Page images
PDF
EPUB

THE

PRINCETON REVIEW.

OCTOBER 1840.

No. IV.

ART. I.-Sectarianism is Heresy, in three parts, in which are shown its Nature, Evils and Remedy. By A. Wylie. Bloomington, Ia. 1840. 8vo. pp. 132.

OUR church has occasion to rejoice whenever those who go out from her undertake to give their reasons. Who will venture to predict how many heedless lapses into highchurchism, on the one hand, and no-churchism on the other, have been already, or may yet be, prevented by the printed arguments of Mr. Calvin Colton and of Dr. Andrew Wylie? In this respect, if in no other, these distinguished writers may assure themselves, they have not lived in vain.

The work before us is a series of dialogues betwen one Gardezfoi, one Democop, and Timothy, an alias for Andrew Wylie. As he gives the outlandish names to his opponents, so he does his best to give them all the nonsense, but without success. The book is not so violent as we expected from the author's temper. He is a man of talents, and of reading, but inaccurate, and sadly wanting both in taste and judg ment. He makes sectarianism to consist in bigotry and carnality. By bigotry he understands a disposition to lay stress on doctrines; and by carnality all zeal for particular denominations. His great point is, that faith is trust in God, not

[blocks in formation]

confidence in the truth of certain doctrines, or opinions, as he calls them. Hence any man who trusts in God, whatever his opinions may be, is a Christian. His grand mistake, or misrepresentation, lies in confounding ministerial tests with the terms of Christian communion. Can he believe, after holding office in our church for more than twenty years, that she requires of every member an assent to all that is contained in the Confession of Faith? But what especially offends him is, that men's opinions on mysterious subjects should be made a test or term of communion. Hinc illæ lacrymæ! The history of his conversion may be stated thus. He began to preach in 1812, "entertaining," as he says himself, "what I suppose some would call a belief in the great doctrines of Calvinism." This is a very significant disclosure. We have known men to allege, that subscription to a creed should not be considered as implying an assent to all its minute statements. But they have always admitted that, without belief in its essential principles, its "great doctrines,' subscription is dishonest. Dr. Wylie, on the other hand, regarded, not the minor points, but the "great doctrines," of the creed which he professed, with something which might possibly be called belief. He does not call it so himself, but others might that is to say, some others—at least, he supposes so. "Entertaining what I suppose some would call a belief in the great doctrines of Calvinism." Is there any algebra by which belief can be reduced to lower terms? It seems there is; for Dr. W's. attachment to the creed which he had solemnly adopted as his own, appears to have grown weaker, till at last he did not entertain what even he can suppose that any one would call belief in Calvinism. Now supposing Dr. Wylie to be out of the question, and a similar case to have been stated hypothetically, who could have failed to guess at the result? Suppose a man, of some mind and some conscience, to avouch as God's truth what he does not thoroughly believe, and to continue to hold office as a preacher of the same for more than twenty years; and in that time to be involved in angry controversies, both with individuals. and with church courts: what will the issue be, when some great crisis affords him an occasion for decisive action? In the first place, he will leave the church, whose doctrines he adopted, but without believing them. In the next place, he will think that church a very bigoted and carnal body. In the third place, he will rail at men for really believing, and professing to believe, the very doctrines, which he himself

professed for twenty years without believing them. In the fourth place, he will try to throw the blame of his apparent insincerity, not on himself, but on the creed, which he was so deluded as to think that he believed. So when men grow weary of the restraints of civilized society, the fault is always in society itself, and not in those who leave it. When children meddle with edged tools and cut their fingers, the fault is always in the naughty knife. In the fifth place, when he has renounced and denounced his old connexions, uneasiness of conscience, with or without a love of notoriety, will generally lead him to announce and vindicate the change in print, although, in his simplicity, he may believe that, in so doing, he is yielding to necessity, and silencing the clamours of an inquisitive and agitated public. In the sixth and last place, his abhorrence of all judgments upon men's opinions will be apt to make him think that all who differ from himself are sanguinary persecutors, and that his position, as the solitary member of his own true church, is equal in pathos and sublimity to that of an ancient martyr at the stake. If this is Dr. Wylie's case, we would not disturb him in his dream of suffering for conscience sake. As to his doctrines-we beg pardon, his opinions-the perusal of a large part of the pamphlet left us painfully convinced that he was virtually an infidel. This impression was removed by the explicit statement of his creed (p. 124,) which however did not alter our belief, that he rejects the doctrines of the Trinity, Atonement, and Regeneration. The pamphlet, notwithstanding its tone of defiance, is by no means indicative of moral courage, for it betrays opinions which the author evidently shrinks from avowing. To those whose faith in the great doctrines of the Bible is already wavering, the sophistry and misrepresentations of the book will be highly dangerous, as tending to cut them off from the restraints and other salutary influences of the church with which they are connected. But to those who are enlightened and well grounded in their doctrinal belief, the mere sectarianism of the pamphlet will be very harmless. The best preservative against infection is a thorough training in the system of true doctrine; and we trust that every outbreak of this nature will result in good, by inspiring all our pastors with new zeal and diligence in this good work. Having now said all of Dr. Wylie's book that we believe it to deserve, we beg leave to indulge a few reflections of our own upon the general subject, without any

