237 CHAPTER XI. CHRONOLOGICAL SKETCH OF THE PROGRESS OF THE REFORM MOVEMENT, FROM THE COMMENCEMENT OF 1845 To (CONTINUED). Doctrines of the Leipsic Council-Protest against them-Progress of the new Movement in Posen-Declaration of the King of Hanover -Kerbler-Open-air Meetings for Worship-Violence of the Romanists at Halberstadt. JUNE 16. The opinion I have more than once expressed, that two distinct, and, in a religious point of view, heterogeneous elements, were combined in the present German opposition to the hierarchal despotism of Rome; as well as my fear that, as is, alas, usually the case, the worldly might be found to out-number the devout combatants for spiritual freedom, have both received confirmation from recent events. The very meagre statement of gospel doctrine promulgated by the Leipsic council, and the failure of Czerski, and others likeminded with him, to procure the adoption of more positively Christian dogmas, gave new ground for apprehension as to the soundness of the religious principles of some influential men among the reformers. Yet, as the confession of faith was at length acquiesced in by all, on the avowed ground that it should be regarded as merely preliminary to a more enlarged and explicit symbol, to be discussed in a future Christian council, those observers of the reform movement who felt interested in its true progress, were led to cherish the hope that the leaven of Christian principle might, by God's blessing, gradually "leaven the whole lump." Doubtless, such a hope, in conjunction with the very natural desire to maintain, as long as possible," the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace,' with brethren who, in many essential points, were one heart and one soul with them, induced the "Apostolic Catholics" (after vainly contending for a more explicit avowal of the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, the doctrines of the atonement, salvation by faith alone, regeneration, and the resurrection of the body, than appeared to them to be conveyed in the confession of faith approved of by the majority), to subscribe to those generalities in which they could assuredly safely concur with their brethren; retaining, however, their own view of gospel truth, and the right (in accordance with the fundamental principle of the Scriptures, being the only infallible authority and guide) both to profess and to promulgate whatever they find therein, without fear of giving umbrage to any one. When this posture of affairs is considered, it may not, perhaps, seem unfair to regard the appellations assumed by the several churches, as indicative in most, though not in all cases, of the tone, whether patriotic or Christian, prevalent in the respective separatist congregations; Schneidemühl and its congeners adopting the name Apostolic, Breslaw, Brunswick, Berlin; and many others, that of German Catholics. That this distinction is not wholly either imaginary or accidental, is proved by the circumstance, that the question of what name should be assumed, was discussed at the Leipsic conference, and the Apostolics were out-voted by the Germans. Yet it would, probably, be unjust to make this the test of the comparative strength of the parties, since it must be supposed that to many, the chosen appellation may have appeared an immaterial, to others, perhaps, a politic measure; while to none, surely, could it seem of sufficient importance to justify disunion. Accordingly, though "German Catholic" was resolved on as the general appellation, and adopted (probably for that reason) by the more recently formed churches, "Apostolic" is retained by such as had before so denominated themselves. But if the likelihood of disunion, as consequent upon difference of sentiment, might safely have been argued, à priori, from the natural tendencies of human nature, and the impossibility for even the most sanguine to assume that so large a body (numbering already a hundred and ten congregations, and above ten thousand members) should not contain a large proportion actuated by other than purely religious motives, surmise and apprehension on the subject have been alike put an end to, by an occurrence which, though in itself distressing, yet, in the principles which produced, and the results which will probably flow from it, furnishes ground for rejoicing, both to the Christian and the merely philanthropic observer. I allude to a protest published in Whitsun-week, by seven members of the German Catholic congregation in Berlin, against the Leipsic confession of faith. That the popish party draw fair auguries of their own triumph from this early threatening of dissension in the enemy's camp, is natural, but assuredly premature; for, though the host of the reformers may divide, it will neither be lessened, nor induced to return to Rome. The patriotic party will retain its own, at least; and the infidelity which has long lurked beneath the observance of external forms, and at which