|
[Table of Contents] [Previous] [Next] |
Alexander Campbell
The Christian Baptist (1889) |
| NO. 7.] | FEBRUARY 6, 1826. |
Bigotry and Partiality.
THIS is a time of religious and political earthquakes. The religious communities of the new world, and the political suites of the old world are in circumstances essentially the same. A great political earthquake threatens to bury in its ruins tyrants and their systems of oppression. The ecclesiastical systems of the clergy appear destined to a similar fate. It is to be hoped that, as the New World took the lead in, and first experienced the blessings of, a political regeneration; so they will be foremost in the work, and first in participating the fruits of an ecclesiastical renovation.
All sects, new and old, seem like a reed shaken by the wind. Even the authority and infallibility of his Roman Holiness has been questioned by his own children in the New World. And who that has eyes to see, does not know that nothing but the sovereign charms of a monarch's smiles, and the strong chains forged from eight hundred millions of dollars in real estate,1 keep up the forms of Pope Eliza in the church of Saint Harry. The Solemn League and Covenant too, with the awful dogmas of the long parliament divinity; the test-oaths, and the sacred subscriptions to the saving canons of the kings of Saint Andrew, have failed to preserve, hale and uncorrupted, the pale of Presbyterian communion. The veteran chiefs, and the sanctified magi of the cause of uniformity, fear a volcanic eruption, alike ominous to themselves and their systems. Their "Religious Almanacs" portend comets, falling stars, and strange signs in the heavens, accompanied with eclipses of the greater and lesser lights that rule the night. Their constitution is motheaten, and the tinsel upon their frame of discipline has become dim.
And not less strange, the Reformation of John Wesley is already in need of reform. His people had scarce tested his system of government by the light, not of the bible, but of our political institutions, until they found it would eventuate in diocesan episcopacy, as tyrannical and as cruel as that which exiled Whitefield and the two Wesleys from the cloisters of "Christ's College" for reading the scriptures and praying.
The motto of the spirit of this age seems to be taken from the gigantic Young--
"Flaws in the best--full many flaws all o'er."
The Methodists, in the greatness of their strength, are rising to break the chains which threaten to bind them in the house of the Philistines. A host of reformers are about to reform this reformed system. We have seen their efforts, and rejoice. Though we are assured that when they shall have completed their projected reformation, they will then need a reform more thorough than yet they have attempted. We do not despise "their day of small things."
The following sensible remarks do honor to a work entitled "The Mutual Rights of Ministers and People," published in Baltimore by a reforming Methodist committee. We have only to add, that we have lamented that none seem to regret the evils of bigotry, partiality, and persecution, until they feel their dire effects; and that sometimes those who have once plead against persecution when themselves were the objects, plead for it when they had the sword by their side. But we give place to the following pertinent remarks. They are extracted from No. xiv. p. 28-31.
ED. C. B.
"SERIOUS reflection may convince us all, that reformation is highly necessary, not only in matters of church government, but even in our general views of experimental and practical religion. Let us instance one or two particulars.
"While the ministers of religion have been crying aloud, and very justly, against pride, and covetousness, and sensuality, and many other evils: how is it that the great evil of bigotry has been nourished in the heart of the christian church, as though it were an innocent or an indifferent thing? By bigotry, is meant, A man's obstinate attachment to an opinion, or set of opinions, which indisposes him to give a candid hearing to any thing else, and snakes him unwilling that his brother should have the same liberty of judgment which he claims for himself. This is one of the deepest and most violent roots of moral evil. It is a great, and seemingly insurmountable obstruction to the progress of truth and righteousness over the whole earth. It affords nourishment and defence for Infidelity, Mahometanism, Judaism, and for every other erroneous system under the sun. Its practical fruits also are abundant. It may be doubted whether covetousness, or sensuality, or the love of power, or the love of praise, have produced a more plentiful harvest of internal and external ungodliness, than this bitter enemy of all righteousness, which Zion's watchmen appear almost to have overlooked. For let it be considered that this same bigotry is the parent of almost all the evil surmisings, heart-burnings, rash judgments, hard speeches, oppressions, and persecutions, that can be found in the christian world. It not only makes null and void the arguments of an opponent; but, alas: it boldly impeaches his motives, and assails his moral character. Not only are his talents to go for nothing--not only are his labors to be despised; but his virtue and piety--his zeal and heavenly-mindedness, though supported by an unblamable life--all, all must be disposed of with indifference or contempt, by the high, and bitter, and sovereign dictates of bigotry! And yet this dark and [213] dreadful evil is not only winked at, but nourished in the hearts of all the churches in christendom! Would to Heaven this were a mistake! but, alas! the evidence is too manifest, that every church upon earth greatly needs a reformation in this particular. Infidels, and Mahometans, and, Heathens, and sinners of every description, may look on with astonishment, and see christians of every name, through the influence of this evil principle, animated with a more constant and flaming zeal against each other, than against the spirit of hell and all the works of darkness! And yet many seem not to be aware that it is to be regarded as a moral evil. Some, perhaps, may be found making high professions of justification and sanctification, and at the same time habitually nourishing this root of bitterness in their hearts. This is a mystery of mysteries, and can only be accounted for by supposing that a thick cloud of intellectual darkness has been overspreading the christian world, especially upon this subject. For a candid and faithful examination of the matter must surely convince every intelligent mind that it is as perfectly vain for a confirmed bigot to make professions of holiness, as for a confirmed thief to make a profession of honesty.
