"Any Christians Among
Protestant Parties"
"The Lunenburg Letter"
by
Alexander Campbell
Millennial Harbinger
1837
This letter and
Alexander Campbell's comments or remarks have
affected the thinking of many,
both within and without the Restoration
Movement, since first appearing in the
Millennial Harbinger for 1837.
Discussion of the
issues raised in
"conscientious sister"
from Lunenburg continued in later issues of this
periodical. Articles by
Thomas M. Henley--appeared in the Harbinger from 1837-1840.
Note the following references:
1837--pp. 411-414, 506-508, 561-567, 577-578
1838--pp. 348-349, 426-427, 520-521
1839--pp. 43-45, 124-128, 168-.179, 213-216, 292-294,
395-401,
475-476, 529-531,
547
1840--pp. 21-22, 106-109, 125-128, 162-165, 275-277
The statement by
to write the editor of the
Harbinger is in an article entitled "Letters to
may be kept in context, we
give the entire paragraph preceding the
statement and the paragraph in
which the statement is found. The
statement to which objection was
raised is printed in capital letters so as
to be easily identifiable.
"Touching
your inquiries on some matters, I hasten to observe,--that
our brethren generally
regard the church as the only moral or religious
association which they can lawfully
patronize. Hence they form not
Missionary, Education, Tract, Bible, Temperance,
Anti-Slavery
confederations. If these are good
works, they belong to the church in her
own proper character; and
every member of the church is, as a Christian,
obliged to promote these
objects as far as he has the means and the
opportunity. The Christian
institution, in our judgment, demands of all its
subjects their best efforts to
put down all profanity, unrighteousness,
injustice, oppression, and
cruelty in the world; and to promote every
benevolent, humane, and charitable
object which can ameliorate the
conditions of human existence.
That the gospel ought to be preached; that
evangelists or missionaries ought
to be sent out and sustained by the
church; that the whole
community should be intellectually and morally
educated--every child born upon
our soil so trained as to be a useful, safe
and honorable
member of society; that the Bible always, and sometimes
religious tracts, newspapers,
magazines and pamphlets should be widely
circulated in the world; that
Christians should be temperate in all things,
and especially so in the
use of all intoxicating liquors, and perhaps
sometimes wholly abstinent; that
they should not, after communing at the
Lord's table, unite in any secret,
political, or moral combination with the
Lord's enemies, Turks, Jews, or Atheists; that they should
oppose all
schemes of robbery and oppression,
whether the victims be white, black,
or yellow--bond servant or
hired servant; that Christians should render to
their servants every thing
that is just and equal; that they should not, even
when the laws permit them,
violate or cause others to violate God's most
ancient, venerable, and holy
institution of marriage, by selling a wife from
her husband, or infants
from the embraces of maternal and paternal
affection; that they should treat
every human being, without regard to
political or other factitious and
circumstantial distinctions and differences,
as their fellow-creatures,
as subjects of God's philanthropy, to be taught
his religion, and trained
for immortality, are propositions or tenets held by
us sacred as the precepts
of Christ.
We would, indeed,
have no objections to co-operate in these matters
with all Christians, and
raise contributions for all such purposes as, in our
judgment, are promotive of the Divine glory or of human happiness,
whether or not they belong to our
churches: FOR WE FIND IN ALL
PROTESTANT PARTIES CHRISTIANS as exemplary as ourselves
according to their and our
relative knowledge and opportunities; but we
cannot form a confederacy with
the troops of Satan, or tax his subjects to
sustain the Christian cause;
and, therefore, so long as all these
associations openly and avowedly
form a community on any one of these
bonds of union, irrespective
of citizenship in the kingdom of heaven; I
say, so long as they hold
communion with profane and ungodly persons,
or with Gentiles of no
creed and every creed, because of a single point of
coincidence, whatever that point
may be, we cannot unite with them, or
sail under such a flag.
Besides, if such schemes are really necessary, then
has the church failed--then
the Divine institution must yield the palm to
institutions merely human. (pp.
271-273)
ANY CHRISTIANS AMONG PROTESTANT PARTIES.
Lunenburg, July 8th, 1837.
"Dear
brother Campbell-- I WAS much surprised to-day, while
reading the Harbinger, to see
that you recognize the Protestant parties as
Christian. You say, you 'find in all Protestant parties
Christians.'
"Dear
brother, my surprize and ardent desire to do what is
right,
prompt me to write to you at
this time. I feel well assured, from the
estimate you place on the female
character, that you will attend to my
feeble questions in search of
knowledge.
