use of “new measures” (Gossard, “John Winebrenner”).
94. Richards, History of the Theological Seminary, 219.
Preface.
In coming before the public with a Second edition of the Anxious Bench, it seems proper to introduce it with a short preface.
The publication, as was to be expected, has produced considerable excitement. At least half a dozen of replies to it, shorter or longer, have been announced in different quarters, proceeding from no less than five different religious denominations. Various assaults, in addition to this, have been made upon it from the pulpit; to say nothing of the innumerable reproaches it has been required to suffer in a more private way.
All this, however, calls for no very special notice in return. I am sorry to say that of all the published replies to the tract, which have come under my observation, not one is entitled to any respect, as an honest and intelligent argument on the other side. In no case has the question at issue been fairly accepted and candidly met. I do not feel myself required at all, then, to enter into a formal vindication of the tract, as assailed in those publications. I consider it to be in itself a full and triumphant answer to all they contain against it, in the way of objection or reproach. If permitted to speak for itself, by being seriously and attentively read, it may safely be left to plead its own cause. In such circumstances it would be idle to enter into a controversial review of the manifold misrepresentations to which it has been subjected. The only proper reply to them is a republication of the tract itself.
With the reproaches that have been showered upon me personally, in different quarters, I have not allowed myself to be much disturbed. I had looked for it all beforehand; knowing well the spirit of the system with which I was called to deal. I knew of course that I should be calumniated as an enemy to revivals, and as an opposer of vital godliness. But I felt satisfied at the same time that the calumny would, in due season, correct itself, and recoil with disgrace on the heads of those from whom it might proceed. It has begun to do so already, and will continue to do so, no doubt, more and more.
Some have wondered that I did not take more pains to define my position with regard to revivals, by writing a chapter on the subject, so as to cut off occasion for the reproach now mentioned. But this would have been, in some measure, to justify and invite the wrong, which it was proposed to prevent. There is gross insolence in the assumption that a man should at all need to vindicate himself in this way, in venturing to speak against the system of New Measures.95 And then, it is not by formal protestations, when all is done, that the point, in any such case, can be fully settled. A chapter on revivals would be of little account in my tract if my own character, and the whole spirit of the tract itself, were not such as to show an honest zeal in favor of serious religion. The publications which have come out in reply to it all affect an extraordinary interest in the subject of revivals, exhibited often with a very blustering air; but in the case of some of them, this pretension is utterly belied, to all who have the least amount of spiritual discernment, by the tone of feeling with which they are characterized throughout. They carry in them no savor at all of the wisdom that cometh from above, no sympathy whatever with the mind of Jesus Christ. The remark is made of some of these publications, not of the whole of them indiscriminately.
Nor would any special protestation in favor of revivals be of much account to guard the tract from being perversely used by those who are in fact opposed to this precious interest. The only true and proper provision against such abuse must be found, if it exists at all, in the general spirit of the tract itself. Let this be right, and it must be considered enough. It may be perverted still; but men can pervert the Bible, too, if they please.
Fears have been expressed that in the present position of the German Churches particularly, the publication may operate disastrously upon the interests of vital godliness. But in my own view there is no good reason for any such fears. I believe its operation has been salutary already, and trust it will be found more salutary still in time to come. It has engaged attention extensively to the subject of which it treats, and is likely to go farther than anything that has appeared before, in correcting the confusion and mystification in which it has been so unhappily involved, in certain parts of the country, to the great prejudice of religion. It may be hoped now that the subject of New Measures will be so examined and understood, that all shall come to make a proper distinction between the system of the Anxious Bench and the power of evangelical godliness, working in its true forms. In the case of the German Churches, this would be a result of the very highest consequence. If the present tract may open the way for its accomplishment, its mission will be one in which all the friends of true religion in these Churches will have occasion to rejoice.
But instead of lending their help to secure this most desirable object, the friends of the Anxious Bench seem concerned to maintain as long as possible the very mystification that stands in its way. They tell us we must not speak against New Measures, because this term is made to include, in some parts of the country, revivals and other kindred interests; and then, when we propose to correct this gross mistake by proper instruction, they set themselves with all their might to counteract the attempt, and insist that the people shall be suffered to confound these different forms of religion as before. Those who act thus are themselves enemies in fact to the cause of revivals. From no other quarter has it been made to suffer so seriously. Its greatest misfortune is that it should lie at the mercy of such hands.
It is with a very bad grace that reference is made occasionally by some to the idea of a foreign spirit in the tract, as related to the German Churches. It is in full sympathy with the true life of these Churches, as it stood in the beginning. The charge of seeking to force a foreign spirit on them lies with clear right against the other side. The system of New Measures has no affinity whatever with the life of the Reformation, as embodied in the Augsburg Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism.96 It could not have found any favor in the eyes of Zwingli or Calvin.97 Luther98 would have denounced it in the most unmerciful terms. His soul was too large, too deep, too free, to hold communion with a style of religion so mechanical99 and shallow. Those who are actively laboring to bring the Church of Luther, in this country, into subjection to the system, cannot be said to be true to his memory or name.100 The challenge, Why are you a Lutheran? is one which they would do well seriously to consider. It is most certain that the interest they are pushing forward, in this view, is not Lutheranism in any sense that agrees with the true historical life of the Church. It involves a different theory of religion that stands in no fellowship with the views, either of the fathers and founders of the Church, or of its most evangelical representatives in modem Germany. It is another element that surrounds us in the writings101 of such men as Olshausen,102 Tholuck,103 Sartorius,104 and Neander.105 The system in question is in its principle and soul neither Calvinism nor Lutheranism, but Wesleyan Methodism.106 Those who are urging it upon the old German Churches are in fact doing as much as they can to turn them over into the arms of Methodism. This may be done without any change of denominational name. Already the life of Methodism, in this country, is actively at work among other sects, which owe no fellowship with it in form. So in the present case, names may continue to stand as before; but they will be only as the garnished sepulchers