"Whether partiality must be regarded as the daughter, or as the sister of bigotry, may perhaps bear a dispute; but as they have the striking and identical likeness of twins, we may safely call them sisters. The just definition of partiality, is, the confined affection and confidence which a man has for his own party, and which produces a corresponding disaffection and distrust towards all others. How lovely, in the estimation of such a man, are all the peculiarities comprehended under the particular ism, by which he and his party are distinguished! and how dark and doubtful is all beside! While his mind is amusing itself in surveying the vast beauties of his party, and inimitable excellencies of its plan, the cloud which obscures the horizon of every other, appears to grow darker every hour! His feelings are sublime and inexpressible, and perhaps advance almost to that state of devotion which is due alone to the Deity, whose only plan is unexceptionable, and who has no party under the sun. Now as God has no party, and as his ministers are to do nothing by partiality, and as the wisdom which is from above is without partiality, as well as without hypocrisy, we might as well doubt whether hypocrisy be a moral evil, as to doubt whether partiality be such. And yet, alas! how has this great evil been spared in the christian world! And not only spared, but the presumption is, that both it and bigotry have been protected and encouraged as the great champions and defenders of each sectarian cause. They make a man zealous and decided--they make him resolute and courageous! Yes, and let it be added, they make him uncandid, fierce, dogmatical, and blind. They are as fine and acceptable allies for a Jew or a Turk--for a Pagan or an Atheist--as they are for a sectarian christian.
"Let us survey, a little further, these evil dispositions in human nature, that we may judge of them by their fruits.
"First, consider their effects within any religious denomination. They say to the soul of every member, So far shall you go in your meditations, and no farther: your business is not to inquire what is true, but merely to inquire what are the sentiments of our church, that you may defend them to the end of the world. You are not only to avoid contradicting them, but you are to make no addition to them; because our lovely plan is not only free from errors, but also contains the whole body of truth completely. You must silence every heretical thought of improvement, and merely walk in the good old way, as we have pointed it out to you. Thus, whatever error may be in the church, it seems it must be held fast to eternity. The intellectual faculties of the members must be hampered, and their hearts corrupted, by doing violence to honest conviction, and by warping both reason and revelation into the pale of their sectarian boundaries. And even the truth itself is hindered by these evils from producing its native and salutary effects: for truth, when believed merely with the faith of bigotry, is little better than error. Its evidence is not examined, and its value, as truth, is not apprehended; but merely its subserviency to the support of our beloved cause. For if we made our cause subservient to the truth, instead of making the truth subservient to it, we should be willing for our churches to follow the truth wheresoever it might lead the way.
"Secondly, consider their effects upon the different denominations, in their relation to each other. We stand with surprize and wonder, to behold the errors and absurdities of other denominations: they stand with equal surprize and wonder, to behold the errors and absurdities of ours: while the true cause of wonder is, that each party cannot see that they are all holding fast the same identical error, namely, the infallibility of our own party. One party enjoins on all its members to defend every thing here, and to oppose every thing there: the other party does the same. Thus the inquiry, What is truth? is neglected and laid aside. One says, There is no religion with you; and another, There is no religion with you. One says, That is a damnable heresy; and the other says, That is a damnable heresy. One wonders at the blindness and obstinacy of this people; the other wonders at the blindness and obstinacy of that people; while all Heaven pities the selfish vanity of man, and all Hell is pleased with our destructive and ridiculous conduct."
