out of the church there is no salvation.

How the church may be known, and what are the marks by which it may be distinguished from the various sects, will be shown when we come to speak regularly upon the subject of the church. We may, however, here say, that there are three marks by which the church is known: Purity of doctrine—the proper use of the sacraments, and obedience to God according to all the parts of this doctrine, whether of faith or practice. And if it be here objected, that great vices have often made their appearance in the church, we would reply that these are not defended and adhered to by the church, as by the various sects. Yea, the church is the first to censure and condemn them. Hence, if there are faults in the church, these are disapproved of and removed. As long as this state of things lasts, so long the church remains.

II. What are the parts of the Doctrine of the Church, and in what do they differ from each other?

The doctrine of the church consists of two parts: the Law, and the Gospel; in which we have comprehended the sum and substance of the sacred Scriptures. The law is called the Decalogue, and the gospel is the doctrine concerning Christ the mediator, and the free remission of sins, through faith. This division of the doctrine of the church is established by these plain and forcible arguments.

1. The whole doctrine comprised in the sacred writings, is either concerning the nature of God, his will, his works, or sin, which is the proper work of men and devils. But all these subjects are fully set forth and taught, either in the law, or in the gospel, or in both. Therefore, the law and gospel are the chief and general divisions of the holy scriptures, and comprise the entire doctrine comprehended therein.

2. Christ himself makes this division of the doctrine which he will have preached in his name, when he says, “Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day; and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name.” (Luke 24. 46, 47.) But this embraces the entire substance of the law and gospel.

3. The writings of the prophets and apostles, comprise the old and new Testament, or covenant between God and man. It is, therefore, necessary that the principal parts of the covenant should be contained and explained in these writings, and that they should declare what God promises and grants unto us, viz: his favor, remission of sins, righteousness, and eternal life; and also what he, in return, requires from us: which is faith and obedience. These, now, are the things which are taught in the law and gospel.

4. Christ is the substance and ground of the entire Scriptures. But the doctrine contained in the law and gospel is necessary to lead us to a knowledge of Christ and his benefits: for the law is our schoolmaster, to bring us to Christ, constraining us to fly to him, and showing us what that righteousness is, which he has wrought out, and now offers unto us. But the gospel, professedly, treats of the person, office, and benefits of Christ. Therefore we have, in the law and gospel, the whole of the Scriptures, comprehending the doctrine revealed from heaven for our salvation.

The principal differences between these two parts of the doctrine of the church, consist in these three things:

1. In the subject, or general character of the doctrine, peculiar to each. The law prescribes and enjoins what is to be done, and forbids what ought to be avoided: whilst the gospel announces the free remission of sin, through and for the sake of Christ.

2. In the manner of the revelation peculiar to each. The law is known from nature; the gospel is divinely revealed.

3. In the promises which they make to man. The law promises life upon the condition of perfect obedience; the gospel, on the condition of faith in Christ and the commencement of new obedience. Hereafter, however, more will be said upon this subject in the proper place.

III. In what does the Doctrine of the Church differ from that of other Religions, and from Philosophy: and why these distinctions should be retained?

The doctrine of the church differs from that of all other religions, in four respects. First: the doctrine of the church has God for its author, by whom it was delivered, through the prophets and apostles, whilst the various religious systems of sectarists have been invented by men, through the suggestion of the devil. Secondly: the doctrine of the church alone, has such divine testimony in confirmation of its truth, as is sure and infallible, and which is calculated to quiet the conscience, and convict all the various sects of error. Thirdly: in the church the law of God is retained entire and uncorrupted, whilst in other systems of religion it is narrowed down and basely corrupted; for the advocates of these false religions entirely reject the doctrine of the first table, concerning the knowledge and worship of the true God, either setting forth some other God besides him who has revealed himself to the church by his word and works, and seeking a knowledge of God, not in his Son, but out of him, or worshipping him otherwise than he has commanded in his word. And not only so, but they are also equally ignorant of the inward and spiritual obedience of the second table; and whatever truth and excellence there is in these systems of religion, it is nothing more than a part of the precepts of the second table, in relation to the external deportment of the life, and the civil duties which men owe to each other. Fourthly: it is only in the church that the gospel of Christ is fully taught, and rightly understood; for the various sects, such as the Ethnics, the Philosophers, Jews, and Turks, are either entirely ignorant of it, and thus reject it, or else they add to their errors what little they have culled from the doctrine of the apostles; the use of which, however, they do not properly apprehend nor understand; as is true of the Arians, Papists, Anabaptists, and all other heretics; some of whom hold errors concerning the person, and others concerning the office of Christ, the mediator. These great distinctions prove that the doctrine of the church alone should be taught and held fast to, whilst the doctrines and religious systems of the sects which oppose the truth, should be rejected and shunned, as the perversions and wicked devices of the devil; according as it is said, “Beware of false prophets.” And, “Keep yourselves from idols.” (Matt. 7. 15. 1 John 5. 21.)

