« PreviousContinue »
in America may not, as our author suggests, become corrupt. But we are not to be blinded by such general declamation, to the difference between the cases before us. Our author refers us to the case of the church of Scotland. are willing to take the reference. Such is its organization, that truth and piety have retained a firmer hold upon that church, than any other in Europe. When the general blight of infidelity and indifference past over the old world, it suffered less than any other. If its judicatories assumed, for a time, the lax character of the age; the revival of truth and piety was felt in them, as soon as it was in the churches themselves. And this is the great advantage of having societies and institutions so organized, that they are open to the influence of the churches generally. When this is the case, they are latest in feeling the influence of spreading corruption, and derive the benefit of any change for the better. But in the case of the A. E. Society, which the Author obscures by general remarks on the insecurity of worldly affairs, there is no necessity of the prevalence of any general corruption, for its becoming a party engine. We humbly conceive that there is some difference between eleven, (which may be a commanding majority in the A. E. Society,) and the great body of the churches. Besides, let it be considered, that it is not down right heresy alone, which would produce the evil. This we have before remarked. Our author, therefore, is greatly mistaken in supposing, that we knew not what we were about; that we unconsciously proceeded upon the assumption, that Congregationalists were heretics, and had the design of breaking down the Presbyterian church. This is no controversy between Congregationalists and Presbyterians. It is a question, whether the A. E. Society shall have the power to govern the church? Whether we are willing to submit, without a murmur, to their direction; and resign ourselves with passive confidence into their hands, on their simple assurance that they never have, and never will abuse their power? We do really hope and believe, that when our author comes to review his answer on this subject, he will feel it has not touched the point. And we believe also, that the churches are not to be blinded by any such general appeal, as that in which our author has here indulged. We as Presbyterians have no jealousies about the Congregationalists as such. We are willing and desirous of living and acting with them, in
peace and brotherhood. But we are not to be governed by them: nor by the A. E. Society, even should it, as the author predicts, becomes a Presbyterian institution. We should be as little willing to submit to it then, as now.
We are sincerely sorry, that we feel constrained to assume the character of opposers of any benevolent association. Nothing but a deep and pressing sense of duty, could constrain us to take such a step. But we feel convinced, more now than ever, that the organization and principles of this Society threaten the church with a vassalage, which we are bound to resist. Were it confined to New England, we should have remained silent. But when we see, within our own borders, a Society, acting upon principles, which we deem of serious and lasting evil tendency, and attaining a power over our ministers and churches, which no set of men on earth ought to possess, it would be treason to ourselves and to the cause of our Master, not to speak. Our author has answered no one of our objections; he has not even weakened their force. He will, therefore, be sadly disappointed in his expectation, that we would entirely withdraw them. We have no disposition to dictate to others. Let the Christian public read, and act for themselves. If they view this whole subject in a different light from that in which it strikes our minds; then let them patronize the A. E. Society, but if they think with us, let them secure themselves against the evils to which we have referred, or withdraw from it their confidence. We rejoice in the assurance, that the Lord reigneth. He will overrule all things to the good of his cause. Fully conscious of the purity of our motives, and convinced of the justness and weight of our objections, we cannot regret the course which we have taken.
If there is any thing in our remarks, which "bears hardly" on our author; we hope he will consider that "it results from necessity, not from choice." We were obliged to show how far his arguments were from reaching the point, and how little we were disposed to take dicta for proof.
As to the mere mode of reference to the distinguished gentleman, who wrote the article on which we have remarked, we would state, that the request to have his name attached to it, was received after two thirds of our reply was written, and part of it in the printer's hands.
FLATT'S DISSERTATION ON THE DEITY OF CHRIST,
THE BIBLE A KEY TO THE PHENOMENA OF THE NATU-
CHURCH GOVERNMENT IN PRUSSIA
BRIEF NOTICES OF NEW PUBLICATIONS
FLATT'S DISSERTATION ON THE DEITY OF CHRIST,
WITSIUS ON THE COUNCILS OF THE HEBREWS, TRANS-
REVIEW OF THE LIFE OF ERASMUS, by Adolph Müller
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY'S BOARD OF EDUCATION,