Page images
PDF
EPUB

[Jan.

[ocr errors]

towards those who differ from us in those extra-essential, and not necessary points of doctrine, but treat them with the same friendship, kindness, and brotherly love, as if nothing had happened.' As observed by Dr. Parker," the collisions" between the "Scotch party" and the "Puritan party," in the Presbyterian Church, happily subsided by the force of this "Adopting Act;" to be renewed again, however, on the part of the former, leading to a "schism of the Presbyterian church in 1741, and to the formation of the Synod of New York in 1745." These two Synods were united in 1758, agreeing" to adopt the Confession of Faith, Catechisms, and Directory, as they had been adopted in 1729;" so that, as Mr. Barnes correctly observes, "the act of the Synod" (the " Adopting Act" of 1729) "was the basis of union in 1759; and this proviso has never been withdrawn or repealed; and is, in fact, an essential part of the standards of the Presbyterian Church."

We have indulged in this brief digression, not to concede or deny that Dr. Lord is nearer the true meaning of the Confession, "as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures," than are the "New School Presbyterians." He thinks he is much nearer, no doubt; he evinces a new theory on this whole subject, embracing the following assumptions: namely, that he has exactly the animus imponentis in subscribing to the standards, and that all who do not adopt them precisely after him as a model, are heretics and insincere, against whom it is lawful for him to launch accusations at his pleasure. Were he to apply his theory to his "Old School" brethren, it is quite likely that "the General Assembly" would need another "dismemberment ;" and were he to pursue the work, he might in the end constitute himself into "the Presbyterian church," solus in loco. It is the Dr.'s heresy in regard to the animus imponentis, coupled with a little item of selfassumption, that in these modern days has opened his battery." Cure this disease; and his diction will at once be more lovely, while the ideas will not be the less luminous. If we must be in exact conformity to him, though he gives no proof of his inspiration, no evidence of his infallibility, no acts of the General Assembly authenticating his interpretation of the standards; or bear the weight of his accusations; then between two evils, one of which we must suffer, it will be wise to choose the least. If logical gravity will turn the other way, to give the Dr. a full opportunity to have his say, then of course mundane particles must take care of themselves, and the "New School" among the rest. If "New School Presbyterians" refused to subscribe to the Confession, then, of course, the Dr. would cite the refusal as proof of heresy. If, on the other hand, they adopt it, then they do so only Taken from the "History of all the Religious Denominations in the United States."-p. 612.

Barnes' Defence.-p. 125.

in name, and that too on account of "the advantages gained by assaulting truth under the shelter of an orthodox creed." To say that we look with a profound abhorrence upon this part of the Dr.'s performance, is no greater sin than simply to speak the truth.

Here we should be glad to pause, and let the reader exert his fancy for the balance of the "Introductory Chapter," if we could, and do justice to the work we have undertaken. Duty, however, requires us to go on; and we proceed to subjoin to the revelations some specimens to which we will apply no severer epithet than that of mere mistakes. We design to look at three of these.

66

The first mistake we attribute to the Dr. is that the New School Presbyterians" are theologically the same sort of people as the Romanists of the sixteenth century. He informs us, "that the theological contest between the Reformers and the Romanists in the sixteenth century is the same now waged between Old and New School Presbyterians." "The doctrines maintained by all the reformed churches have been rejected by them (the "New School," for the theological tenets of the Papacy." This is the Dr.'s thesis; and upon his authority we proceed to infer, that "New School Presbyterians" hold to the supremacy of the Pope, the doctrine of apostolic succession, transubstantiation, canonization of the saints, penance, the seven sacraments, the use of images in Christian worship, &c., &c.! All "under various disguises!" A_curious secret to be kept secret so long! Let us see how the Dr. makes out this wonderful discovery.