"Will you be
so good as to let me know how any one becomes a
Christian? What act of yours gave you the name of Christian?
At what
time had Paul the name of
Christ called on him? At what time did
Cornelius have Christ named on him? Is it not through this
name we
obtain eternal life? Does the
name of Christ or Christian belong to any but
those who believe the gospel,
repent, and are buried by baptism into the
death of Christ?"
In reply to this
conscientious sister, I observe, that if there be no
Christians in the Protestant sects, there are certainly none
among the
Romanists, none among the Jews, Turks, Pagans; and therefore
no
Christians in the world except ourselves, or such of us as
keep, or strive
to keep, all the
commandments of Jesus. Therefore, for many centuries
there has been no church of
Christ, no Christians in the world; and the
promises concerning the
everlasting
the gates of hell have
prevailed against his church! This cannot be; and
therefore there are Christians
among the sects.
But who is a
Christian? I answer, Every one that believes in his
heart that Jesus of Nazareth
is the Messiah, the son of God; repents of his
sins, and obeys him in all
things according to his measure of knowledge
of his will. A perfect man
in Christ, or a perfect Christian, is one thing;
and "a babe in
Christ," a stripling in the faith, or an imperfect Christian,
is another. The New
Testament recognizes both the perfect man and the
imperfect man in Christ. The
former, indeed, implies the latter. Paul
commands the imperfect
Christians to "be perfect," (2
Cor. iii. 11.) and
says he wishes the
perfection of Christians. "And this also we wish" for
you saints in
speak wisdom among the
perfect," (1 Cor. ii. 6.) and
he commands them
to be "perfect in
understanding," (1 Cor. xiv. 20.) and in many other
places implies or speaks the
same things. Now there is perfection of will,
of temper, and of behaviors. There is a perfect state and a perfect
character. And hence it is
possible for Christians to be imperfect in some
respects without an absolute
forfeiture of the Christian state and
character. Paul speaks of
"carnal" Christians, of "weak" and "strong"
Christians; and the Lord Jesus admits that some of the good
and
honest-hearted bring forth only thirty
fold, while others bring forth sixty,
and some a hundred fold
increase of the fruits of righteousness.
But every one is
wont to condemn others in that in which he is more
intelligent than they; while, on
the other hand, he is condemned for his
Pharisaism or his immodesty and
rash judgment of others, by those that
excel in the things in which
he is deficient. I cannot, therefore, make any
one duty the standard of
Christian state or character, not even immersion
into the name of the father,
of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and in my
heart regard all that have
been sprinkled in infancy without their own
knowledge and consent, as aliens
from Christ and the well-grounded hope
of heaven. "Salvation
was of the Jews," acknowledged the Messiah; and
yet he said of a foreigner,
an alien from the
Syro-Phenician, "I
have not found so great faith--no, not in
Should I find a Pedobaptist more intelligent in the Christian
Scriptures, more spiritually-minded and more devoted to the
Lord than a
Baptist, or one immersed on a profession of the ancient
faith, I could not
hesitate a moment in giving the
preference of my heart to him that loveth
most. Did I act otherwise, I would be a pure sectarian, a Pharisee among
Christians. Still I will be asked, How do I know that any
one loves my
Master but by his obedience to his commandments? I answer, In no other
way. But mark, I do not
substitute obedience to one commandment, for
universal or even for general
obedience. And should I see a sectarian
Baptist or a Pedobaptist more
spiritually-minded, more generally
conformed to the requisitions of
the Messiah, than one who precisely
acquiesces with me in the theory
or practice of immersion as I teach,
doubtless the former rather than
the latter, would have my cordial
approbation and love as a
Christian. So I judge, and so I feel. It is the
image of Christ the Christian
looks for and loves; and this does not
consist in being exact in a few
items, but in general devotion to the whole
truth as far as known.
With me mistakes
of the understanding and errors of the affections
are not to be confounded.
They are as distant as the poles. An angel may
mistake the meaning of a
commandment, but he will obey it in the sense
in which he understands
it. John Bunyan and John Newton were very
different persons, and had very
different views of baptism, and of some
other things; yet they were
both disposed to obey, and to the extent of
their knowledge did obey the
Lord in every thing.
There are mistakes with, and without
depravity. There are wilful
errors which all the world
must condemn, and unavoidable mistakes
which every one will pity.
The Apostles mistook the Saviour when he said
concerning John, "What if I
will that John tarry till I come;" but the Jews
perverted his words when they
alleged that Abraham had died, in proof
that he spake
falsely when he said, "If a man keep my word he shall never
see death."
