One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, Tome 1

John Nevin's Writings on Ecclesiology (1844–1849)

Nevin, Hamstra

• Publisher: Wipf and Stock
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781498244923
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Systematic Theology & Ethics

The mid-nineteenth century is a gold mine for contemporary scholars interested in American Protestant ecclesiology. There one will find the extensive writings of John Nevin who came to the notice of the theological world with The Anxious Bench, a critique of the "quackery" of Protestant revivalism. Influenced by a critical appropriation of cutting-edge contemporary German theology, he came to believe that the church was not "invisible," but the visible manifestation of Jesus Christ's incarnate life. Christians were to pursue unity, not in external institutional arrangements, but as unity of spiritual life. This compilation presents his theology of the catholicity of the church prior to his masterwork, The Mystical Presence, and a multifaceted, sophisticated critique of American sectarianism. This edition carefully preserves the original texts while providing extensive introductions, annotations, and bibliography.The Mercersburg Theology Study Series presents for the first time attractive, readable, scholarly modern editions of the key writings of the nineteenth-century movement known as the Mercersburg Theology. An ambitious multi-year project, it aims to make an important contribution to the academic community and to the broader public, who can at last be properly introduced to this unique blend of American and European Reformed and Catholic theology.

document 1

The Anxious Bench, Second Edition (1844)

Editor’s Introduction

Nevin wrote The Anxious Bench in response to a well-documented event. The Reverend William Ramsey of Philadelphia was an ordained Presbyterian who, after returning from service as a missionary in China, traveled throughout the United States as an evangelist. In 1842 Ramsey broke from his evangelistic endeavors to candidate as a pastor for the vacant German Reformed congregation in Mercersburg. Ramsey had been recommended to the consistory by Nevin who knew him as a student at Princeton Seminary. While in Mercersburg, Ramsey “made a favorable impression, preached impressive sermons, and it was not long before he felt that he was master of the situation,” so states Theodore Appel. 85

One Sunday evening during the candidacy process, Ramsey, “without consulting any one in particular, apparently on the spur on the moment, with a densely crowded house before him, brought out the ‘Anxious Bench,’ and invited all who desired the prayers of the Church to present themselves before the altar.” A number of people came forward, including a handful of elderly women known for their faithfulness. Nevin sat in the chancel and observed. Toward the close of the meeting he was asked to address the congregation. Nevin proceeded to describe the differences between a true and a counterfeit revival,86 then “warned them earnestly against all self-deception.” In spite of Nevin’s remarks, the congregation chose to call Ramsey as their pastor. Nevin responded with a personal correspondence informing Ramsey “that he was anxious he should accept the call tendered him, but candidly telling him that it would be necessary, if he came to Mercersburg, to dispense with his new measures and adopt the catechetical system.” Ramsey declined the call, offering Nevin’s letter as the reason. “Nevin’s letter was read by all who wished to do so. Some enjoyed it and others were saddened by it.”

In time Nevin realized that he had raised a big issue and felt inclined to define for his congregation his views on revivals. In the spring of 1843 Nevin published a pamphlet under the title The Anxious Bench—A Tract for the Times.87 In the second edition of the Anxious Bench, written in January 1844, Nevin added a chapter in which he compared the system of the catechism with the methods of the bench. The Anxious Bench received mixed reviews. The Messenger, the publication of the German Reformed Church, endorsed it. The Christian Intelligencer, of the Dutch Reformed Church, endorsed it. As did the Princeton Review. In contrast, Jacob Helfenstein of the German Reformed Church came out in support of the revival system and one member of the Reformed Synod of Ohio, with reference to The Anxious Bench, vowed that he would not “touch the wicked little thing with a ten-foot pole.”88 In addition, Lutheran Observer devoted considerable energy to criticizing both Nevin and The Anxious Bench.89