reference to his polemics, or any dread of being justly stigmatized as bigoted or carnal.

The Bible represents the church of Christ as one, and inculcates unity among its members, as a most important duty. Without referring to particular texts, in proof of this assertion, we appeal to the reader's recollection of the tenor, tone and spirit of the Scriptures. Is it not the prevailing usage of the New Testament to speak of true believers as a community, one and indivisible, and to describe all schism. in it as a laceration of the body of Christ? And, apart from these direct descriptions, is not the same thing necessarily implied in other doctrines? Are not all the prerequisites of unity provided for? Is not identity of doctrine much insisted on? And are not harmony of affection and uniformity of conduct urged with equal authority and equal zeal? Do not the scriptures evidently go upon the supposition, that the revelation of God's will is clear, and that there is no excuse for dissonance of sentiment, at least on points sufficiently important to affect the union and communion of believers? This being presupposed, conformity of conduct to a common standard would seem to follow as a thing of course. But to preclude all doubt, it is enjoined, in the command to walk in the same footsteps and to follow the same rule. In short, the language of our Lord and his apostles seems to leave no room for the hypothesis of separation, much less that of alienation, among those who own one faith, one Lord, one baptism. There can be no doubt, that one entirely unacquainted with the Christian world, and reading for the first time the books of the New Testament, would come to the conclusion, that the professors of the faith there taught must form one body, one in faith, affection, principle, and form. Such, too, is very commonly the feeling of new converts, or of those who have been recently awakened to a lively sense of spiritual things. To them the Bible seems precisely in accordance with their own impressions; that is to say, it seems to set forth the essentials of religion with such prominence as to ensure the unity of all such as agree in those essentials. They see faith and holiness to be exhibited in such relief, that difference of sentiment and practice, apon minor points, appears to them frivolous, if not impossible. To a soul filled with the fresh experience of forgiving grace, and warmed with the ardour of a first love for the Saviour, the whole family of his disciples is a unit, an inviolable league of kindred souls; and no consideration seems suf

ficient to excuse, much less to justify, a voluntary separation from this "general assembly and church of the first born which are written in heaven." But when the convert looks away from the Bible, to the world around him, what does he see? Endless division, subdivision, separation, alienation, animosity. Instead of a church, he sees conflicting sects; the seamless robe of Christ rent and parcelled out among armed men; nay, the body of the Saviour, torn, as it were, limb from limb, and scattered in its bleeding fragments over Christendom. The first clear view of this has often shocked the young believer. If it does not shake his faith in Christ, it shakes his faith in Christians. When our Lord said that he came, not to send peace, but a sword, did he mean that he came to kindle strife among his own people, and to make his flock act the part of wolves to one another?

In the course of time, and after due reflection, this is seen to be an exaggerated view of the divisions of the church. Mere circumstantial, formal variations are, at first sight, apt to be mistaken for essential discrepancies; and separate action, although perfectly pacific, often strikes the eye of an inaccurate observer, as aggressive and inimical; and this in proportion to the perfect regularity of organization in the several parts. Suppose a body of a thousand men, all armed alike, to be marching to a given point, but on the way to be divided into two; one half being mounted, while the rest remain on foot, with a corresponding difference of weapons and equipments. As neither is to lag behind the other, they must move in two distinct lines, but converging towards the same point in the end. To a casual and careless looker on, the idea of hostility, or at least of rivalry, would be at once suggested. The advance of one party would be felt by the spectator as a triumph over the other, while the martial step, the flags, the music, and the constant supervision, though in fact relating merely to the internal discipline and progress of each party, would naturally have the look of something like defiance, and as if the regulated movements of each corps had reference, not merely to itself, but to the other. It is even conceivable that some well-wisher to the common cause, might honestly lament the alienation or hostility inferred from these delusive appearances. And granting, for the present, that the subdivision of the host, though necessary, was, at best, a necessary evil, it is still very clear, that in estimating the amount of the evil, such a person would be liable to gross misapprehension, in mistaking for the signs of a

« PreviousContinue »