Many a good man
has been mistaken. Mistakes are to be regarded
as culpable and as
declarative of a corrupt heart only when they proceed
from a wilful neglect of the
means of knowing what is commanded.
Ignorance is always a crime when it is voluntary; and
innocent when it is
involuntary. Now, unless I could
prove that all who neglect the positive
institutions of Christ and have
substituted for them something else of
human authority, do it
knowingly, or, if not knowingly, are voluntarily
ignorant of what is written, I
could not, I dare not say that their mistakes
are such as unchristianize all their professions.
True, indeed,
that it is always a misfortune to be ignorant of any
thing in the Bible, and very
generally it is criminal. But how many are
there who cannot read; and of
those who can read, how many are so
deficient in education; and of
those educated, how many are ruled by the
authority of those whom they
regard as superiors in knowledge and piety,
that they never can escape
out of the dust and smoke of their own
chimney, where they happened to
be born and educated! These all suffer
many privations and many
perplexities, from which the more intelligent
are exempt.
The preachers of
"essentials," as well as the preachers of
"nonessentials,"
frequently err. The Essentialist may disparage the heart,
while the Non-essentialist
despises the institution. The latter makes void
the institutions of Heaven,
while the former appreciates not the mental
bias on which God looketh most. My correspondent may belong to a class
who think that we detract
from the authority and value of an institution
the moment we admit the
bare possibility of any one being saved without
it. But we choose rather
to associate with those who think that they do not
undervalue either seeing or
hearing, by affirming that neither of them, nor
both of them together, are
essential to life. I would not sell one of my eyes
for all the gold on earth;
yet I could live without it.
There is no
occasion, then, for making immersion, on a profession
of faith, absolutely essential
to a Christian--though it may be greatly
essential to his sanctification
and comfort. My right hand and my right
eye are greatly essential
to my usefulness and happiness, but not to my
life; and as I could not be
a perfect man without them, so I cannot be a
perfect Christian without a
right understanding and a cordial reception of
immersion in its true and
scriptural meaning and design. But he that
thence infers that none are
Christians but the immersed, as greatly errs as
he who affirms that none
are alive but those of clear and full vision.
I do not formally
answer all the queries proposed knowing the one
point to which they all aim.
To that point only I direct these remarks. And
while I would unhesitatingly
say that I think that every man who despises
any ordinance of Christ or
who is willingly ignorant of it, cannot be a
Christian; still I should sin against my own convictions,
should I teach
any one to think that if he
mistook the meaning of any institution while in
his soul he desired to know
the whole will of God he must perish forever.
But to conclude for the present--he that claims for himself
a license to
neglect the least of all the
commandments of Jesus because it is possible
for some to be saved who
through insuperable ignorance or involuntary
mistake, do neglect or
transgress it; or he that wilfully neglects to
ascertain the will of the Lord to
the whole extent of his means and
opportunities because some who are
defective in that knowledge may be
Christians, is not possessed of the spirit of Christ and
cannot be registered
among the Lord's people. So I
reason; and I think in so reasoning I am
sustained by all the Prophets and
Apostles of both Testaments. A.C.
CHRISTIANS AMONG THE SECTS.
In an article on
a query from Lunenburg which appeared in the
September number, certain sentences have been objected to by
some two
or three intelligent and
much esteemed correspondents. We gave it as our
opinion that there were
Christians among the Protestant sects; an opinion,
indeed, which we have always
expressed when called upon. If I mistake
not, it is distinctly
avowed in our first Extra on Remission; yet it is now
supposed by these brethren that
I have conceded a point of which I have
hitherto been tenacious and that
I have misapplied certain portions of
scripture in supporting said
opinion. In the article alluded to, we have said
that we "cannot make
any one duty the standard of Christian state or
character, not even Christian
immersion," &c. Again, we have said that
"there is no occasion for
making immersion on a profession of faith
absolutely essential to a
Christian, though it may be greatly essential to
his sanctification and
comfort." These two sentences contain the pith and
marrow of the objectionable
portion of said article to which we again
refer the reader.
Much depends upon
the known temper and views of a querist in
shaping an answer to his
questions. This was the case in this instance. We
apprehended that the propounder of the queries that called for these
remarks was rather an ultraist on the subject of Christian baptism; so far
at least as not to allow
that the name Christian is at all applicable to one
unimmersed, or even to
one immersed, without the true intent and
meaning of baptism in his
understanding previous to his burial in water.
This we gathered from her epistle; and of course gave as
bold an answer
as we ever gave--perhaps
more bold than on any former occasion, yet
nothing differing from our
former expressed views on that subject.