It is, however, different with Philosophy. True philosophy, although it also differs very much from the doctrine of the church, yet, it does not array itself against it, nor is it a wicked fabrication, and device of Satan, as is true of the false doctrines of the Sects; but it contains truth, and is, as it were, a certain ray of the wisdom of God, impressed upon the mind of man in his creation. It is a doctrine that has respect to God and his creatures, and many other things that are good and profitable to mankind, and has been drawn out from the light of nature, and from principles in themselves clear and evident, and reduced to a system by wise and earnest men. It follows, therefore, that it is not only lawful, but also profitable, for christians to devote themselves to the study of philosophy; whilst, on the other hand, it is not proper for them to devote themselves to the study of the various doctrines of the sects; because these are all to be detested and avoided, as the wicked devices of the devil.

Philosophy and the doctrine of the church differ, especially in the following respects. First: in their principles. Philosophy is altogether natural, and is constructed and based upon principles deduced from nature. And, although there are many things in the doctrine of the church, which may be known from nature, yet the chief and principal part of it, which is the gospel, is so far beyond and above nature, that, unless the Son of God had revealed it unto us from the bosom of the Father, no wisdom of men or of angels could have discovered it. Secondly: they differ in their subjects; for, whilst the doctrine of the church comprehends the true sense and meaning of the law and gospel, philosophy is entirely ignorant of the gospel, omits the most important parts of the law, and explains very obscurely and imperfectly, those parts which it embraces in relation to civil duties, and the external deportment of the life, gathered from some few precepts of the Decalogue. And not only so, but philosophy also teaches some of the arts and sciences, which are useful and profitable; such as Logic, Natural Philosophy, and Mathematics, which we do not find in the doctrine of the church, but which, nevertheless, have an important influence upon the interests of society, when taught and understood. Thirdly: they differ in their effects. The doctrine of the church alone traces all the evils and miseries which are incident to man to their true source, which is to be found in the fall and disobedience of our first parents in Paradise. It, moreover, ministers true and solid comfort to the conscience, pointing out the way by which we may escape the miseries of sin and death, and, at the same time, assures us of everlasting life, through our Lord Jesus Christ. But philosophy is ignorant of the true cause of all our evils, and can neither bestow nor direct us to that comfort which can satisfy the desires of the human heart.

There are, however, certain comforts which are common, both to philosophy and theology; among which, we may mention the doctrine of the providence of God, the necessity of obeying the law, a good conscience, the excellency of virtue, the ultimate designs which virtue proposes, the examples of others, the hope of reward, and a comparison of the different events and circumstances of life. But those greater and more precious comforts, by which the soul is sustained and supported, when exposed to the dreadful evils of sin and death, are peculiar to the church, and consist in the free remission of sin, by and for the sake of Christ, the grace and presence of God under these evils, together with final deliverance and eternal life.

But, although true philosophy be insufficient to meet the full demands of our moral nature, and, although it may be imperfect, as compared with theology, yet it does not oppose, and array itself against the doctrine of the church, as though it were hostile to it. Hence, whatever erroneous sentiments, such as are in plain opposition to the truth of God’s word, are found in the writings of the different philosophers, and which are brought forward, by heretics, for the purpose of controverting and overthrowing the true sense of the Scriptures, these are either not philosophical, being nothing more than the subtle devices of human ingenuity, and the very ulcers of true philosophy, as the opinion of Aristotle concerning the creation of the world, and that of Epicurus concerning the immortality of the soul, &c., or they are indeed philosophical, but inappropriately applied to theology.

