the inward weakness of his co-workers as a matter of reproach.” At the close of it he gravely adds; “This quotation needs no comment from us; it speaks for itself. All we ask is to compare it with Dr. N.’s labored effort about the oft-repeated ‘inward weakness’ of revival preachers in the present day [“‘The Anxious Bench by Rev. J. W. Nevin, D. D.’: Contrasted with ‘Edwards on Revivals’, No. IX,” Lutheran Observer 11, no. 18 (January 5, 1844), 3].” Now if there be anything plain in the whole tract, it is that the inward weakness attributed by it, not to revival preachers, but to such as glory in the system of the Bench, is that of the “flesh” mainly as opposed to the strength which is from God’s Spirit. When I am weak, says Paul, then am I strong. Quackery affects to be strong, but is weak in fact. Its weakness does not stand in the measure of its own resources so much as in its separation from the ground of all strength in God.
136. [For a parallel and contemporaneous critique of universal “quackery” in American culture, see David S. Reynolds, Beneath the American Renaissance, 471–72.]
137. [Early Christian heresies that sought gnosis, mystical truth known only to a spiritual elite. For background, see the notes to Antichrist, below.]
138. [For an earlier version of this argument, see “The Grand Heresy,” 246–47; repr., New Mercersburg Review, no. 17, 48–53; summarized by Layman, general introduction to Born of Water and the Spirit, 17).]
139. [Finney believed “Without new measures it is impossible that the church should succeed in gaining the attention of the world to religion. There are so many exciting subjects constantly before the public mind . . . that the church cannot maintain her ground, cannot command attention, without very exciting preaching, and sufficient novelty in measures, to get the public ear (Lectures on Revivals of Religion, 258).”]
140. [2 Cor 3:6.]
141. [As succinct a summary as one can find of what Nevin would call “the mystical presence.” Layman summarizes Nevin’s early understanding of this spirituality in his general introduction to Born of Water and the Spirit, 16–19.]
142. [1 Cor 2:4.]
143. [Acts 19:13–15.]
144. Whitefield and Edwards! exclaim the champions of the Bench; they were both thorough going New Measure men, and it is a slander upon their names to speak of them as belonging to the opposite interest. Now it is not said here that they tolerated no new things in the worship of God; but only that they needed nothing of this sort to make themselves felt. What was new, in their case, was not sought; it came of itself, the free natural result of the power it represented. Whitefield had recourse to new methods himself to some extent, and Edwards carried his toleration of such things far in favor of others; but in neither instance could it be said that any value was attached to what was thus out of the common way, for its own sake, or as something to be aimed at with care and design beforehand. The judgment of Edwards in this case moreover, it should be remembered, as given in his Thoughts on the Revival in New England, had respect to the particular things it sanctions, not in a general way, but as related to an extraordinary work of God, of great extent and long continuance, most amply authenticated on other grounds. It is a widely different case when we are required to accept such things on their own credit as the evidence of a revival, or as the power of which it is to be secured. [Both Nevin and advocates of the new measures had some justification in their arguments: Whitefield and Edwards were Calvinists, and held that revival was the result of God’s supernatural activity in the church. It was this assumption that Finney denied. At the same time, the revivalist techniques of Whitefield, when transmuted into an Arminian key by Finney, became the new measures Nevin abhorred. See the explanation of the process in Layman, general introduction to Born of Water and the Spirit, 8–12.]
145. [Scriptural references are, in order: 1 Tim 3:2; Titus 1:7–8; 1 Tim 3:4; Titus 1:9; 1 Tim 6:11; 4:12; 2 Tim 2:24, 3, 15.]
Chapter IV.
Action of the Bench.—It creates a false issue for the conscience.—Unsettles true seriousness.—Usurps the place of the Cross.—Results in widespread, lasting spiritual mischief.
Let us now fix our attention on the action of the new system, directly and immediately considered. Without regard to its more remote connections and consequences, let us inquire what its merits may be in fact, as it respects the interest it proposes to promote, namely, the conversion of souls. Is it the wisdom of God and the power of God,146 as its friends would fain have us believe, for convincing careless sinners, and bringing them to the foot of the Cross? Let the Anxious Bench, in this case, be taken as the representative of the entire system. No part of it carries a more plausible aspect. If it be found wanting and unworthy of confidence here, we may safely pronounce it to be unworthy of confidence at every other point.
As usually applied in seasons of religious excitement, I hold the measure to be spiritually dangerous; requiring great skill and much caution to be used without harm in any case, and as managed by quacks and novices (who are most ready to be taken with it) more suited to ruin souls than to bring them to heaven. This view is established by the following positions.
1. The Anxious Bench, in the case of an awakened sinner, creates a false issue for the conscience. God has a controversy with the impenitent. He calls upon them to acknowledge their guilt and misery with true repentance, and to submit themselves by faith to the righteousness of the gospel. It is their condemnation that they refuse to do this. When any sinner begins to be sensible in any measure of his actual position in this view, he is so far awakened and under conviction. Now in these circumstances what does his case mainly require? Clearly, that he should be made to see more and more the true nature of the controversy in which he is involved, till he finds himself inwardly engaged to lay down the weapons of his rebellion and cast himself upon the mercy of God in Jesus Christ. He needs to have his eyes fastened and fixed on his own relations, spiritually considered, to the High and Holy One, with whom he is called to make his peace. The question is, will he repent and yield his heart to God or not? This is the true issue to be met and settled; and it is all-important that he should be so shut up to this in his thoughts that he may have no power to escape the force of the challenge which it involves. That spiritual treatment must be considered best in his case which serves most fully to bring this issue into view, and holds him most effectually confronted with it in his conscience, beneath the clear light of the Bible. But let the sinner in this state be called to come forward to a particular seat in token of his anxiety. He finds himself at once under the force of a different challenge. The question is not will he repent and yield his heart to God, but will he go to the anxious bench, which is something different altogether. Thus a new issue is raised, by which the other is obscured or thrust out of sight. It is a false issue, too, because it seems to present the real point in controversy, when in fact it does not do so at all, but only distracts and bewilders the judgment so far as this is concerned. While the awakened person is balancing the question of going to the anxious bench, his mind is turned away from the contemplation of the immediate matter of quarrel between himself and God. The higher question is merged, for the time, in one that is lower. A new case is created for the conscience of artificial, arbitrary form and ambiguous authority. Can it be wise thus to shift the ground of debate, exchanging a strong position with regard to the sinner for one that is weak? Suppose it were made a point with awakened persons that they