My high regard
for these correspondents, however, calls for a few
remarks on those sentences, as
farther explanatory of our views. We
cheerfully agree with them, as
well as with our sister of Lunenburg, that
the term Christian was
given first to immersed believers and to none else;
but we do not think that it
was given to them because they were
immersed, but because they had
put on Christ; and therefore we presume
to opine, that, like every
other word in universal language, even this term
may be used as Paul
sometimes uses the words saint and sinner, Jew and
Gentile--in a part of their signification.
We have, in
Paul's style, the inward and the outward Jews; and may
we not have the inward and
the outward Christians? for true it is, that he
is not always a Christian
who is one outwardly: and one of my
correspondents will say, 'Neither is
he a Christian who is one inwardly.'
But all agree that he is, in the full sense of the word, a
Christian who is
one inwardly and outwardly.
As the same
Apostle reasons on circumcision, so we would reason
on
baptism:--"Circumcision," says the learned Apostle, "is not that
which
is outward in the
flesh;" that is, as we apprehend the Apostle, it is not that
which is outward in the
flesh; but "circumcision is that of the heart, in the
spirit, and not in the letter
[only,] whose praise is of God, and not of
man." So is baptism.
It is not outward in the flesh only but in the spirit
also. We argue for the
outward and the inward--the outward for men,
including ourselves--the inward
for God; but both the outward and the
inward for the praise both of
God and of men.
Now the nice
point of opinion on which some brethren differ
is this: Can a person who
simply, not perversely, mistakes the outward
baptism, have the inward? We
all agree that he who willfully or
negligently perverts the outward
cannot have the inward. But can he who,
through a simple mistake,
involving no perversity of mind, has
misapprehended the outward baptism,
yet submitting to it according to
his view of it, have the
inward baptism which changes his state and has
praise of God, though not of
all men? is the precise question. To which I
answer, that, in my opinion,
it is possible. Farther than this I do not
affirm.
My reasons for
this opinion are various; two of which we have only
time and space to offer at
this time. Of seven difficulties it is the least;
two of these seven, which,
on a contrary hypothesis would occur, are
insuperable:--The promises
concerning an everlasting Christian church
have failed; and then it
would follow that not a few of the brightest names
on earth of the last three
hundred years should have to be regarded as
subjects of the
None of our
brethren regard baptism as only outward. They all
believe that in the outward
submersion of the body in the water, there is at
the same time the inward
submersion of the mind and heart into Christ.
They do moreover suppose that the former may be without the
latter.
They have only to add that it is possible for the latter to
be not without the
former in some sense, but
without it in the sense which Christ ordained.
Still my opinion
is no rule of action to my brethren, nor would I
offer it unsolicited to any
man. But while we inculcate faith, repentance,
and baptism upon all, as
essential to their constitutional citizenship in the
Messiah's kingdom, and to their sanctification and comfort
as Christians,
no person has a right to
demand our opinions on all the differences of this
generation,
except for his private
gratification. He is certainly safer who obeys from
the heart "that mould
of doctrine" delivered to us by the Apostles; and he
only has praise of God and
man, and of himself as a Christian, who
believes, repents, is baptized,
and keeps all the ordinances, positive and
moral, as delivered to us by
the holy Apostles.
The scriptures
quoted in the essay complained of, are all applied to
the Christian character,
and not to the Christian state, as contemplated by
one of our correspondents.
'They are therefore not misapplied. It is hoped
these general remarks will be
satisfactory on this point. A.C.
ANY CHRISTIANS AMONG THE SECTS?
JUDGING from
numerous letters received at this office, my reply to
the sister from Lunenburg
has given some pain to our brethren, and some
pleasure to our sectarian
friends. The builders up of the parties tauntingly
say to our brethren,
"Then we are as safe as you," and "You are coming
over to us, having now
conceded the greatest of all points--viz. that
immersion is not essential to a
Christian." Some of our brethren seem to
think that we have
neutralized much that has been said on the importance
of baptism for remission,
and disarmed them of much of their artillery
against the ignorance, error,
and indifference of the times upon the whole
subject of Christian duty and
Christian privilege.
My views of Opinionism forbid me to dogmatize or to labor
to
establish my own opinion, and
therefore I hope to be excused for not
publishing a hundred letters for
and against said opinion. Only one point
of importance would be
gained by publishing such a correspondence; and
I almost regret that we have not a volume to spare for it.
It would indeed
fully open the eyes of the
community to the fact that there are but few
"Campbellites"
in the country. Too many of my correspondents, however,
seem to me to have written
rather to show that they are not
"Campbellites,"
than to show that my opinion is false and unfounded.
