Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

But does

form themselves into some other denomination." it follow from this, that the independent churches must necessarily be inefficient in their benevolent operations? Those who ask, go to the Christian churches of the first century for an answer. Those were all independent churches. Waddington, an Episcopalian of the Church of England, speaking of the Church of the first century, says, "every church was essentially independent of every other. The churches thus constituted and regulated, formed a sort of federative body of independent religious communities, dispersed through the greater part of the Roman Empire, in continual communication and in constant harmony with each other." Ecc. Hist. p. 43. According to the above passages, it seems that it is Dr. Pond's conception of the Congregational church that it is impossible for its single and separate organized communities-its particular churches to have any fellowship one with another, or to maintain a stated and common intercourse, or to pursue jointly a common and general end, except through the medium of voluntary societies, and yet, according to Waddington, the "independent religious communities, dispersed throughout the greater part of the Roman Empire, formed a sort of federative body, in continual communication and in constant harmony with each other. Was this confederation in the forms and through the medium of voluntary societies? Was it not by that "charity which is the bond of perfectness," and that "one faith-one Lord-one baptism," by which they " entered into the unity of the Spirit," and into "holy fellowship one with another?" Again, as to the efficiency of independent churches in benevolent operations, Dr. Pond refers to the churches of the first century, as furnishing ample proof to any one who doubts or denies it; and we are willing to leave for the present the point just where he has put it. But how he can reconcile all this with his implied assertion, that the Congregational church without "the great and excellent societies, in which Christians of different denominations are now harmoniously and extensively labouring together, must be, feeble, little, sectarian," remains for him to show.

On p. 415, Dr. Pond says, "If, without impairing the efficacy and usefulness of these societies, they can be brought into a nearer connexion with the churches, and more directly under their control, I have no objection; though I see not, at present, how this is to be done. Any plan to this effect,

however, which shall be candidly proposed, will be entitled to a candid consideration." I do not wonder that Dr. Pond is unable to discern the mode of adjusting the existing societies, to the principles and government of Congregational churches. They are irreconcilable. No plan can be devised to render their co-existence compatible with the safety of either. According to the views which I entertain of the tendencies of the present state of the case in the Congregational Church of New England, the attempt to continue even the religious voluntary societies side by side with the churches will result in the ruin of both.

I speak of Congregational churches only, for I am a Congregationalist and am "fully persuaded in my own mind," that Congregationalism is the form and order of church government ordained by the apostles. As to other denominations, I have no call to inquire how they may be able to promote the kingdom of Christ, as they severally understand that kingdom. When they ask my advice, it will be time for me to consider whether I have any to give. I cannot but think that it would be every way better for the Congregational ministers of New England" to abide in their calling," and not assume to themselves the office of speculating about the affairs of other denominations among themselves, or of burdening themselves with the concerns of the churches out of their limits, either at home or in Europe. If I cannot devise ways and means for the Protestants of Europe to proceed in their endeavours to extend the camp of the gospel without voluntary societies, it does not follow that we are obliged to sustain them here. To deduce practical principles for our own government from the multifarious and involved positions and connexions of evangelical Christians on the continent, and of dissenters in Great Britain, is but making a sorry exchange of our freedom for their galling bondage. After the notion that it is every one's duty to "convert the world," was broached, and the kindred dogma, that duty and ability are commensurate, was tacked to it, great and wise and good men increased and multiplied amongst us, beyond all precedent. Parish ministers discovered that "the flock over which the Holy Ghost had made them overseers" was not the particular church and society which had chosen them to be their ministers, but that their "field was the world." Private, Christians, male and female, young and old, began to "feel their great responsibilities," and that

the "conversion of the world" was required at their hands. The trustees of our colleges and theological seminaries, looked beyond the narrow walls of their several locations, and became "careful and troubled about many" states and nations. Just at this juncture, when thousands of hearts and minds were teeming with great and wise and good conceptions of their high and mighty vocation to "convert the world," the "voluntary principle" came opportunely for their deliverance. From that time to the present, the Congregational ministry and churches of New England (to go no further) have been in perpetual agitation and changes. Our ministers and the members of our churches, to a great extent, misled by the notion that they are bound to look after all the world, and consult for the universal interests of all denominations at home and abroad, and for all the heathen world, and for all coming time to the last day, have very naturally been led to regard the immediate affairs of their own churches, as of comparatively small importance. Hence the innovations on the doctrinal articles of faith, the terms of communion, the settlement and removal of pastors, ordination of ministers without charge, the multiplication of offices, meetings, exercises, &c. &c., which have in fact, if not in form, changed the Congregational Church into another denomination, adapted to the new views and relations introduced within the last twenty-five or thirty years.

