ing into the hands of the firm." The committee brought in two reports, which took opposite views on this subject. Leaving out subordinate issues, such as the difference between present and prospective, and between authoritative and provisional publications of Synod, the controversy turned mainly on the following questions: first, whether the article in dispute is to be understood absolutely and unconditionally, or as subject to those general laws and principles which regulate the book trade; secondly, whether the article supersedes the necessity of separate contracts and excludes Synod from making or asking any terms, or whether each book makes its own contract according to its inner merits and commercial prospects, since books evidently dif fer in both respects, and since Messrs. M. Kieffer & Co. themselves publish the different Synodical books on different terms, assuming all the risk in the case of the hymn books and catechisms, half the risk and half the profit in the case of the "Lord's Portion," and no risk at all in the case of the Minutes of Synod; thirdly, whether it is unreasonable for Synod to ask any bonus for an old or new book, in view of the fact of her being half owner, in prospect, of the entire property and profits of the establishment, and in view of the past financial embarrassments under which the present firm originally assumed its management, or whether Synod, in furnishing a new and profitable book, and thus increasing the productive capital of the firm, is not entitled to a legal percentage, as much so as any other author for his own work, or as the members of the firm themselves are justly entitled to the annual interest accruing from their pecuniary investment in the establishment; and finally, whether it is a wise policy for Synod to permit all its share of the profits to be invested in the real property and working capital of the establishment, since it is in a solvent and flourishing condition, or to insist now on that other article of the contract, which provides for the annual distribution of the net proceeds between the two partners. Synod saw fit to postpone action. on this controversy, and to refer it to a new committee,

with instructions to report at the next annual meeting. It is to be hoped that this committee may agree upon a plan which will maintain the rights of Synod, and the independence and dignity of literary labor, without injuring the Printing Establishment, or discouraging its present faithful and efficient managers, and which will thus prevent any future collision in the publication of the German Liturgy, the Child's Catechism, and other prospective, provisional or authoritative works of Synod.

3. The old question of the VALIDITY OF HERETICAL BAPTISM, and the reception of schismatic congregations into regular communion with the Church. This was satisfactorily disposed of to meet a certain case within the limits. of the Goshenhoppen Classis.

4. The HOME MISSIONARY OPERATIONS, in spite of many discouragements, are enlarging every year, especially in the far West, and call upon the increased activity of the Church in providing not only the necessary funds, but also the necessary men to take charge of the destitute fields of labor.

5. The question of providing for a SHORTER COURSE of STUDY, in or out of the Seminary, for persons of limited means or advanced age, and with the view to increase the number of laborers for the home missionary field. This important item was likewise referred to the next Synod for action.

6. The appointment of a committee to prepare a plan for a regular series of DENOMINATIONAL PUBLICATIONS, translated and original, for general circulation among our people, which, it must be confessed, are not yet a reading people to the same extent as could be desired. It is to be hoped that a Church Literature, which speaks to their mind and heart in their own familiar sounds, will tend greatly to stir them up, and to make them more intelligent, zealous and efficient in every good cause. The Western enterprise, of establishing a denominational Sunday School paper, was likewise encouraged for the same reason.

6. The APPOINTMENT OF EDITORS of our Church papers,

an associate editor of the "Messenger," and an editor of of the "Kirchen Zeitung." In both cases the election fell upon the right men, and was made unanimous.

From the variety and importance of these various topics, which were brought to the notice of the Synod at Frederick city, it is evident that the German Reformed Church is still proceeding on the theory of historical development, and has a great amount of work before it. In view of this fact, we ought to rejoice and to go torward with new courage and devotion in the name of the Lord, doing His will, and laboring in His holy service, until He calls us from the Church militant on earth to the Church triumphant in heaven.

Mercersburg, Nov. 20, 1858.

P. S.

ART. II. THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM-ITS FORMATION AND FIRST INTRODUCTION IN THE PALATINATE.