While, then, I
have no wish to dogmatize, and feel no obligation to
contend for the opinion itself,
I judge myself in duty bound to attempt--
1st. To defend myself from the charge of inconsistency.
2nd. To defend the opinion from the sectarian application of it.
3rd. To offer
some reasons for delivering such an opinion at this
time.
I. With all
despatch, then, I hasten to show that I have neither
conceded nor surrendered any
thing for which I ever contended; but that
on the contrary, the
opinion now expressed, whether true or false, is one
that I have always avowed.
(Footnote in original reads: It is with us as old
as baptism for the
remission of sins, and this is at least as old as the
"Christian Baptist." Read the
first two numbers of that work.)
1. Let me
ask, in the first place, what could mean all that we
have written upon the union
of Christians on apostolic grounds, had we
taught that all Christians in
the world were already united in our own
community?
2. And in
the second place, why should we so often have
quoted and applied to apostate
Christendom what the Spirit saith to saints
in
sins, and that you receive
not of her plagues"--had we imagined that the
Lord had no people beyond the pale of our communion!
3. But let
him that yet doubts, read the following passages
from the Christian Baptist,
April, 1825:--"I have no idea of seeing, nor
wish to see, the sects unite
in one grand army. This would be dangerous
to our liberties and laws.
For this the Saviour did not pray. It is only the
disciples dispersed among them
that reason and benevolence would call
out of them, "&c.
&c. This looks very like our present opinion of
Christians among the sects!!! 2d ed.
4. Again,
speaking of purity of speech in order to the union of
Christians, we say, "None of you [Christians] have ever
yet attempted to
show how Christians can be
united on your principles. You have often
showed how they may be
divided, and how each party may hold its own,
but while you pray for the
visible unity of the disciples, and advocate their
visible disunity, we cannot
understand you." March, 1827, vol. 4.
5. Various
essays and letters on "Christian union" from our
correspondents, are given to our
readers with our approbation; from one
of which we quote these
words:--"I suppose all agree that among
Christians of every name there are disciples of Jesus
Christ, accepted of
God in him, real members of his body, branches in the true
vine, and
therefore all one in
Christ." October, 1826, vol. 4, p. 53.
6. ln a letter to Spencer Clack,
August, 1826, I have said, "As
to what you say concerning
the evils of division among Christians, I have
nothing to object. I sincerely
deplore every division, and every sectarian
feeling which now exists; and
if I thought there was any man on this
continent who would go farther
than I to heal all divisions and to unite all
Christians on constitutional grounds, I would travel on foot
a hundred
miles to see him and confess
my faults to him." vol. 5, p. 15.
7. On the evening before my departure to debate with Mr.
Owen, vol. 6, p. 239, April 6, 1829, in alluding to that
crisis, I say--"I
rejoice to know and feel that I
have the good wishes, the prayers, and the
hopes of myriads of
Christians in all denominations." So speak the pages
of the Christian Baptist
on many occasions. (Original footnote states: "Let
the curious reader consult
the essays on Christian Union in the Christian
Baptist, so far as I have approbated them, especially my
replies to an
Independent Baptist.")
8. The views of the Millennial Harbinger on
this subject are
condensed in a work called
"Christianity Restored," or, as we have
designated it, "A Connected
View of the Principles," &c. "of the
Foundation on which all Christians may form one
communion." (See its
title-page!!)
9. In that volume there is a long article on the foundation of
Christian union, showing how the Christians among the sects
may be
united. We refer to the whole
of this article from page 101 to 128, as the
most unequivocal proof of
our views of Christians among the sects.
Indeed we say (page 102) of our own community, that it is a
nucleus
around which may one day
congregate all the children of God. In that
article we wax bolder and
bolder, and ask, (page 121,) "Will sects ever
cease? Will a time ever come
when all disciples will unite under one
Lord, in one faith, in one immersion? Will divisions ever be
healed? Will
strife ever cease among the
saints on earth?"
10. But in
the last place in the first Extra on Baptism for
Remission of Sins, we exclude from the pale of Christianity
of the
Pedobaptists, none but
such of them as "wilfully neglect this salvation,
and who, having the
opportunity to be immersed for the remission of sins,
wilfully neglect or
refuse"--"of such," indeed, but of none others, we say,
"We have as little hope for them as they have for all
who refuse salvation
on their own terms of the
gospel." 1st Extra, 1st ed. p. 53.
With these ten
evidences or arguments, I now put it to the candor of
those who accuse us of
inconsistency or change of views, whether they
have not most evidently
misrepresented us. Were it necessary we could
easily swell these ten into a
hundred.