These distinctions between the doctrine of the church and that of other religions, and of philosophy also, should be observed and maintained, for these reasons. First: that all the glory which properly belongs to God may be attributed to him, which cannot be done unless we acknowledge and confess whatever he will have us to believe concerning himself and his will, and unless we add nothing to these revelations which he has been pleased to make of himself; for God cannot be joined with idols, neither can his truth be mingled with the lies and falsehood of Satan, without casting the greatest reproach upon his name. Secondly: that we may not endanger our salvation, which might occur if we were to be deceived, and embrace philosophy or the teaching of some one of the sects, for the true religion. Thirdly: that our faith and comfort may be increased, by seeing the superior excellency of the doctrine of the church to the teachings of all other systems of religion; and how many things are found in the religion of the Bible, which are wholly wanting in all others; and why it is that only those who confess and hold to the teachings of the word of God are saved, whilst all the various sects, with their adherents, are condemned and rejected of God. Finally: that we may separate ourselves from the Epicureans and Academics, who either despise everything like godliness, or so pervert it as to suppose that every man who professes some form of religion will be saved, thus interpreting the declaration of the apostle where he says, “The just shall live by his faith.” (Rom. 1. 17.) Now, as far as it respects these Epicureans, they are not worthy of being refuted; and as for the Academics, they evidently wrest the declaration of the Apostle from its proper signification, and may, therefore, easily be refuted; for the pronoun his never signifies that faith which any man may imagine, or frame for himself, but it signifies the true Catholic faith, peculiar to every one that has embraced the gospel of Christ; and thus it opposes the faith of every other man, even though it be true; and also the doctrine of justification by works. Hence, the true sense of this passage of Scripture is, The just man is justified, not by the works of the law, but only by faith in Christ, and that by his own peculiar faith, and not by the faith of another man.

IV. What are the evidences by which the truth of the Christian Religion, or the Doctrine of the Church is confirmed?

There are a great number of arguments which go to establish the truth and certainty of the teachings of the church, some of which convince the conscience; as is the case with the first XIII, which we here subjoin, whilst those which follow, incline and convert the heart. These arguments we shall present in the following order:

1. The purity and perfection of the Law. It is not possible that that religion should be true and divine, which either invents and tolerates idols, or approves of those forms of wickedness which are in plain opposition to the law of God and the judgment of sound reason. Now all the different forms of religion, except that which has been revealed in the sacred Scriptures, and which is received and acknowledged by the church, evidently do this. For all of them, (as has already been said,) either entirely abrogate the first table of the Decalogue, which has respect to the one true God and his worship, or they shamefully corrupt it; whilst they, at the same time, retain only a small part of the second table, relating to external propriety, and civil duties. It is only the church that retains both tables of the Decalogue entire and uncorrupted, according to the Scriptures. Hence, it is only the doctrine of the church that is true and divine.

2. The same may be argued from the gospel, which points out the only way of escape and deliverance from sin and death; for, most assuredly, that doctrine and religion is true and divine which reveals a method of deliverance from these great evils, without doing any violence to the justice of God, and which administers solid comfort to the conscience, in relation to everlasting life. Now, as the doctrine of the church is the only system of religious truth that has ever discovered and proclaimed a way of deliverance from the evils of sin and death, which alone affords real and substantial comfort to the conscience, it must be true and divine.

3. The great antiquity of this doctrine affords evidence of its truth; for no other system of religious truth besides that which we have delivered in the Holy Scriptures, can trace its origin to God, and prove its certain and continual descent from the beginning of the world. All the various histories of the world unite their testimony with that of sacred history, in affirming that all other religions took their origin subsequent to this, and are new in comparison with it. Inasmuch, therefore, as the most ancient religion challenges the highest regard, and has the strongest evidence of truth, (for men ordinarily receive and regard the first religion as having come immediately from God,) it follows that the doctrine of the church alone is true and divine.

4. The miracles by which God confirmed the truth of this doctrine, from the beginning of the world, bear testimony to its divine character; which miracles the devil cannot imitate, even as far as it has respect to their external appearance; such as the raising of the dead, making the sun stand still and go backward, the dividing of the sea and rivers, making the barren fruitful, and others of a similar character, all of which bear the strongest testimony to the truth and divine character of this doctrine, inasmuch as they were wrought by God, (who could not bear such testimony to what is false,) for the confirmation of those things which were spoken by the prophets and apostles.

5. The prophecies and predictions, of which there are very many, both in the old and new Testament, that have received a most complete and exact fulfilment, establish in the most satisfactory and conclusive manner the divine character of the teachings of the church, inasmuch as no one but God can utter such declarations.

6. The harmony of the different parts of the doctrine of the church, is an evidence of its truth. That doctrine which contradicts itself can neither be true, nor from God, since truth is in perfect harmony with itself, and God cannot contradict himself. And as all other religions, except that which is taught in the writings of the prophets and apostles, differ very much from and among each other, even in points which are regarded chief and fundamental, this alone, which harmonizes so fully and perfectly in all its various parts, must be true and from God.

7. The acknowledgement of the superior excellency of the christian religion by its enemies, may be urged as an argument in favor of its truth. The devil himself was constrained to confess, “Thou art Christ, the Son of God.” (Luke 4. 41.) Other enemies have also been repeatedly induced to bear testimony to the superior excellency of the teachings of the church. Yea, it may be said that whatever goodness and truth may be found in other religions, the same is also contained in the religion of the Bible, only much more clearly and fully; and it may very easily be shown that they have borrowed these things from the teachings of the church, and that they have commingled them with their own inventions, as the devil himself is accustomed, as an imitator of God, to unite certain truths with his falsehoods, that he may thus the more easily deceive men. Therefore, those things which the various Sects have in common with the teachings of the church are not to be opposed, because they have borrowed them from us; but those things which are in opposition to the doctrine of the church may easily be refuted, since they are nothing more than the inventions of men.

