Presbyterianism [pp. 546-567]

Presbyterianism.
was presented years ago in this journal. Dr. Thornwell
derived his doctrine from the same source from which we drew
ours, viz. the Scriptures and the Confessions of the Protestant
churches, and writings of the Reformed theologians. This is
the doctrine which was presented in few words on the floor of
the General Assembly, where it was stated that the indwelling
of the Spirit constitutes the church, so that where the Spirit
is, there the church is. Dr. Thornwell, however, then denounced that doctrine. He said, speaking of his opponent,
"His principle is no, no, no Presbyterianism; no, no, no
churchism. He alleges that the church is where the Holy
Ghost is. Moderator, is not the Holy Ghost in the heart, in
the soul of the individual? Who can conceive of, where is the
authority for believing that the Holy Ghost dwells in the
church, in any other sense than as he dwells in the hearts of
those who are members of the church?" He went on at some
length to represent the doctrine that where the Spirit is, there
the church is, as destroying the visibility of the church, resolving it into an impalpable invisible communion. "It is
idle," he argued, "to say that when the apostle says God
'has set in the church,' he is speaking of the invisible church.
Where would the apostles, and pastors, and teachers, &c., be
in an invisible church? The thing is preposterous, and yet
to such resorts have good men been driven, in order to get rid
of the force of the arguments which go to establish our views."
"The brother from Princeton," against whom all this was
directed, had not said one word against the visibility of the
church; he had said nothing on the idea of the church, further than was contained in the simple statement, that the
Spirit stands in the same relation to the church that the soul
does to the body, as its organizing principle, and the source
of its attributes and prerogatives. Dr. Thornwell fully believes that doctrine. He taught it clearly and publicly in the
month of April last. That he denounced it as preposterous in
the month of May is to be accounted for only by the exigencies of debate. It would be hard to hold a lawyer responsible
for all the arguments he may urge for his client. Dr. Thornwell had undertaken to prove that to be no Presbyterianism
1860.]
551