Be not surprised, reader, (let nothing surprise you,) when you learn that "The ability for which Eck and the Romanists contended against the Reformers, is precisely, both in form and substance, the same as that insisted upon by the New School divines." -p. 8. To say nothing of the matter, observe the beauty of the formal logic! The "New School" agree with Eck and the Romanists of the sixteenth century in maintaining "the ability;" therefore, the "New School" hold "the theological tenets of the Papacy!" General principle :—whoever agrees with another in one particular, agrees in all particulars. Specific example :—Dr. Lord agrees with Leo X. in having eyes; therefore, Dr. Lord agrees with Leo X. in being the Pope of Rome, or exactly like him. Alas! for the Reformers, the Dr. himself not excepted, when such logic fulminates in their rear! The Dr. has not told what is the nature of this" the ability," whether natural or moral, whether "the ability" to be justified by works of self-merit, or to comply with the terms of the gospel, so as to be justified through Jesus Christ, that proves the theological identity of Romanists and "New School Presbyterians." It is "the ability!" The "New School" are Romanists; there you have it! Distinctions are very troublesome, where ambiguities will better serve a turn.

[blocks in formation]

To clinch this modern discovery, and make it sure, the author, in the manner of a rhetorical flourish, refers to one or two short passages in D'Aubigne's History of the Reformation. Had he consented to give us the volume and the page where said passages could be found, it would have saved us the trouble of looking for them in vain. We presume they are there; but we have not succeeded in finding where, after some time spent in the search. We ask, why did not the author tell us, in precise and accurate terms, what "the ability" was for which the Romanists contended? also, what "the inability of man" was which Luther and the Reformers asserted in opposition to the Romanists? This knowledge plainly is indispensable to the proof of the doctrinal identity of the "New School" and the Romanists, even on this single point. Was it a legal, meritorious ability? an ability to be justified by self-merit? The Romanists, we know, greatly mutilated the gospel on this point, and the Reformers shed the true light, in teaching the scriptural doctrine of justification by faith in Christ, without creature-merits of any kind or grade. Well, does the Dr. mean to imply, that on this point the "New School" are identified with the Romanists? We hope not, simply for his own credit. He has the most ample means of knowing that such an implication would be grossly false; and for such a blunder the most elastic partiality could hardly consent to hold him innocent. "The substitution of a scheme of merits in place of the grand truth of grace and amnesty" by Jesus Christ, the "New School" repudiate with as much earnestness and honesty as Dr. Lord himself, even in his most orthodox moments. They hold to the absolute "inability of man," touching this vital question, and we challenge him for the shadow of a proof to the contrary.'

Again, was "the ability" in question, the ability of free agency? We will not distress the reader's patience with an historical or metaphysical account of the doctrine of free-will, as developed in the contest between the Romanists and the Reformers. We have a more appropriate place for the discussion of this subject. Suffice it to say, that the "New School," with the orthodox divines of New England, and nearly all Presbyterians in all past time, hold to

1

The Dr. informs us that "New School" men "seem to think the whole gospel is in the dogma of human ability, as though the atonement was a free, full, and sufficient sacrifice, not in its own nature, but in the nature and ability of man himself."-p. 11. This fling (for it is nothing more,) depends upon the Dr.'s confusion of ideas. "New School" men do not hold, that "human ability." in the strict sense, is any part of the gospel. If it be a reality at all, it is a reality in the nature of man; and however perfect or imperfect it may be, it cannot avail for his salvation, for two reasons; first, the fact that he is a sinner; secondly, that no sinner, immaterial what are his powers as a moral agent, can be justified by the works of the law. However strongly "New School" men may hold to an ability, in opposition to Dr. Lord, they hold to no ability of self-justification, superseding the atonement; they teach no such doc

trine.

the reality of the distinction between natural and moral ability and inability.1 In respect to natural ability, they hold with the Confession of Faith, that "God hath endued the will of man with that natural ability, that it is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature, determined to good or evil." In respect to moral ability, they hold that "man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that which is good and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or prepare himself thereto." In behalf of "New School" men, we affirm these two points of faith; since this is their profession, and we have no disposition, without evidence, to impeach their sincerity in that profession. Has the Dr. any objection to this part of the "New School" creed about "the ability," in application to free-will? Will this convict them of holding the "theological tenets of the Papacy," in opposition to the Reformers? If so, then even the Dr. himself is a Romanist, or a "New School" man, or a heretic. It is quite immaterial to this issue what were the psychological conceptions of the Romanists and Reformers about "the ability," since "New School" men are satisfied with those of the Confession of Faith? Is the Dr. himself also satisfied? When he asks, with a triumphant air, “Who stands with Luther now?" we feel like asking, who stands with the Confession of Faith now? Does he mean to join Dr. Wilson,' and deny what the Confession plainly affirms--namely, the natural ability of man, for the sake of being with Luther, and not with the Romanists, as he seems to imagine might be doubtful, unless he took this course? This perhaps is, for the present, sufficient on the score of "New School" Romanism.