I shall not attempt therefore to provide a substitute for these societies other than the churches themselves, and these as they were thirty years ago. I have no doubt at all, that the Congregational churches of Connecticut in their present ecclesiastical organization, are competent to all the duties which they owe to our country and the world. I am ready to avow, and on all proper occasions to maintain, that it is the duty of our churches and ministers to take into their own hands every one of the benevolent enterprises of a strictly religious character, of which they are now but fractional parts, and to which they are tributaries.

Having refuted the arguments adduced by Dr. Pond in support of his positions, that the voluntary religious societies are in fact, though not in form, institutions of the Church and under its supervision and control;-that the voluntary principle, in the manner and form of its application and use in these Societies, is of natural right and Scripture warrant; and that it is expedient and necessary; the main proposition

of the article which he assailed, and its principal arguments, remain unshaken. Until Dr. Pond, or some other person, shall bring forward evidence of the contrary, we shall continue to regard voluntary societies for the attainment of those ends for which the Church was instituted, as incapable of vindication, and inconsistent with the purity and prosperity of Christ's kingdom in the world.

ART. II.-INFLUENCE OF PELAGIANISM ON THE THEOLO-
GICAL COURSE OF REV. C. G. Finney, developed
HIS SERMONS AND Lectures.

By Rev. JOSEPH I. FOOT.

IN

Ir is a matter of wonder with many sincere Christians, that fears exist respecting the ultimate results of apparently slight deviations from the formularies of sound doctrine. They cannot see why such departures from the truth should awaken sad apprehensions, or excite the least alarm in the churches. It is supposed, that if an individual appears to be bent on doing good, and on promoting the cause of godliness, and especially if under his preaching there are appearances of revivals of religion, he is to be left undisturbed in his course, whatever seeds of religious errour he may scatter as he goes. It is declared to be exceedingly sinful to say, or even to hint, that his success is of a doubtful character, and that the progress of errour will sweep away much that is precious and useful.

This has had a remarkable illustration in our own times. During more than twenty years after the beginning of this century, the churches had rest, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied. Near the close of this period, an individual rose into public notice, who professed to have some new views of faith, especially in respect to prayer. His skill in the work of converting sinners, was extolled. On every side he was regarded as the mighty power of God.

Crowds rushed to his assemblies, and hundreds in them professed to be born of God. His fame penetrated large sections of the country. But the effects of his labours did not appear to be permanent; and his sun hastened to go down in clouds and thick darkness. He exposed himself to ecclesiastical discipline, and was deposed from the ministry. During his decline a successor was rising, who inculcated substantially the same views of faith. Young, ardent and persevering, he went forth like a giant to his work. Wherever he went, the kingdom of Satan was thought to tremble, the bulwarks of iniquity to be prostrated, the atheist to acknowledge God, the deist to believe the Scriptures, the impenitent in unwonted numbers to repent, and the hypocrite to become sincere in the service of Christ. Though his doctrines were not in all respects in agreement with the standards of the Church; though his departures from these were such as to call forth the most serious expressions of alarm; yet success was set up as the criterion by which the truth of his doctrines and the approbation of Christ were to be decided. During ten years, hundreds, and perhaps thousands, were annually reported to be converted on all hands; but now it is admitted, that his real converts are comparatively few. It is declared, even by himself, that "the great body of them are a disgrace to religion;" as a consequence of these defections, practical evils, great, terrible, and innumerable, are in various quarters rushing in on the Church.

But it is not merely the foresight of such practical evils, that awakens alarm in discerning Christians. They understand, that one errour almost necessarily produces another. It is, indeed, possible for an individual to hold a prominent errour, and not to follow on to others, which are its direct and legitimate consequences. But such cases rarely occur. Scarcely can an instance be found, in which a departure from one article of the Faith is not succeeded by an abandonment of many, and sometimes of them all. If a stone be taken from any part of an edifice, the building is weakened; but if one be removed on which its weight, or the union of its various parts mainly depends, it will totter and eventually fall. So of a confession of faith. If one article be abandoned, the system itself is injured; and if the rejected doctrine be a prominent one, it will probably lead to the re

« AnteriorContinuar »