Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

So

ing some such errors and prejudices; some misapprehensions of christian doctrine, which have come down to him from the elders; some prejudices, resulting from his education and his ecclesiastical connections, which hinder him from seeing the truth when it is with men of another name? Who is infallibly sure that all the truth is with him and his people, and that no fragment of it is in the keeping of some other sect? Who is certified beyond the possibility of mistake, that the creed of his sect is that to which every other sect will come, and every jot and tittle of which, the whole world will embrace without addition, explanation, or improvement, in the coming age of universal light Is there a man who never admits a doubt, whether all that ever will be known of theology is known already by the doctors of his sect, and is set down exactly, with its true relations and proportions, "in their syntagma?" In a word then, we may take it for a universal concession, that the most learned divines in every ecclesiastical connection have much to learn, which the humble application of common sense to the interpretation of the scriptures, will by and by reveal to their successors, if not to them; and that all have errors to be eradicated, ere the church of God will rise and shine in all its promised splendor. If this is so, what estimate shall we put upon sectarianism? far as it extends, it hinders the consummation which all hope for. It operates to fasten down every thing just where the elders left it, and to let no man move one pin, or examine the texture of one curtain, in their tabernacle. Its maxim is, that even error, if it is but peaceably established, and sacred with some fifty years' antiquity, may be better than truth at the expense of innovation.* Its influence is to produce a stagnancy of intellectual action on the subject of religious truth; while it cares only to keep all things snugly moored just where the storms of ancient controversy threw them. What is wanting now to hasten the consummation referred to, is, the more abundant outpouring of the spirit of benevolence on all; the more hearty and engrossing engagement of all in enterprises that appeal to the most generous and expanded christian feelings; a deeper and more pervading consciousness that all are at work in a common cause, and serving a common master; a stronger sympathy in each other's successes; and a greater readiness to co-operate in every trying emergency. Something of this kind is already developing itself, and is evidently increasing, under the present system of voluntary association for the conversion of the world to God. Under these influences, we may hope ere long to see a more liberal and happy intercourse among christians of different titles. We may hope that the time is not far distant, when the theological

* See the Christian Advocate for 1830, p. 632.

literature of each denomination shall be the common stock of all; when no episcopalian shall be so high a churchman as not to be ashamed to boast that he "never reads dissenting divinity;" when no methodist shall be found, who reads nothing but what bears the imprint of the Book-Room; and when no reader of the Christian Advocate shall be unwilling to see with his own eyes, and to perceive with his own understanding, what Taylor, Fitch, and other reputed innovators have published, and what is said in the Christian Spectator. We may hope that the time is not remote, when ministers of different connections shall every where learn both from each other's preaching, and by the interchange of thought in fraternal conference, how to exhibit the truth most impressively, how to meet the objections of the caviler and the excuses of the impenitent, and how to enforce on every conscience, the great claims and duties of the gospel. Let that time arrive, let theological discussion in any one denomination be a thing in which all shall feel that they have equal rights and an equal interest; let every new illustration of religious truth, and every new argument in defense of it be felt to be the common property of all; let discussion, thought, and feeling circulate without hindrance through the entire christian community; and the lines of denominational demarcation will speedily grow indistinct, among such as agree in referring all things to the decision of that great standard, the word of God interpreted by common sense. Then the armies of Immanuel, instead of absurdly and traitorously keeping guard against each other, will present an unbroken array, terrible to the armies of the aliens, and will make rapid and resistless inroads on the old domains of darkness. But the topic enlarges as we dwell upon it; and might easily lead us away from our immediate purpose. We have said that the doctrine of ecclesiastical missionary organization, tends to promote the spirit of sectarianism. And can that proposition need any extended illustration, after the remarks which we have thrown out respecting the happy tendencies of the existing system? The new doctrine proposes that henceforth the missionary enterprise shall be conducted by each sect exclusively, as a sect. Wherever the system goes into operation, it brings a strong appeal to sectarian ambition, and sectarian jealousy. What can be plainer than that the more such phrases as our church"- our Zion"-" our venerable liturgy"- our excellent standards"-" our distinctive principles"66 our admirable ecclesiastical order," etc. come into use in any community, the more frequently they enter into every appeal, every argument, every statement; the more intense and incurable will be the sectarian spirit which gives them their significancy.

3. We object to the new doctrine, because it affords inferior se

curities that the conduct of benevolent enterprises will be committed to the fittest agents. The method of voluntary association leaves the management of every particular department of benevolent effort to such as are particularly interested in its progress. If any are disposed to associate themselves in efforts for an object which seems to them important, they may do it: they may plead for that object with their friends, and the public, and enlist as many helpers as they can find; and they may call whom they please to the management of their affairs. Ordinarily, the persons thus interested will know who are the true friends of their cause, and who have the skill to conduct it; and they will make their appointments accordingly. If by any mismanagement, the direction of an important enterprise happens to devolve on men in whom the christian public have not the necessary confidence, there is an instant remedy; the contributions of the public will be withheld in just that extent in which confidence is withheld; and if the particular friends of that enterprise are unwilling to see it fail, they will call on other men to do the business; and thus, either the institution will be straightway reformed, or a new one will rise up to displace it. But let an ecclesiastical body like the General Assembly have the conduct of that same enterprise, claiming for it as managed by them, an exclusive patronage; and the business is put into the hands of a body of men who may be its most active friends, and who may be comparatively indifferent to its success. The members of the Assembly are not chosen with a leading reference to their activity and spirit as missionary men ; nor ought they to be; and when they come to elect a missionary board, what security is there that their choice will be directed by an intelligent and earnest regard to the fitness of the men for that specific business? One man may be a Hebrician equal to Dr. Stiles, another may be profound in ecclesiastical history, a third may be an eloquent popular preacher, and a fourth may be a most successful pastor, and a fifth may be an adroit church politician; and these men, on account of their several qualifications, may receive the votes of the Assembly, while yet perhaps not one of them has ever made the missionary enterprise the subject of any special attention, or has that enthusiastic love for it, or that practical wisdom, which alone can qualify for such a work. And if by any mischance an unsatisfactory board shall be elected, where is the remedy? The dissatisfied are forbidden to unite in a voluntary association; and perhaps to propose the removal of the unsatisfactory incumbents, would endanger the very existence of the

church.

Why is it that in every part of the union, a college or university undertaken by the state as such, and controlled by the legislature,

though richly endowed, is sure to be a failure; while a college got up by the voluntary enterprise and association of individuals, is almost as sure to be successful? It is simply because, in the former case, the control of the institution is not, of course, in the hands of the men who take the deepest interest in its welfare; and in the latter case, those who are well acquainted with the college, and who love it, and are willing to labor for it, manage it according to their own discretion. In the former case, the responsibility under which the managers act, is a responsibility to a body of men, who, however competent and faithful in respect to their political duties, know and care comparatively little about such things as these. the latter case the managers are responsible directly to public opinion, and that not the public opinion which is formed by political men, and driven about by every wind of faction, but that sober public opinion which is formed and controlled by literary men and the friends of literary institutions. We have no time to apply this illustration minutely to the subject before us; nor will we by any means affirm that the analogy extends to every particular. The application is not difficult; we only say, let him that readeth understand.

[ocr errors]

4. Our most comprehensive and serious objection remains to be exhibited. The doctrine in question is adapted to be eminently effective in building up a strong system of ecclesiastical govern

ment.

If any reader will notice in the documents of our high church brethren, how often they have occasion to use such words as power, government, control, and in what connections, he will easily discover what ideas are uppermost in their minds.* We charge them

*See particularly an argumentative document, inserted in the minutes of the Cincinnati Convention, pp. 11-13. Notice also Dr. Green's reasoning in the Advocate for 1829, pp. 64, 65. He thinks "that a civil community is always best organized, when it least needs the aid of voluntary associations to supply its defects, or to promote the welfare of its members." We think that the most admirable peculiarity of our government is, that its objects are as few and definite as possible; and that every thing else is left to the spontaneous action of the people; so that any individuals, few or many, are at liberty to form any association, good or bad, provided they do not resist the laws. If our government should be so constituted as to supersede all these voluntary associations, there would be nothing to distinguish it from the worst despotism in the world.-Speaking of voluntary associations for missionary purposes, Dr. G. says, "Their influence may gradually become such, before any apprehension of inconvenience is indulged, that they may be able to control the church, instead of the church controlling them." "It may be recollected that voluntary political associations in France, absolutely prostrated all regular government in that country for a number of years in succession, and produced all the most shocking effects of anarchy and misrule. We trust that no similar effects will ever result to our church from voluntary religious associations, now existing, or likely to exist, but," etc. The associations in France to which the Dr. refers, were more like central and corresponding committees, than like missionary societies

with no sinister motives; but we do charge them with mistaken views. They are men who attach great importance to the govcrnment of the church. They are afraid that if the church is left Wabout some strong power in her judicatories, to constrain her to be orthodox-they are afraid that if the truth is left without the protection of ecclesiastical courts, whose decrees shall be decisive, every thing will ultimately, if not speedily, go to ruin. At the same time, they see that the power of ecclesiastical bodies is by no means what it was once thought to be, and that it is in danger of becoming less. With them therefore, the resistance of existing tendencies, and the erection, if possible, of great and impregnable bulwarks around the sacred citadel of church power, is a matter of imperious duty.

We are of a different way of thinking. We hold that not the consolidation of power, but the natural division and distribution of power, not the concentration of influence in a single point, but the free radiation of influence from many points,-is the best safeguard for the purity, energy, and liberty of the church of God. We believe that a strong government over a church or body of churches, is, in the nature of things, a calamity rather than a blessing; and that its establishment and growth are inconsistent with the prevalence and increase of sound piety, for where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. As surely as where the carcass is, there the vultures will be gathered together; so surely, where power is, and where money is, there men of worldly ambition and worldly principles, will be found ready to take possession. With us, the idea of any power over the churches other than the power of truth and love, the power of instruction, advice and persuasion,--the idea of any power for the protection of orthodoxy and piety, other than power of argument and of God's word and Spirit-is the very germ of antichrist.

the

The matter, then, of our great objection against the new doctrine, is that which constitutes its highest recommendation in the judgment of its friends. That it goes to establish a stable and energetic government of the church, is at once their testimony in its favor, and our indictment against it at the bar of the christian public. The controversy now pending relates, most ostensibly and directly, to the conduct of missions. But it is well known, that the principles involved admit of a wider application; and it is this which makes those principles so valuable in the view of one party, and so perilous in the estimation of the other. In the view of our high-church brethren, if we mistake not, as well as in our own, the General Assembly's direct control of missionary operations, is only

one

specification of that direct control which it is intended the General Assembly shall have over whatever affects the character and

« EdellinenJatka »