Before passing to other mistakes, we cannot forbear to allude to the peculiar grace with which some men, for certain purposes, are in the habit of referring to the Reformers. The Reformers said so and so! namely, all infallibility is in the past, and all fallibility in the present! We yield to no one in a reasonable respect for those noble and holy men; but we have no sympathy with stupid rhapsodies over any form of uninspired humanity. We remember that they were but men, just emerging from the darkness of Papacy, liable to err; and that in many things they did err. We suppose no one but an insane traditionalist is ready to shut his eyes and adopt all the opinions of the Reformers, without thought, investigation, selection, or discrimination. This cant about antiquity is neither scholar-like nor Christian-like; it is rather the small ammunition of small minds, or great minds doing small

1 We assume that the reader is familiar with the nature of this distinction; and will attend to the question of its truth hereafter.

'Chap. ix., sec. 1.

2

Beecher's Views in Theology.-p. 17.

things. For want of space to do more than simply allude to this subject, we commend to the reader some very valuable observations by the author of "The Triangle."-p. 56-79.

A second mistake, worthy of notice, relates to the act of excision in 1837, and the division in 1838. In a very dolorous strain, he informs us, "that the principles for which the General Assembly contend, and in the defence of which they intended to bear their testimony in the excision act of 1837, are the same maintained by Paul, the apostle, against the gainsayers of his day, the same afterward defended by Augustine against Pelagius, and the same which were revived by Luther, and with which, as with a battle-axe, he smote the gates of the great apostacy;" and farther, that could "that large and respectable body of members of the Presbyterian Church, who, though sound in the faith, yet remain in the New School connexion," be made to see this, "they would not, and could not give support and countenance, aid and comfort, to the enemies of the truth by remaining an hour within the ecclesiastical walls of the New School General Assembly."-p. 7, 8. Again: "Here was the cause of the division in the Presbyterian Church." "The act of the General Assembly" be necessary to a suitable defence of the faith once delivered to was believed to the saints." "It was upon doctrinal questions, deemed fundamental, that the Presbyterian church consented to the dismemberment of nearly one half her entire connexion."-p. 9. The accusatory strain of these observations, though justly obnoxious to the most scorching criticism, we shall pass without comment. The subject is confessedly a very large one, having many items; and, for the purpose of saving time, we propose to let the Rev. John C. Lord of 1837 manage the cause with Dr. Lord of 1848. Will the reader refresh his recollections in regard to that report, unanimously adopted January 31st, 1837, by the Presbytery of Buffalo, forgetting not that the Rev. John C. Lord was chairman of the committee making said report, and therefore, by a

66

'The last sentence is a rare instance of the Dr.'s accuracy in making statements. If by "the dismemberment," he means the excision, then it was nothing like "one-half her entire connexion;" it was only 4 Synods, about 500 ministers, 600 churches, and 60,000 communicants! If he mean the division in 1838, then whom does he mean by the Presbyterian Church. If the "Old School" party, when was it that "the Presbyterian church consented," &c.? The truth is, "the Presbyterian church" were satisfied with exscinding in 1837 four Synods, as this would ever afterwards secure a majority on one side; whereas, if all this was founded upon doctrinal questions deemed fundamental," a number of other Synods and Presbyteries ought to have fallen by the same blow, with the proviso that any orthodox members would be welcomed back again. How is this? Was the consent to "dismemberment" a plan first to secure a permanent majority in the General Assembly, and then afterwards to sift out "New School" men by the process of discipline? to settle "doctrinal questions." The sentence is justly liable to exceptions upon This is a strange way any construction of which it is susceptible.

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »