Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

our duty, not only not to disguise or to keep back these peculiar opinions, but to urge them constantly and emphatically upon all those, and especially the young, who are under our instruction. For these reasons, we would wish the liberty to conduct our religious charities on our own account, and in our own way.

Beside these, there are other reasons which have induced us not to connect ourselves with national religious charities. We believe that, in the arrangement of Providence, it is wisely permitted that the various sects of Christians should act upon their several views, the more extensively to spread the substantial truths of the Gospel through the world, in order to check any aberrations, whether in doctrine or practice, to which human infirmity renders the best and wisest of all sects liable, and in order to excite each other to activity and diligence. We, moreover, believe that a union of the various denominations of Christians, for the operation of religious charities, while they continue to differ in regard to important religious doctrines, would lessen the amount of those charities, and lead in the end to dissensions and animosities not otherwise to be apprehended. For these and other reasons, especially that we consider national religious societies incompatible with the safety of our free institutions, both civil and religious, we have long been known as in opposition to them. And, as this has long been known, it is, to say the least of it, not a little surprising that agents of these societies have been found, who have confidently reported the Methodist Church as their supporters. It would be ridiculous, if not wicked, for these agents to excuse themselves, by saying that a few individuals of the Methodist Church are such supporters, when they cannot but know that, as a body, we are avowedly opposed to any such connection. But, not even this apology can be made by those who have continued, on the ground of unauthorized appointments, to represent our bishops and other ministers as officers in these societies, after they have, in the most unequivocal manner, declined the acceptance of such offices.'

The question, therefore, respecting our union with the American Sunday school, may now be considered at rest. But neither ourselves nor the general conference should be misunderstood on this subject. While honesty and truth required us to acknowledge ourselves a distinct sect of Christians, acting under a solemn conviction that more good may be accomplished by following our distinctive peculiarities in our plans for promoting the common welfare, we have no idea of proclaiming war upon others, of questioning the purity of their motives, or of impugning the sincerity of their professions. In these respects we wish to do to others as we would they should do to us. Let them cleave to their institutions, make them as efficient as possible in doing good, while they, in the mean time, allow us the same liberty. Then shall Judah no longer vex Ephraim, nor need the different sects be arrayed in hostility against each other, merely because they conscientiously dissent from one another in respect to the best means of attaining the end we all profess to have in view. With such feelings and views we close what we have to say on this subject by remarking,

that so long as the several denominations of Christians shall pursue the grand object of their benevolent exertions in the spirit of love toward each other, guided in their operations by a sincere desire to advance the Redeemer's glory, they will, in our humble judgment, each contribute a greater share toward attaining this object, by establishing separate organizations, than they would by one general combination.

The address closes with the following impressive exhortation, to which we hope all concerned will give the more earnest heed :—

[ocr errors]

'And we earnestly recommend a strict observance of the requirements of our excellent form of Discipline, especially in what respects class meeting, conformity to the world, and the preservation of purity and peace in the members of a body associated for purposes of such mighty consequence, both to individual interest and the general good. If we would accomplish all the good contemplated in the formation of our society, we must strengthen and draw close the ties that bind us together; we must preserve the peculiar and distinctive features of our Christian character, and we must act with concentrated force. In conclusion, dear brethren, after earnestly entreating your prayers, that we may have hearts to labor for God, and that he may crown our labors with success, we commend you to him and to the word of his grace, praying that he may make all grace to abound to you, and that he may bring us together to his everlasting kingdom and glory, through Christ Jesus, to whom be glory, for ever, Amen.' [The temperance address came to hand too late for the present number. It will be noticed in our next.]

NATIONAL SOCIETIES.

Report on Foreign Missions, read to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States, and accepted without an expression of the opinion of the Assembly on the same, May 31, 1832.

THE main proposition which this singular document attempts to sustain is, that The American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions is, in the opinion of the committee, properly a National Institution."

To sustain this opinion, the report enters into a historical detail of the doings and operations of the society from its organization to the present time. The object of this detail is to show that the society has gradually assumed a truly national character, because, from the time of its incorporation by the legislature of Massachusetts in 1821, it has embraced members, honorary and others, from the Presbyterian, Congregationalist, and Dutch Reformed Churches, in several states in the Union, and that the board itself is composed of members from each of these Churches. The report then goes on to say, that the society is national in its character, because the board sustains the same relation to the Con

gregational, Presbyterian, and Dutch Reformed Churches, and fairly represents each of these religious denominations.'

This report, it should be remarked, is the production of a joint committee of conference from the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, and of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions,' and therefore may be considered as expressing the opinion of both these bodies in reference to this subject.

Without repeating here what we have frequently remarked elsewhere, that all religious societies professing to be national in our country, whether they are so in reality or in name only, are of dangerous tendency to our free, civil, and religious institutions, we are not a little surprised at the premises assumed in this report from which the conclusion is so gravely drawn, that this missionary society is a national institution. What, in the opinion of the committee, constitutes its nationality? Why, because the Presbyterian, Congregationalist, and Dutch Reformed Churches are represented in it, and share equally, in proportion to their numbers, in its councils and operations, and contribute to its funds. This is the ground of the conclusion. But do these three denominations represent the American nation? From the language of this report, coolly, deliberately, and gravely adopted, it would seem as if they really thought there were no other denominations of Christians in the land; or, if any other, they are so inconsiderable as not to deserve a moment's notice: for these gentlemen speak on this subject as confidently as if they had fairly and incontrovertibly made out their case, that because these three denominations are co-operating in this society, it must needs be national in its character! Such assumptions really partake so much of the character of contempt for the opinions and standing of other denominations, that they seem to deserve somewhat more than a sharp rebuke.