II. We shall now
attempt to defend this opinion from the sectarian
application of it:--
1. It affords
them too much joy for the consolation which it brings;
because it imparts no certainty
of pardon or salvation to any particular
unbaptized person
whatsoever.
In reference to
this opinion, all the unimmersed are to be ranged in
two classes;--those who
neither know nor care for this opinion, and those
who know it and rejoice in
it. It will require but a moment's reflection to
perceive that those who care
nothing for this opinion will not rejoice it
nor abuse it; and that
those who would, for their own sake, rejoice in it
are not included in it. He
that rejoices in such an opinion, for his own
sake, has had the subject
under consideration; and it is a thousand
chances to one that he is obstinately
or willingly in error on the subject;
and, therefore, in the very
terms of the opinion, he is precluded from any
interest in it. His joy, indeed,
is strong presumptive evidence against him;
because it is proof that he is
one sided in his feelings, which no upright
mind can be--at least such a
mind as is contemplated in the opinion; for it
respects only those who have not
had any debate with themselves upon
the subject, and have,
without any examination or leaning, supposed
themselves to have been baptized.
In no case,
indeed, can there be the same certainty (all things else
being equal) that he who was
sprinkled, poured, or immersed on some
other person's faith; or that
he who was sprinkled, or poured on his own
faith, shall be saved, as
there is that he that first believes and is then, on
his own confession,
immersed, shall be saved. In the former case, at best,
we have only the fallible
inference or opinion of man; while in the latter
we have the sure and
unerring promise of our Saviour and Judge. It
cannot be too emphatically
stated that he that rejoices for his own sake,
that he may be accepted by
the Lord on his infant or adult pouring or
sprinkling, because of his dislike
to, or prejudice against believer's
immersion, gives unequivocal
evidence of the want of state of mind
which is contemplated in the
opinion expressed; and has proved himself
to be a seeker of his own
will and pleasure, rather than rejoicing in the
will and pleasure of God;
and for such persons we can have no favorable
opinion.
2. But that the
aforesaid opinion does not disarm us of our
arguments against ignorance,
error and indifference, is evident; because it
assumes that the person in
question is acting up to the full measure of his
knowledge upon the subject, and
that he has not been negligent,
according to his opportunities,
to ascertain the will of his Master; for in
the very terms of the
opinion he is not justified, but self-condemned, who
only doubts, or is not fully
persuaded that his baptism is apostolic and
divine.
3. To admit that
there may be Christians among the sects, does not
derogate from the value or
importance of baptism for the remission of
sins, any more than it
derogates from the superior value and excellency of
the Christian Institution
to admit that salvation was possible to the Jews
and Patriarchs without the
knowledge and experience of all the
developments of the New Testament.
For besides the Christian
disposition, state and character,
there are the Christian privileges. Now, in
our judgment, there is not
on a earth a person who can have as full an
assurance of justification or of
remission of sins, as the person who has
believed, confessed his faith,
and been intelligently buried and raised with
the Lord; and therefore the
present salvation never can be so fully
enjoyed, all things else being
equal, by the unimmersed as by the
immersed.
4. Again, as
every sect agrees, that a person immersed on a
confession of his faith is truly
baptized, and only a part of Christendom
admits the possibility of any
other action as baptism: for the sake of union
among Christians, it may be
easily shown to be the duty of all believers to
be immersed, if for no
other reason than that of honoring the divine
institution and opening a way for
the union and co-operation of all
Christians. Besides, immersion gives a constitutional right
of citizenship
in the universal
themselves being judges, their
"baptism" gives the rights of citizenship
only in some provinces of
that kingdom. For as far as baptism is
concerned, the Greek, the Roman,
the English, the Lutheran, the
Calvinian, the Arminian, the Baptist communities will receive the
immersed; while only a part of
Christendom will acknowledge the
sprinkled or the poured.
Therefore, our opinion militates not against the
value of baptism in any
sense.
5. In the last
place, to be satisfied with any thing that will just do in
religion, is neither the
Christian disposition nor character; and not to
desire to know and do the
whole will of God, places the individual out of
the latitude and longitude
of the opinion which we have advanced. These
things being so, then we ask,
wherein does the avowal of such an opinion
disarm us of arguments for
professor or profane, on the value of the
baptism in the Christian
Institution; or the importance and necessity of
separating one's self from all
that will not keep the commandments of
Jesus; and of submitting without delay to the requisitions
of the illustrious
Prophet whom the Almighty Father has commanded all men to
obey?