Bigotry.
AMONGST the indiscriminate usage and application of the term bigotry, it is not uncommon to find it very unwarrantably applied. It is used to excite public odium, where the thing which it is used to represent is no way disgusting. Hence some are called bigots, and accused of bigotry, for rejecting all written creeds except the bible; for being strict in worshipping God according to his commandments; for requiring the members of a christian community to obey God rather than men. And I have known infidels accuse a christian church of bigotry, because they would not retain in their fellowship immoral persons, or persons who denied the Lord that bought them; and those who, in the apostles estimation, denied the faith and were worse than an infidel. Those who dislike the institutions of the Messiah are often found reproaching those with bigotry who love and obey them. Indeed, there is no term, whether received in a good or a bad sense, that may not be most egregiously misapplied.
EDITOR.
The Casting Vote, or the Creed triumphant over
the Bible.
IN the Long Run Association, Kentucky, reporting three thousand and sixty four members, at the last annual meeting, the first Friday in September last, in Bullit county, a circular letter, [214] written by P. S. Fall, Bishop of the church in Louisville, in said state, advocating the scriptures as the one only sufficient, perfect, and infallible rule of christian faith and manners, and was rejected by the casting vote of Elder George Waller, Moderator of said meeting. It is not a little remarkable that the moderator, a descendant of the Walters of Virginia, once persecuted by the friends of an orthodox creed, should have saved this little relic of Papal Rome from the sepulchre of human traditions, just in the same manner as his prototype, Dr. Lightfoot saved infant sprinkling in the Westminster Assembly. The house was equally divided on both occasions, and the moderators in the same manner, and for the same reasons, saved their favorite relics. A handsome way, indeed, of establishing orthodoxy! Might not only makes wrong right, but changes error into truth. The minority had the proscribed letter published; and we are happy in being able to lay before our readers a few sketches of it. We are sorry that our limits forbid more lengthy extracts.
"It is not unfrequently said, by word of mouth, as well as in creeds, that "the word of God is the only, and the sufficient and perfect rule of faith and practice." While this is admitted in word by all religious denominations, it is to be feared that but few feel the force, or understand the import of their own declaration. Let them but critically examine every part of this sentence, and while it appears in direct accordance with the word itself, it is in complete violation of the practice of almost all; for if the declaration be true, that the "word of God" is the only, sufficient, and perfect rule in ALL things pertaining to belief or conduct, why are creeds, confessions and human formulas of doctrine, practice, government and experience, established as the exclusive tests of all, to the manifest deterioration of the bible, while churches rest contented with the bare declaration of its sufficiency?"
"In illustration of the importance of the Holy Bible, permit us to examine the position that the word of God is the only sufficient and perfect rule of our faith and practice."
"We observe, first: It is "the rule of faith." When we speak of "faith," we do not allude to a system of doctrine, in the common acceptation of the term, but to the very facts and truths which must be believed in order to salvation. It is supposed to be of very little importance whether a man be a Calvinist or Arminian; whether he adopt the Gillite, Fullerite, Hopkinsian, or Triangular system of Calvinism; or whether he reject all, (these systems themselves being judges,) so that he believe "the record God has given of his Son," and move in obedience to the truth; so that his "experience" coincides with the bible; all is then supposed to be right, whatever system he adopts. Now there is a manifest inconsistency between the two parts of this hypothesis; for all these systems propose themselves to us as true, yet they are all contrary, the one to the other; and if really thus at variance, and persons of equal intelligence and supposed piety be found among their advocates, how can all believe the record God has given of his Son, when all believe things so different? How can all move in obedience to the truth, when all move different ways? How can all have experiences coincident with the bible, when all have experiences coincident with the systems they maintain, thus at variance with each other? In fact, it is absurd to distinguish between a man's faith and what he believes, between a man's experience and what he knows; for faith is belief--experience is knowledge."