8. The malignity of satan, and his various emissaries, against the doctrine of the church is an evidence of its truth: for most assuredly that religion is true and from God, which the devil and wicked men, with one mind and purpose, despise and endeavor to destroy. Truth generally calls forth opposition from the wicked, and the devil, we are told, was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth. Now, it is manifestly true that the world and satan do not hate and impugn any other doctrine so violently as that of the church, which results from this, that it reproves them more sharply, calls their errors in question, exposes their fallacies and frauds, and more severely condemns all their idols and vices, than the various Sects which connive at these things, and even, in many instances, defend them. “The world hateth me because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil.” “If ye were of the world, the world would love his own; but because ye are not of the world, therefore it hateth you.” (John 7. 7: 15. 19.)

9. The wonderful protection and preservation of this doctrine, notwithstanding the malice and rage of Satan and other enemies, is a proof of its truth; for, since no other religion has been so fiercely and constantly assailed by tyrants and heretics as that of the church, which God has, notwithstanding, wonderfully protected against the rage of its enemies and the gates of hell, so that it alone remains to the present time, to the astonishment of the world, whilst other religions, in the meanwhile, have degenerated and disappeared from the earth, with little or no opposition; we may, therefore, safely conclude that the doctrine of the church is approved of and cared for on the part of God, or else he would never have extended to it the protection which he has.

10. The punishments and various judgments which God has, at different times, inflicted upon the enemies of the church, declare the divine character of her teachings; for that religion is doubtless from God, against which no one can array himself with impunity, which may be said to be true, as all history testifies, of that system of religion delivered in the writings of the prophets and apostles. And, although the wicked may often prosper in the world, and the church seem to be trodden under foot, yet, this does not come to pass, as the final issue of these events abundantly testifies, and as the Scriptures everywhere teach, by mere chance, or because God has greater pleasure in the wicked than in the church; for the church is always preserved, even amidst the greatest persecutions, and at length obtains deliverance from her most violent opposers, whilst, on the other hand, the short season of prosperity and triumph of cruel tyrants and wicked men is followed by a most awful destruction. Nor is the force of this argument weakened because all the persecutors of the church are not, in this life, punished in the same tragical manner, as Antiochus, Herod, and others; for whilst God, for the most part, avenges himself upon his enemies in this life, he declares plainly enough, by these judgments, what he will have us think of others of a similar character who are not thus severely punished, viz: that he regards them as his enemies, and will cast them into everlasting punishment unless they repent and seek his favor.

11. The testimony and constancy of martyrs who testified in the midst of the most excrutiating pains that they did truly believe as they taught, that they were most firmly persuaded in their hearts of the truth of the doctrine which they professed, and that they drew from it that comfort which they had preached unto others, that they were indeed the sons of God for the sake of Christ, and that God had a care for them, even in the midst of death, may be regarded as an evidence of the truth of the christian religion; because God, by sustaining and supporting them with the precious consolations of the gospel, declared that he approved of the doctrines on account of which they were thus called to suffer.

12. The piety and holiness of those who wrote the Holy Scriptures, and professed the doctrine contained therein, is a strong confirmation of its truth; for that religion which makes men holy and acceptable to God must itself necessarily be holy and divine. Now, as the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and others who have, as well as those who now sincerely embrace and believe this doctrine, greatly excel the adherents of other religions in virtue and practical piety, as every one may most clearly see who will but make a proper comparison, we may reasonably conclude that the teachings of the church have stronger and more satisfactory evidences of truth and certainty than those of any other system of religion that has ever been devised.

13. The candor and honesty which those whom the Holy Spirit employed in committing this doctrine to writing, in speaking of and condemning their own faults, as well as those of others, may be urged as an argument in favor of the truth of what they wrote.