III. In the third
and last place, we offer some reasons for delivering
such an opinion at this
time:--
1. We were
solicited by a sister to explain a saying quoted
from the current volume of
this work, concerning finding "Christians in
all Protestant
parties." She proposed a list of questions, involving, as she
supposed, either insuperable
difficulties or strong objections to that
saying; and because she well
knew what answers I would have given to
all her queries, I answered
them not: but attended to the difficulty which I
imagined she felt in the
aforesaid saying.
2. But we
had still more urgent reasons than the difficulties of
this sister to express such
an opinion:-- Some of our brethren were too
much addicted to denouncing
the sects and representing them en masse as
wholly aliens from the
possibility of salvation--as wholly antichristian and
corrupt. Now as the Lord says
of
I felt constrained to rebuke them over the shoulders of this
inquisitive
lady. These very zealous
brethren gave countenance to the popular clamor
that we make baptism a
saviour, or a passport to heaven, disparaging all
the private and social
virtues of the professing public. Now as they were
propounding their opinions to
others, I intended to bring them to the
proper medium by propounding
an opinion to them in terms as strong and
as pungent as their own.
The case is this:
When I see a person who would die for Christ
whose brotherly kindness,
sympathy, and active benevolence know no
bounds but his circumstances;
whose seat in the Christian assembly is
never empty; whose inward
piety and devotion are attested by punctual
obedience to every known duty;
whose family is educated in the fear of
the Lord; whose constant
companion is the Bible: I say, when I see such a
one ranked among the
heathen men and publicans, because he never
happened to inquire, but always
took it for granted that he had been
scripturally baptized; and that,
too, by one greatly destitute of all these
public and private virtues,
whose chief or exclusive recommendation is
that he has been immersed,
and that he holds a scriptural theory of the
gospel: I feel no disposition
to flatter such a one; but rather to disabuse
him of his error. And while
I would not lead the most excellent professor
in any sect to disparage
the least of all the commandments of Jesus, I
would say to my immersed
brother as Paul said to his Jewish brother who
gloried in a system which he
did not adorn: "Sir, will not his
uncircumcision, or unbaptism, be counted to him for baptism? and will he
not condemn you, who,
though having the literal and true baptism, yet
dost transgress or neglect
the statutes of your King?"
3. We have a
third reason: We have been always accused of
aspiring to build up and head a
party, while in truth we have always been
forced to occupy the ground on
which we now stand. I have for one or
two years past labored to annul this impression, which I know is more
secretly and generally bandied
about than one in a hundred of our
brethren may suspect. On this
account I consented the more readily to
defend Protestantism; and I
have, in ways more than I shall now state,
endeavored to show the
Protestant public that it is with the greatest
reluctance we are compelled to
stand aloof from them--that they are the
cause of this great
"schism," as they call it, and not we.
Now, with this
exposition in mind, let us examine the meaning of
the alleged concession. And
first let me ask, What could induce us to
make it at this crisis? or, I should more correctly say, to repeat it so
strongly?
No one will say
our opponents have compelled us by force of
argument to make it. Themselves being judges, we have lost nothing in
argument. All agree that the
"concession" was uncalled for--a perfect
free-will offering.
Neither can they
say that we envy their standing, or would wish to
occupy their ground; because,
to say nothing of our having the pure
original gospel institutions
among us, regarding us merely as a new sect
like themselves, we have no
reason to wish to be with them, inasmuch as
we have the best proselyting system in Christendom. Faith, repentance,
and baptism for the
remission of sins, with all the promises of the
Christian adoption and the heavenly calling to those who
thus put on
Christ, is incomparably in advance of the sectarian altar
and the straw--
the mourning bench, the
anxious seat, and all the other paraphernalia of
modern proselytism.
That it is so practically, as well as theoretically,
appears from the fact of its
unprecedented advances upon the most
discerning and devout portions of the
Protestant parties. No existing party
in this or the
father-lands has so steadily and rapidly advanced as that now
advocating the religion of the New
Testament. It has been successfully
plead within a few years in
almost every state and territory in this great
confederacy, and even in foreign
countries.
All agree, for a
thousand experiments prove it, that all that is
wanting is a competent number
of intelligent and consistent proclaimers,
to its general, if not
universal triumph, over all opposing systems. We
have lost much, indeed, by
the folly, hypocrisy, and wickedness of many
pretenders, and by the imprudence
and precipitancy of some good
brethren: yet from year to year
it bears up and advances with increasing
prosperity, as the present season
very satisfactorily attests.
Do we, then, seek
to make and lead a large exclusive sect or party?