Let us, however, examine this pretension to a national society, by those tests which the committee themselves furnish as the ground of their conclusions. With a view to show that each of the above-mentioned denominations is fairly represented in the official board of this boasted national society, the report states that the "ascertained number of communicants in each of these denominations is as follows:-Presbyterians, 182,017; Congregationalists, 140,000; Dutch Reformed, 17,888;' making an aggregate of 339,905.

These, therefore, represent the American nation! What will foreigners think when they are told that, out of about 13,000,000 of inhabitants in the United States, there are substantially only about 340,000 communicants? For, according to the assumptions of this report, all the others, whatever may be their number, character, or influence, are too inconsiderable to be brought into the account to constitute a national society. They may exist, it is true, in an insulated capacity, as so many disjointed and scattered fragments of a wreck floating about upon the surface of the

troubled waters; but they form no part of the national character, and are totally indifferent as to the results of charitable and religious institutions formed for the good of the world!

But what will the public think, whether foreigners or others, when they are informed that these three denominations do not make but about one-third of the aggregate number of professed Christians in this country? Look at the following estimate, and then judge. We have not the means at our command at present to enable us to ascertain precisely the number of the various religious denominations in our country; of the

514,000

Methodists, however, there are

Baptists, we think not less than

350,000

Protestant Episcopalians, probably

36,000

Say for all other orthodox denominations, including
Lutherans, Orthodox Friends, &c, &c, .

100,000

Total number

1000,000

Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and Dutch Reformed,

as before stated

339,905

.

660,095

This estimate will show how little reason the report in question had to conclude that the society under consideration is a national institution. As we before stated, we do not vouch for the entire accuracy of this calculation; but we think the denominations here enumerated amount to at least one million, without including the Universalists and Socinians, or Roman Catholics.

seem,

But what is more singular still, this report urges that there should be but one 'society in this country for the management of foreign missions, in behalf of those who agree essentially in doctrine and ecclesiastical order, because the Congregational, Presbyterian, and Dutch Reformed denominations do thus agree. This reason, were it founded in truth, might very well be urged for having but one society for these denominations; but would it be any good reason why that society should be called national? So it would though it is not expressly urged in the above paragraph. Are, then, the peculiarities of Calvinism to be represented as the received religious dogmas of the American nation? The three denominations agree in all essential points of doctrine and ecclesiastical order, and therefore a missionary society composed of portions of each of these Churches must be considered properly a national society.' Were ever a company of men found before who could jump to such a conclusion from such premises?

But what if the premises themselves be found false? Do the Congregationalists, Presbyterians, and Dutch Reformed, agree. in all essential points of doctrine? What then have they been fighting about? Do they agree on the decrees of God, human depravity, the extent of the atonement of Christ, and the nature of conversion? If so, with what phantom of the imagination have the

1

new schoolmen been at war for several years past? What means the mighty outcry of the old-side Presbyterians, that the new divinity men are eating out the very vitals of Presbyterianism? Has all this been merely a war of words?

Do they agree any better in respect to ecclesiastical order? If they do, we understand nothing of the difference between Congregationalism and Presbyterianism. We have thought, and do still think, that there is a material, a very essential difference between committing the entire power of the Church into the hands of one single congregation, and the dividing it between the people, presbyteries, synods, and a general assembly. We think, therefore, that the conclusion to which the report arrives in favor of having but one society for foreign missions, derived from the supposed concord of these three denominations, being drawn from defective premises, is illegitimate, and therefore unsound.

But why is it, we would ask, that so much pains are taken to impress upon the public mind that this is a national society? Do they impose upon themselves? Having so long rung upon the changes of national societies, have they come at last to the absurd conclusion that they are so in fact, merely because they have been so called for such a length of time? Or do they wish by this means to make an impression that they give tone to all the religious institutions of the country, with a view to conciliate public favor? Charity seems to forbid the thought, that either of these suppositions is true. We dare not believe that an infatuation of so fatal a character has seized upon minds, otherwise so intelligent and virtuous, as to produce a delusion so monstrously absurd. Propositions like the one we are considering, under such circumstances, must be the result of accidental indifference to the true state of things, and not to a wilful perversion of the truth, or a voluntary self-deception.

Waiving, however, all these considerations, we cannot see how, in the present political and civil state of our country, any religious society can, with any degree of propriety, be denominated national. Even if the major part, or even all the denominations were to agree to lay aside their sectarian peculiarities, and unite in one great institution, there would be little propriety in calling it a national institution. The reason is, that all our national institutions are totally distinct from our religious institutions. The Church and the state are necessarily, because constitutionally, separate and distinct from each other, and can never be amalgamated or united without destroying our distinctive national character. An attempt, therefore, to incorporate the one with the other, though it may be only in name, is an encroachment upon our national and civil institutions; and hence all such attempts are justly viewed by our politicians with a jealous eye, as an approximation, at least in tendency, if not in design, to break down the barrier which the wisdom of our forefathers has erected between Church and state. It is on this account, as well as on others which might be men

« ZurückWeiter »