Lastly, we may mention in confirmation of the truth of this doctrine, the testimony of the Holy Ghost, by whose inspiration the Scriptures were given. By this testimony we mean a strong and lively faith, and a firm persuasion, wrought in the hearts of the faithful by the Holy Spirit, that the Scriptures are the word of God, and that God will be gracious to us according to what is affirmed in the Scriptures, which faith is followed by love to God and a calling upon his name with an assured hope of obtaining every thing that is necessary for our comfort here and in the world to come, everlasting life. This assurance and abiding consolation of the godly does not rest upon the testimony of man, nor of any other creature, but upon that of God, and is the proper effect of the Holy Spirit. As such it is experienced by all those who truly believe, in whom it is also strengthened and confirmed by the same Spirit, through the reading, hearing, and study of the doctrine delivered by the prophets and apostles. Hence, it is chiefly by the testimony of the Holy Ghost that all those who are converted to Christ are confirmed in the truth of this heavenly doctrine, and have it sealed upon their hearts. This argument being also applicable to the unregenerate, does not only convince their consciences of the truth and authority of the holy Scriptures, but it also moves and inclines their hearts to assent to this doctrine and to receive it as the truth of God. This argument, therefore, is the most important of all those which we have advanced; for, unless those which precede this be accompanied with the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit, they only convince the conscience and stop the mouths of gainsayers, but do not move or incline the heart.

V. What are the various methods of teaching and learning the Doctrine of the Church?

The method of teaching and studying Theology is three-fold. The first is the system of catechetical instruction, or that method which comprises a brief summary and simple exposition of the principal doctrines of the christian religion, which is called catechising. This method is of the greatest importance to all, because it is equally necessary for all, the learned as well as the unlearned, to know what constitutes the foundation of true religion.

The second method is the consideration and discussion of subjects of a general and more difficult character, or the Common Places, as they are called, which contain a more lengthy explanation of every single point, and of difficult questions with their definitions, divisions, and arguments. This method belongs more appropriately to theological schools, and is necessary: First, that those who are educated in these schools, and who may afterwards be called to teach in the church, may more easily and fully understand the whole system of theology; for, as it is in other things, so it is also in the study of Divinity, our knowledge of it is obtained slowly and with great difficulty; yea, our knowledge of it must necessarily remain confused and imperfect unless every separate part of this doctrine be taught in some systematic form, so as to be perceived and understood by the mind. Secondly, that those who are students of theology may, when they are called to act as teachers in the church, be able to present clearly and systematically the substance of the entire doctrine of God’s word. To do this it is necessary that they themselves should first have a complete system, or frame-work, as it were, of this doctrine in their own mind. Thirdly, it is necessary, for the purpose of discovering and determining the true and natural interpretation of the Scriptures, which requires a clear and full knowledge of every part of the doctrine of the church, in order that this interpretation may be in accordance with the analogy of faith, so that the Scriptures may be made to harmonize throughout. Lastly, it is necessary for the purpose of enabling us to form a proper decision in regard to the controversies of the church, which are various, difficult, and dangerous, lest we be drawn from the truth into error and falsehood.

The third method of the study of theology is the careful and diligent reading of the Scriptures or sacred text. This is the highest method in the study of the doctrine of the church. To attain this, the two former methods are to be studied, that we may be well prepared for the reading, understanding, and exposition of the holy Scriptures. For as the doctrine of the catechism and Common Places are taken out of the Scriptures, and are directed by them as their rule, so they again lead us, as it were, by the hand to the Scriptures. The catechism of which we shall speak in these lectures, belongs to the first method of the study of theology.

Special Prolegomena

With reference to the Catechism.

The Special Prolegomena with reference to catechising, are five:

I. What is catechising, or the system of catechisation?

II. Has it always been practiced in the church, or what is its origin?

III. What are the principal parts thereof?

IV. Why is it necessary?

V. What is its design?

I. What is Catechisation?

The Greek word κατηχησις is derived from κατηχεω, as κατηχισμος is from κατηχιζω. Both words, according to their common signification, mean to sound, to resound, to instruct by word of mouth, and to repeat the sayings of another. Κατηχεω more properly, however, signifies to teach the first principles and rudiments of some particular doctrine. As applied to the doctrine of the church, and as understood when thus used, it means to teach the first principles of the christian religion, in which sense it occurs in Luke 1. 4. Acts 18. 25. Gal. 6. 6, &c. Hence, catechisation in its most general and comprehensive sense, means the first brief and elementary instruction which is given by word of mouth in relation to the rudiments of any particular doctrine; but, as used by the church, it signifies a system of instruction relating to the first principles of the christian religion, designed for the ignorant and unlearned.

The system of catechising, therefore, includes a short, simple, and plain exposition and rehearsal of the christian doctrine, deduced from the writings of the prophets and apostles, and arranged in the form of questions and answers, adapted to the capacity and comprehension of the ignorant and unlearned; or it is a brief summary of the doctrine of the prophets and apostles, communicated orally to such as are unlearned, which they again are required to repeat.