Have we not the means! Why then concede any thing--even the
bare
possibility of salvation in any
other party, if actuated by such fleshly and
selfish considerations? With
all these facts and reasonings fresh in our
view, I ask, Is not such a
concession--such a free-will offering, at such a
time, the most satisfactory
and unanswerable refutation that could be
given to the calumny that we
seek the glory of building a new sect in
religion? If, then, as some of
our opponents say, we have made a new and
an unexpected concession
in their favor, we have done it at such a time,
in such circumstances, and
with such prospects before us, as ought (we
think) henceforth to silence
their imputations and reproaches on the
ground of selfish or partizan views and feelings.
Some of our
fellow-laborers seem to forget that approaches are
more in the spirit and style
of the Saviour, than reproaches. We have
proved to our entire
satisfaction, that having obtained a favorable
hearing,
a conciliatory, meek, and
benevolent attitude is not only the most comely
and Christian-like, but the
most successful. Many of the Protestant
teachers and their communities
are much better disposed to us than
formerly, and I calculate the
day is not far distant when many of them will
unite with us. They must
certainly come over to us whenever they come
to the Bible alone.
Baptists and Pedobaptists are daily feeling more and
more the need of reform, and
our views are certainly imbuing the public
mind more and more every
year.
But to conclude,
our brethren of
occasion at least of eliciting
at this time so strong an expression of our
opinion; and we have now many
letters from that region for one from any
other quarter on the
aforesaid opinion. Had not some of them greatly and
unreasonably abused the sects, or
countenanced, aided, and abetted them
that did so, and had not a
few in some other regions made Christianity to
turn more upon immersion
than upon universal holiness, in all probability
I would have answered the sister from Lunenburg in the
following
manner and style:--
The name
Christian is now current in four significations:--
1. The ancient
primitive and apostolic import simply indicates
follower of Christ. With a
strict regard to its original and scriptural
meaning, my favorite
and oft repeated definition is, A Christian is one
that habitually believes all
that Christ says, and habitually does all that he
bids him.
2. But its
national and very popular sense implies no more than a
professor of Christianity. Thus
we have the Christian nations, as well as
the Pagan and Mahometan nations; the Christian sects as well as the sects
political and philosophical.
3. But as soon as controversies arose about the ways and means
of
putting on Christ or of making
a profession of his religion, in a new and
special or appropriated sense,
"a Christian" means one who first believes
that Jesus is the Christ,
repents of his sins, is then immersed on
confession into Christ's death,
and thenceforth continues in the Christian
faith and practice.
4. But there yet
remains the sense in which I used the term in the
obnoxious phrase first quoted by
our sister of Lunenburg. As in the
judgment of many, some make the
profession right and live wrong; while
others make the profession
wrong, but live right; so they have adopted
this style--"I don't
know what he believes, nor how he was baptized, but I
know he is a
Christian." Thus Adam Clarke quotes some poet:
"You
different sects who all declare,
"Lo! Christ
is here, and Christ is there!
"Your
stronger proofs divinely give,
"And show me
where the Christians live!"
Now in this
acceptation of the word, I think there are many, in most
Protestant parties, whose errors and mistakes I hope the
Lord will forgive;
and although they should
not enter into all the blessings of the kingdom
on earth, I do fondly
expect they may participate in the resurrection of the
just.
The words Jew,
manner, even in the sacred
writings: "They are not all
and
outwardly"--"Then are you my disciples indeed," &c.
I am glad to see
our brethren so jealous of a correct style--so
discriminating, and so independent.
They are fast approaching to the habit
of calling Bible things by
Bible names. They only misunderstood me as
using the term in its
strictest biblical import, while in the case before us I
used it in its best modern
acceptation.
I could as easily
at first as at last have given this reply to our sister's
queries- but I thought the
times required something else--and I was not
mistaken. I have no doubt but it
will yet appear to all that I have pursued
in this the more useful
and salutary course.
Our Eastern
brethren were indeed, I opine, hasty and precipitate
enough in expressing
themselves--almost indeed before they had time to
hear and consider the whole
matter. I wish they had been as prompt on
another occasion, and I should
not have been addressed on this subject by
the worthy sister so often
named. But we are all learning and progressing
towards perfection. If any of
them, and not all, wish their communications
to appear in this work,
accompanied with a few pertinent remarks, I am in
duty bound, according to my plan,
to publish some of them.
I do not indeed
blame them altogether for being prompt; for I had
rather be an hour too soon as
half an hour too late; yet I think some
resolutions which I have received,
were, upon the whole, rather
premature. May the Lord bless all
the holy brethren, and give them
understanding in all things. A. C.
(furnished by Jim McMillan)