The conflict between Ramsey and Nevin was not unexpected as it reflected a broader discussion within the German churches in America, both Lutheran and Reformed. This discussion took place in the wake of the Second Great Awakening and against the backdrop of the classic gospel question, “What must I do to be saved.” In response, as noted in the introduction to this volume, German Reformed congregations “walked a difficult tightrope” by “affirming the necessity of the individual spiritual rebirth found in revivalism” and by “upholding the centrality of the church and its sacraments as the primary setting where faith is nurtured.”90 For Nevin, this meant leading those seeking salvation through union with Christ to the life and ministry of the local church, rather than casting “people on fallible resources under false premises amid collective coercion.”91

George Richards provides more context for the aforementioned discussion among the German Reformed churches through his commentary on the 1843 Synod report of the denomination. This report affirms the presence of revivals among German Reformed congregations. Richards specifies, however, that while some may have referred to the revivals as “seasons of refreshing” or “outpourings of the Holy Spirit,” the “agencies by which the evidences of revival were produced were the Word of God, the Sacraments, the teachings of the Catechism, social prayers and religious discussion, which did not contradict Reformed traditions.”92 He adds, “It is evident that the ministry and the congregations were in danger of being swept into the current of revivalism of the emotional type,” but

the only measures so far employed were: (1) the faithful and prayerful use of the regularly established means of grace by pastors and people; (2) the truth—simply and forcibly presented by the pastors, not only from the pulpit but in the Bible Class, the Sabbath School, the private family circle, and frequent meetings for social prayer—was the great instrument in the hands of the Spirit to bring about these glorious results; and (3) the study and teaching of the Heidelberg Catechism. 93

In Richards’ estimation, “revivals brought about by such means may be relied on as genuine. Mere excitement, produced by the agency of men, will soon pass away like the morning cloud and the early dew; but the Word of God is always deep and abiding.”94

85. Theodore Appel provides a detailed account of this event in Life and Work of John Williamson Nevin, 157–160, the source of quoted material in this summary.

86. For more on this distinction, see Nichols, Romanticism in American Theology, 25–26; David Layman, general introduction to Born of Water and the Spirit, 13–14.

87. Chambersburg, Pa.: Printed at the Office of the “Weekly Messenger,” 1843; available at Google Books.

88. Richards, History of the Theological Seminary, 281.

89. On November 10, 1843, the Lutheran Observer (presumably Benjamin Kurtz) began a series entitled “Notes On ‘The Anxious Bench, by Rev. J. W. Nevin, D. D. . . . ’,” (vol. 11, no. 10, 2–3). (There are no page numbers in Observer, but each number consists of four pages, two outside and two inside.) The Observer’s attack went on for ten installments. January 26 and February 2 provided extracts from another critique on Nevin, by James M. Davis, A Plea for “New Measures” (which Nevin cites in the second edition). To be fair to Kurtz, Nevin initiated the controversy in the first edition: see below , 36n2. For more on Kurtz and Lutheran Observer, see David Bauslin, “The Genesis of the ‘New Measures’ Movement,” 360–91.

90. Hambrick-Stowe, Colonial and National Beginnings, 17.

91. Bratt, ed., Antirevivalism in Antebellum America, 122.

92. Richards, History of the Theological Seminary, 219.

93. Ibid. There are several reasons for questioning Richard’s anti-revivalistic reading of renewal in the German Reformed Church prior to 1843. There is James I. Good’s extensive description of revivals (Good, History of the Reformed Church, 130–34). Furthermore, Linden DeBie’s discussion of the role of the Heidelberg Catechism in “First Signs of Contention” implies that it was not yet a regular source of renewal in the church. Ironically, John Winebrenner—an adversary of Nevin in this debate—used “an abridged English translation” for catechesis in the early 1820s, but was eventually separated from the German Reformed Church for his 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 t...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Contributors
• Foreword
• Editorial Approach and Acknowledgments
• General Introduction
• Document 1: The Anxious Bench, Second Edition (1844)
• Document 2: “Catholic Unity” (1844)
• Document 3: The Church (1847)
• Document 4: Antichrist; or the Spirit of Sect and Schism (1848)
• Document 5: “The Sect System” (1849)
• Bibliography