In the primitive church, those who learned the catechism were called Catechumens; by which it was meant that they were already in the church, and were instructed in the first principles of the christian religion. There were two classes of these Catechumens. The first were those of adult age, who were converts to christianity from the Jews and Gentiles, but were not as yet baptized. Persons of this description were first instructed in the catechism, after which they were baptized and admitted to the Lord’s Supper. Such a catechumen was Augustin after his conversion to Christianity from Manicheism, and wrote many books while he was a Catechumen, and before he was baptized by Ambrose. Ambrose was also a Catechumen of this sort when he was chosen Bishop, the urgent necessity of which arose from the peculiar state and condition of the church of Milan, upon which the Arians were making inroads. Under other and ordinary circumstances the apostle Paul forbids a novice or Catechumen to be chosen to the office of a Bishop. (1 Tim. 3. 6.) The νεοφυτοι, spoken of by Paul, were those Catechumens who were not yet, or very lately had been baptized; for the Greek word, which in our translation is rendered a novice, according to its literal signification means a new plant; that is, a new hearer and disciple of the church. The other class of Catechumens included the small children of the church, or the children of christian parents. These children, very soon after their birth, were baptized, being regarded as members of the church, and after they had grown a little older they were instructed in the catechism, which having learned, they were confirmed by the laying on of hands and were dismissed from the class of Catechumens, and were then permitted, with those of riper years, to celebrate the Lord’s Supper. Those who are desirous of seeing more in regard to these Catechumens, are referred to the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, the tenth book, and latter part of the fourth chapter. Those who taught the catechism, or instructed these Catechumens, were called Catechists.

II. What is the origin of Catechisation, and has it always been practiced in the Church?

The same thing may be said of the origin of catechisation which is said of the whole economy or service of the church, that it was instituted by God himself, and has always been practiced in the church. For, since from the very beginning of the world God has been the God, not only of those of adult age, but also of those of young and tender years, according to the covenant which he made with Abraham, saying, “I will be a God unto thee and thy seed after thee;” (Gen. 17. 7.) he has also ordained that both classes should be instructed in the doctrine of salvation according to their capacity; the adults by the public voice of the ministry, and the children by being catechised in the family and school. As it respects the institution designed for the instruction of adults, the case is clear and admits of no doubt.

Touching the catechisation of children in the Jewish church, the Old Testament abounds in many explicit commands. In the 12th and 13th chapters of Exodus, God commands the Jews to give particular instruction to their children and families in relation to the institution and benefits of the Passover. In the fourth chapter of the book of Deut., he enjoins it upon parents to repeat to their children the entire history of the law which he had given them. In the sixth chapter of the same book, he requires that the doctrine of the unity of God, and of perfect love to him should be inculcated and impressed upon the minds of their children; and in the eleventh he commands them to explain the Decalogue to their children. Hence, under the Old Testament dispensation, children were taught in the family by their parents, and in the schools by the teachers of religion, the principal things contained in the prophets, viz: such as respects God, the law, the promise of the gospel, the use of the sacraments, and sacrifices, which were types of the Messiah that was to come, and of the benefits which he was to purchase; for there can be no doubt but that the schools of the prophets Elijah, Elisha, &c., were established for this very purpose. It was also with this design that God delivered his law in the short and condensed form in which it is. “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,” &c., “and thy neighbor as thyself.” So also as it respects the gospel; it was briefly comprehended in the promises, “The seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent’s head;” “And in thy seed shall all the nations be blessed.” They had, likewise, sacrifices, prayers, and other things which God required Abraham and his posterity to teach their children and families. Hence it is that this doctrine is presented in such a plain and simple form as to meet the capacity of children and such as are unlearned.

In the New Testament we are told that Christ laid his hands upon little children and blessed them, and commanded that they should be brought unto him. Hence he says, in Mark 10. 14, “Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God.” That the catechisation of children was diligently attended to in the times of the apostles, is evident from the example of Timothy, of whom it is said that he knew the holy Scriptures from a little child; and from what is said in the epistle to the Hebrews, where mention is made of some of the principal heads included in the catechism of the apostles, such as repentance from dead works, and of faith towards God, of the doctrine of baptism, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection from the dead, and of eternal judgment, which the apostle terms milk for babes. These and similar points of doctrine were required from the Catechumens of adult age at the time of their baptism, and of children at the time of their confirmation by the laying on of hands. Hence, the apostle calls them the doctrine of baptism and laying on of hands. So likewise the Fathers wrote short summaries of doctrine, some fragments of which may still be seen in the Papal church. Eusebius writes of Origen, that he restored the custom of catechising in Alexandria, which had been suffered to grow out of use during the times of persecution. Socrates writes thus in relation to the system of catechising in the primitive church: “Our form of catechising,” says he, “is in accordance with the mode which we have received from the Bishops who have preceded us, and according as we were taught when we laid the foundation of faith and were baptized, and according as we have learned from the Scriptures,” &c. Pope Gregory caused images and idols to be placed in the churches, that they might serve as books for the laity and children. After this period the doctrine of the church, through the negligence of the bishops and the subtlety of the Romish priests, became gradually more and more corrupt, and the custom of catechising grew more and more into disuse, until at length it was changed into the ridiculous ceremony which to this day they call confirmation. So much concerning the origin and practice of catechisation in the church.

