Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

the gospel must have been denied in the discourse, which has so much displeased him. Let him speak for himself: "We feel no reluctance," he says, "but a real pleasure, in stating that, so far as we understand him, Mr. D. appears to hold fast the essential doctrines of the gospel. Of these doctrines, his subject did not lead him to treat directly; but, from what he says incidentally, we think we can gather, that he is not only entirely free from any leaning to the Socinian or Unitarian heresy, but that he fully believes in the native depravity of man, the necessity of regeneration by the spirit of grace, justification solely by the righteousness of Christ, evangelical repentance for sin, the essential importance of obedience to all the commands of God, the progressive sanctification of believers, a judgment to come, and a future state of endless rewards and punishments. Nor only so, but he seems to be a warm advocate for great ministerial fidelity, simplicity, zeal, charity, holy and exemplary living, and an unreserved devotion to the glory of God, and the winning of souls to Jesus Christ. Now this is much as it should be." And what more does the good man require,

*What need is there for such a remark as this? It serves to reveal the character of the reports which had been in circulation, and to show how very sinfully Christian ministers can speak of one another, without ever inquiring into facts. Perhaps the Reviewer might have felt some misgiving on this subject. I have certainly to thank him for assuring the public that I am not a SOCINIAN. The brethren had better omit associating the denial of Creeds and Confessions with this heresy; it is an unmanly attempt to throw public odium over upon those who do not deserve it, and can only demonstrate that they are in want of proof to substantiate their unbrotherly charges.

that he should insinuate a want of integrity, and charge me with unfaithful dealing with the plan of the Seminary? Did the Students hear any thing contrary to the "system of religious belief and practice," which had been drawn out in the Confession of Faith, as explanatory of scriptural doctrines? And if not, was the subscription invalidated?

But the Reviewer has declared explicitly the matter of offence. In continuance of what has been already quoted, he says; "It really looks as if Mr. D. had been intended for better things, than to be a panick-struck declaimer against all the formulas of faith in protestant Christendom, and a visionary expectant of the speedy occurrence of such a new and improved state of the world, as to render all old things-not excepting Christianity itself, as it has hitherto existedas much matters out of date, as the Jewish dispensation was, after the coming of Christ, and the preaching of his Apostles. Here is the rock, on which Mr. D. has unhappily run foul; and we heartily wish he may get off, without eventually making shipwreck of faith and a good conscience."

So then it seems that a man may "hold fast the essential doctrines of the gospel;" but if he should venture to say any thing disrespectful of human Creeds, he is in danger of losing his soul for ever, and deserves the severest animadversions which an old minister of the gospel can write. It is too common an idea. There are many besides Dr. G. who cherish this idolatrous

reverence for "human inventions."-The question still is, has "the system of religious faith and practice, set forth in the Confession of Faith," been invaded? The charge, be it remembered, is the violation of a particular oath. When the

Assembly adopted their book of discipline, did they take such high ground as this? Hear what they say in their prefatory chapter:-"They are unanimously of opinion, that God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrine and commandments of men, which are in any thing contrary to his word, or beside it, in matters of faith or worship: therefore, they consider the rights of private judgment, in all matters that respect religion, as universal and unalienable." And again they declare-“That all church power, whether exercised by the body in general, or, in the way of representation, by delegated authority, is only ministerial and declarative; that is to say, that the holy scriptures are the only rule of faith and manners; that no church judicatory ought to pretend to make laws, to bind the conscience, in virtue of their own authority, &c."* Dr. G. and some others, who have been very liberal in their censure, must have forgotten what the system of religious belief and practice, proposed to the Directors of the Theological Seminary, really is. Apprehending, from the exquisite tenderness which is cherished for Creeds and Confessions, and which I have had abundant opportu

*p. p. 376-8.

nity of knowing, that some such charge might be brought against me as a Director of the Seminary, I had consulted the Confession of Faith before the discourse was prepared; and had deliberately formed the opinion, that there was nothing in it which the Confession itself did not distinctly assert. Often, and very often, have warm advocates of "our excellent standards" argued against propositions, which those very standards themselves most explicitly declare. And no wonder, for many ardent friends of the Westminster Confession of Faith seldom or ever read it. But still farther. Suppose the whole doctrine of subscription to our own church Creed had been assaulted, would the system of belief and practice, therein contained, have been thereby invaded and set aside? Then the Westminster Assembly itself, which made this book that Presbyterians so highly eulogise, must fall under the reviewer's lash; for that Assembly did declare, that to require subscription simply to the answers to the questions in the shorter cateehism, was an UNWARRANTABLE IMPOSITION— as shall be shown in its proper place, in the course of the following remarks.

Once more: Dr. G. says, "Mr. D. is a visionary expectant of the speedy occurrence of such a new and improved state of the world, as to render all old things as much matters out of date, as the Jewish dispensation was, &c." That a change, and a very great change too, is coming, Dr. G. himself believes; and so does every christian who has read his Bible. God forbid that

we should be disappointed; for, really, ecclesiastical matters are, at present, most terribly distracted. As to the speedy occurrence of such a change, it happens that I believe directly the reverse of that which the Reviewer charges upon me as a serious crime; neither have I made any such visionary calculations, derived from a hasty glance at the vast scene, which a troubled world and a distracted church spread out to the view of every sanctified philanthrophist. But sappose this had been done. Have I thereby offended against my subscribed formula, as a Director of the Theological Seminary? That prescribes no doctrinal decision on the question, whether the Millennium shall burst forth within the next twenty years, or shall be deferred for two centuries. And if, in relation to this subject, I have been unfortunate enough to say, that Sectarianism is now falling like the worn out economy of Moses, is it not a fact? May not every man see it? Have not christian denominations felt it to their very centres? Does not Dr. G. himself exult in it, when he says, "it is pleasant to observe, that whatever sectarian feelings may exist at home, the missionaries, when they meet in heathen lands, lay them all aside; and live, and love, and co-operate as brethren? In this way, it may

be

the walls of division between christian sects will at last be so far prostrated, that while each may retain its peculiar forms and usages, all may cherish a spirit of christian feeling and fellowship." I agree with Dr. G. and have expressed similar ideas in my own language, which he has

« AnteriorContinuar »