Two names have been applied to the catechism before us; and under both these names it is frequently referred to in history. It is often called the Palatinate Catechism, because it was prepared in the Palatinate for its churches and schools, and was in that country first introduced and used. It is called more generally the Heidelberg Catechism, from the celebrated city of Heidelberg, on the Neckar, where it was composed by its learned and pious authors, where it was first laid before a national Synod and by it examined and approved, and where also it was first printed and published.

The Heidelberg Catechism owes its existence to the zeal and piety of Frederick III., Elector of the Palatinate, with great propriety surnamed "The Pious." He succeeded the Lutheran, Otto Henry, who died in 1559, and in 1560 espoused the Reformed faith. The Prince, as well as his subjects in the Palatinate, had been Lutheran, but at the

same time under the influence of a strong and pretty exten sive leaning toward the Reformed views, under the Melanchthonian type, on the subject of the Lord's Supper. This tendency had been greatly increased by the ill-tempered and fanatical zeal which Hesshuss and others manifested in favor of the Lutheran view. Their intolerance toward the Reformed element increased the sympathy of the Prince and many of his subjects for the irenical and conciliatory tenets of the Reformed; and it was deeply felt that both their convictions and their desire for permanent peace required the establishment of the Reformed faith in the Palatinate.

This movement needed a new catechism to give it unity and permanency. Two causes, according to Alting, made a new symbol of faith necessary. First, besides the catechism of John Brentz, strongly Lutheran, which Otto Henry had directed to be used, Hesshuss had also, ou his ewn authority, introduced Luther's Catechism, to which others, according to their own caprice, had added still other catechisms, which gave occasion for much contention. Secondly, it was necessary, still more particularly, that one harmonious form of doctrine and mode of teaching might be enjoyed throughout the Palatinate, in which, besides other points of faith, especially those relating to the person of Jesus Christ, and to the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, might be explained clearly and in their true sense.* Moreover, the Augsburg Confession would not answer the purpose; for, although the Prince had himself subscribed it in true faith, yet he felt that if it was to be ta ken in the sense in which it was explained by the rigid Lu theran party, both he and the Palatinate generally belonged to a different faith.

A certain anonymous writer expresses the opinion, that in the formation of the Heidelberg Catechism, Frederick had in view the design of uniting the Reformed and Luther

* Catechetische Historie der Gereformeerde Kerke, Door Joh. Christopherus Koecher. Te Amsterdam, 1763, pp. 270–271.

ans, and of preventing further growth of the rupture.* Samuel Diestius, in like manner, supposes that the object of the Prince was by it to harmonize his own theologians with those of the Lutheran Church. Such a purpose would agree with the amiable spirit of the noble Prince, as also with the animus of the catechism itself.

A catechism or symbol of faith was in any case needed. By a wonderful working of the Divine Spirit, always the formative power in history, the peculiar Christian life of the Palatinate had clearly reached a stage of development alike above Lutheranism and Zwinglianism; and it was necessary for the catechism to be of a type, not to unite these, but to embody and express the deepest and best elements of both, which history had already made one in a ground deeper than that upon which their separation rested. Upon the production of such a catechism, the pious Prince had set his heart. For such a work, God had already provided him the right men, Ursinus and Olevianus, his theological professor and his court-preacher. Both of these eminent men were yet comparatively young, having scarcely reached the twenty-sixth year of their age, and had but a short time previous been called by the Prince to Heidelberg..

In order to accomplish the work laid upon them by the Prince, Olevianus, as well as Ursinus, composed a special treatise-Olevianus his Divine Covenant of Grace, and Ursinus, after Luther's example, a smaller and larger catechism, in which he made essential use of the Emden catechism of De Lasky, and the Genevian catechism of Calvin, which last one was afterwards translated into German, at the same time with the Heidelberg Catechism, in order thus to prove the agreement between the Palatinate and Genevian doctrine. Thus, in the preliminary work and in the substance of the catechism, the spirit and labors of both these divines are to be recognized. Ursinus, however, whose

*Zie Joh. Petri Niceron, Memoires pour servir a l'Histoire des hommes illustres, Tom. XLI, p. 397. Quoted by Koecher.

De lite et pace Religiosa Evangelicorum-Disput. I., p. 182, Disput. IL, P, 160. Quoted by Koecher.