III. What are the parts or principal heads of the Doctrine of the catechism?

The chief and most important parts of the first principles of the doctrine of the church, as appears from the passage just quoted from the Epistle to the Hebrews, are repentance and faith in Christ, which we may regard as synonymous with the law and gospel. Hence, the catechism in its primary and most general sense, may be divided as the doctrine of the church, into the law and gospel. It does not differ from the doctrine of the church as it respects the subject and matter of which it treats, but only in the form and manner in which these things are presented, just as strong meat designed for adults, to which the doctrine of the church may be compared, does not differ in essence from the milk and meat prepared for children, to which the catechism is compared by Paul in the passage already referred to. These two parts are termed, by the great mass of men, the Decalogue and the Apostles’ creed; because the Decalogue comprehends the substance of the law, and the Apostles’ creed that of the gospel. Another distinction made by this same class of persons is that of the doctrine of faith and works, or the doctrine of those things which are to be believed and those which are to be done.

There are others who divide the catechism into these three parts; considering, in the first place, the doctrine respecting God, then the doctrine respecting his will, and lastly that respecting his works, which they distinguish as the works of creation, preservation, and redemption. But all these different parts are treated of either in the law or the gospel, or in both, so that this division may easily be reduced to the former.

There are others, again, who make the catechism consist of five different parts; the Decalogue, the Apostles’ Creed, Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and Prayer; of which, the Decalogue was delivered immediately by God himself, whilst the other parts were delivered mediately, either through the manifestation of the Son of God in the flesh, as is true of the Lord’s Prayer, Baptism, and the Eucharist, or through the ministry of the apostles, as is true of the Apostles’ Creed. But all these different parts may also be reduced to the two general heads noticed in the first division. The Decalogue contains the substance of the law, the Apostles’ Creed that of the gospel; the sacraments are parts of the gospel, and may, therefore, be embraced in it as far as they are seals of the grace which it promises, but as far as they are testimonies of our obedience to God, they have the nature of sacrifices and pertain to the law, whilst prayer, in like manner, may be referred to the law, being a part of the worship of God.

The catechism of which we shall speak in these lectures consists of three parts. The first treats of the misery of man, the second of his deliverance from this misery, and the third of gratitude, which division does not, in reality, differ from the above, because all the parts which are there specified are embraced in these three general heads. The Decalogue belongs to the first part, in as far as it is the mirror through which we are brought to see ourselves, and thus led to a knowledge of our sins and misery, and to the third part in as far as it is the rule of true thankfulness and of a christian life. The Apostles’ Creed is embraced in the second part inasmuch as it unfolds the way of deliverance from sins. The sacraments, belonging to the doctrine of faith and being the seals that are attached thereto, belong in like manner to this second part of the catechism, which treats of deliverance from the misery of man. And prayer, being the chief part of spiritual worship and of thankfulness, may, with great propriety, be referred to the third general part.

IV. Why is it necessary to introduce and teach the Catechism in the Church?

This necessity may be urged,

1. Because it is the command of God: “Ye shall teach them to your children,” &c. (Deut. 11. 19.)

2. Because of the divine glory which demands that God be not only rightly known and worshipped by those of adult age, but also by children, according as it is said, “Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength.” (Ps. 8. 2.)

3. On account of our comfort and salvation; for without a true knowledge of God and his Son Jesus Christ, no one that has attained to years of discretion and understanding can be saved, or have any sure comfort that he is accepted in the sight of God. Hence it is said, “This is life eternal that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” And again, “Without faith it is impossible to please God.” (John 17. 3. Heb. 11. 6.) And not only so, but no one believes on him of whom he knows nothing, or has not heard; for, “How shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?” “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” (Rom. 10. 14, 17.) It is necessary, therefore, for all those who will be saved, to lay hold of, and embrace the doctrine of Christ, which is the chief and fundamental doctrine of the gospel. But, in order that this may be done, there must be instructions imparted to this effect, and of necessity, some brief and simple form of doctrine, suited and adapted to the young, and such as are unlearned.

