One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, Tome 1. John Williamson Nevin
target="_blank" rel="nofollow" href="#ulink_b6476192-ac4e-5e7f-ade2-a0ec0858c167">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