the popish clergy winked so long, as neither their power nor their emoluments were affected by it, will probably show itself wholly undisguised, since the shackles of superstition and the restraint of custom have been thrown off. But, though we may have cause to mourn the absence of Christian motives, even for right actions, should we not also rejoice when men no longer profess what they do not believe; and have, without being worse Christians than they were before, become better citizens? While, on the other hand, may we not indulge the hope, that the avowal of a higher and holier creed by some engaged in the same sacred cause with themselves, may lead many to examine the foundations on which their own faith is built? And, as they have now access to the standard and test of truth, the Bible, it were sinful to doubt that the effect will be, in regard to numbers, the exchange of an hereditary profession for a true and living faith. The protest above alluded to, and which was signed by A. Banlig, P. Paulus Zerneitzik, and Dietrich, runs as follows: -“One portion of the German Catholic church in this city, having declared its adherence to the principles and views of the Leipsic council, and being now in daily expectation of the arrival of a clergyman who is announced to be of entirely corresponding sentiments, it appears to us that the reform' has now attained to that degree of maturity which warrants us in regarding and judging it as a whole. "We have hitherto followed all its movements in the spirit of that love which beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things.' Our last hope (the source at once of our courage and of our delay) was based on the call given to a priest from whom we could confidently expect a truly Christian re-organization of the Berlin German Catholic church. But the priest for whom we hoped, comes not; and as reorganization, in accordance with our views of what a German Catholic church ought to be, is no longer to be looked for, we feel ourselves called upon, by the voice of conscience, to enter our solemn protest, before God and the world, against a reform, which we believe in our hearts will conduct all who entrust themselves to it, to the brink of destruction. "We protest against the symbol adopted by the Leipsic council, and acceded to by the German Catholics in this city. We could be satisfied to concur in the first article of their confession of faith (the belief in one God), had we found it followed by a second, acknowledging the Son, without whom no one can either truly know or come to the Father (John v. 23, xiv. 6 ; 1 John ii. 23). But the second article of the Leipsic creed bears no higher testimony to Jesus than the poor empty assertion that, he is our Saviour,' thus elevating a large and 96 6 accommodating cap of liberty, which heads the most various, and even heterogeneous, may contrive to put on. But what avails an outward assemblage of numerous concurring heads, if the unity of heart produced by possessing 'one faith,' 'one hope,' one love,' be wanting? If, then, in the article referring to God the Father, more definite expressions might have been selected, in that referring to Jesus Christ, they ought to have been so; and that precisely, because our estimate of Christ forms the line of decided and indisputable demarcation between Christianity, Judaism, and heathenism; between, in short, the true believer and the infidel. A silent passing over of such a turning-point in a Christian confession of faith argues, to say the least of it, a weakness, which must be an eternal reproach to any Christian community; and we feel imperatively called upon to throw this disgrace from us. What must the rest of Christendom think of us, if our confession of Him, whose name we bear, be so tamely, so coldly, so ambiguously expressed? That which fills the heart, must overflow at the mouth' (Luke vi. 45, Luther's translation). As fathers of families, we are bound to consider the future instruction of our children; and as what does not appear in a church's confession of faith, cannot be demanded either from its ministers or members, what security have we that the sacred truths, in defence of which has flowed the precious blood of countless martyrs, will ever be made the ground of instruction to our posterity? Wherein, we ask (and let every man put the question to himself), wherein do we acknowledge the divinity of Jesus Christ, if we are silent upon that which every Christian tongue has confessed, and will confess to the end of time, that 'Jesus Christ our Lord is the only-begotten Son of God, who was conceived of the Holy Ghost, and born of the Virgin Mary?' What becomes of the historical facts connected with our redemption by Christ, that eternal foundation of our Christian belief in reconciliation with God, our peace of conscience, and our strength, courage, and joy, whether living, suffering, or dying, if our confession suppress the great truths, that Jesus M |