4. For the preservation of society and the church. All past history proves that religion and the worship of God, the exercise and practice of piety, honesty, justice, and truth, are of the greatest importance to the well-being and perpetuation of the church and of the commonwealth. But it is in vain that we look for these things among barbarous nations, since they have never been known to produce the fruits of piety and virtue. Hence, there is a necessity that we should be trained to the practice of these things from our earliest years; because the heart of man is depraved and evil from his youth; yea, such is the corruption of our nature, that unless we early commence the work of reformation and moral training, we too late apply a remedy when, through long delay, the evil principles and inclinations of the heart have become so strengthened and confirmed, as to bid defiance to the restraints we may then wish to impose upon them. If we are not correctly instructed in our childhood out of the sacred Scriptures concerning God and his will, and do not then commence the practice of piety, it is with great difficulty, if ever, we are drawn away from these errors which are, as it were, born in us, or which we have imbibed from our youth, and that we are led to abandon the vices in which we have been brought up, and to which we have been accustomed. If, therefore, the church and state are to be preserved from degeneracy and final destruction, it is of the utmost importance that this depravity of our nature should, in due time, be met with proper restraints, and be subdued.

5. There is a necessity that all persons should be made acquainted with the rule and standard according to which we are to judge and decide, in relation to the various opinions and dogmas of men, that we may not be led into error, and be seduced thereby, according to the commandment which is given in relation to this subject, “Beware of false prophets.” “Prove all things.” “Try the spirits whether they are of God.” (Matt. 7. 15. 1 Thess. 5. 21. 1 John 4. 1.) But the law and the Apostle’s creed, which are the chief parts of the catechism, constitute the rule and standard according to which we are to judge of the opinions of men, from which we may see the great importance of a familiar acquaintance with them.

6. Those who have properly studied and learned the Catechism, are generally better prepared to understand and appreciate the sermons which they hear from time to time, inasmuch as they can easily refer and reduce those things which they hear out of the word of God, to the different heads of the catechism to which they appropriately belong, whilst, on the other hand, those who have not enjoyed this preparatory training, hear sermons, for the most part, with but little profit to themselves.

7. The importance of catechisation may be urged in view of its peculiar adaptedness to those learners who are of weak and uncultivated minds, who require instruction in a short, plain, and perspicuous manner, as we have it in the catechism, and would not, on account of their youth and weakness of capacity, be able to understand it, if presented in a lengthy and more difficult form.

8. It is also necessary, for the purpose of distinguishing and separating the youths, and such as are unlearned, from schismatics and profane heathen, which can most effectually be done by a judicious course of catechetical instruction.

Lastly. A knowledge of the catechism is especially important for those who are to act as teachers, because they ought to have a more intimate acquaintance with the doctrine of the church than others, as well on account of their calling, that they may one day be able to instruct others, as on account of the many facilities which they have for obtaining a knowledge of this doctrine, which it becomes them diligently to improve, that they may, like Timothy, become well acquainted with the Holy Scriptures, and “be good ministers of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith, and of a good doctrine, whereunto they have attained.” (1. Tim. 4, 6.)

To these considerations, which clearly show the importance of catechisation, we may add many others of great weight, especially with the great mass of mankind, such as the arguments which may be drawn from the end of our creation, and from the prolongation and preservation of our lives from childhood to youth, and from youth to manhood, &c. We might also speak of the excellency of the object of the doctrine of the catechism, which is the highest good, even God himself, and might show the effect of such a course of instruction, which is a knowledge of this highest good, and a participation therein, which is something vastly more important and desirable than all the treasures of this world. This is that pearl of great price hidden in the field of the church, concerning which Christ speaks in Matt. 13, 44, and on account of which christians in former times suffered martyrdom, with their little children. We may here refer to the example of Origen, of which we have an account in the sixth book and third chapter of the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius. So the fourth book and sixteenth chapter of the history of Theodoret may be read to the same purpose. But if we are ignorant of the doctrine and glory of Christ, who from among us would be willing to suffer on their account? And how can it be otherwise but that we will be ignorant of these things, unless we are taught and instructed in them from our childhood? A neglect of the catechism is, therefore, one of the chief causes why there are so many at the present day tossed about by every wind of doctrine, and why so many fall from Christ to Anti-christ.

V. What is the Design of the Catechism, and of the Doctrine of the Church?

The design of the doctrine of the catechism is our comfort and salvation. Our salvation consists in the enjoyment of the highest good. Our comfort comprises the assurance and confident expectation of the full and perfect enjoyment of this highest good, in the life to come, with a beginning and foretaste of it already, in this life. This highest good is that which makes all those truly blessed who are in the enjoyment of it, whilst those who have it not are miserable and wretched. What this only comfort is, to which it is the design of the catechism to lead us, will be explained in the first question, to which we now proceed, without making any further introductory remarks.