"Thirdly. They are the only rule of both. As our faith and conduct are so intimately connected, that if the former be defective, the latter must be so of consequence--it is of vast importance to us that there be some definite standard by which to measure both, and ascertain their character. If there were more rules than one, and all agreed, all but one would be unnecessary; and if they disagreed, no one could ascertain which had the highest claim on our attention. We therefore should be left without any. There can, therefore, be but one only infallible standard of faith and practice; and this must be supported by evidence, internal and external, sufficient to prove its truth. It is not for us now to enter upon the consideration of the evidences of the inspiration of the Holy Bible; but there is one which demonstrates it to be that one only and infallible rule. It is the plainest book in the world. It is better adapted to all capacities than any other; and, as the Confession of Faith says, "any one with ordinary sense can understand it." When we read the Bible, we are often apt to look for some dark hidden meaning, which none but the preachers are supposed capable of understanding; (and hence the necessity of a special call and the communication of peculiar powers from on high;) but it is abundantly clear, that the meaning of every part of the New Testament is to be ascertained by an attentive study, not only of what is written, but why it was written, and that the literal and obvious meaning of words and phrases is the true meaning of those employed in the communication of divine truths."
"We observe, fourthly, that the word of God is the only sufficient rule of faith and practice."
"If we were to suppose that it were insufficient, should we not arraign the wisdom and benevolence of Heaven? If Jehovah could have given a sufficient rule of faith and practice, and would not do it, what ideas could we form of his benevolence? If his benevolence would have prompted him to give a sufficient rule, and he could not do it, he is of necessity deficient in wisdom; but he has given us the Holy Volume and has declared it to be sufficient--"able to make us wise to salvation," to give us "an inheritance among all them which are sanctified," and "to save our souls." Jas. i. 21. Now every attempt to attach importance to any other rule than this, is evidently a blow aimed both at the wisdom and benevolence of God; since these have furnished us with the Holy Bible, and we lay it aside to examine ourselves, our brethren, and christian churches, by the works of men's hands--creeds and confessions of faith, and by these determine who is orthodox or the contrary. These things may not be palatable, brethren, but they are lamentably true, and require our most serious consideration."
"Lastly, the word of God is the only, sufficient, and perfect rule of faith and obedience."
"To suppose that God would communicate to his creatures any revelation that is imperfect, would shock all common sense. The denunciations against those who add to, or take from the Holy Volume, demonstrate that it needs neither increase nor diminution. All that God intends to reveal to the children of men, is to be found in the Bible. No new revelation need be expected, nor is one requisite, since all things necessary to know, to believe, and to do, to order to salvation, are given us already." [215]
WE are happy to discover in the Minutes of said Association, the progress of principles which augur a growing regard for, and investigation of, the infallible rule of faith and practice, as the following items show:--
"Query from Elk Creek.--Is it for the honor of the cause of Christ, that all ordained Baptist preachers be called Bishops? If not, who are to be so named?
"In reply to this query we state, that it was evidently the practice in the first churches to denominate the Pastor of one congregation a Bishop. It is also clear that the terms Elder, Shepherd, Teacher, and Overseer, all refer to the same persons. It is, therefore, according to the word of God, and for the honor of the cause of Christ, that the teacher of one congregation be called a Bishop.
"The following queries from the church at Louisville, were referred to the churches for their investigation, with the request that they will express their sentiments upon them in their next letters:--
"1. Is there any authority in the New Testament for religious bodies to make human creeds and confessions of faith the constitutions or directories of such bodies in matters of faith or practice?
"2. Is there any authority in the New Testament for Associations? If so, what is it? If not, why are they held?
"The following query from the church at Shelbyville, is also referred as above, viz. "Are our Associations, as annually attended, of general utility?"
Confessions of Faith--Confessions of Opinion.
AFTER all that has been said on this subject, there is not a sect in this country, of which we have heard, that has a confession of faith, properly so called. They have books and pamphlets, which they call by this name, and by which they impose upon themselves and upon one another. If it be not too late, we would give them a true and proper name, a name which we are assured every man of good sense and of common education must approve, as well as agree to discard the common name as a misnomer, as incorrect, and as absurd. The proper name of those instruments is, doubtless, according to the English language, A Confession of Opinions, or, Confessions of Opinions. If there be any difference between faith and opinion, (and that there is, all languages and dictionaries declare,) then the name we have given them is perfectly apropos, and their common name perfectly incongruous.
All writers on faith, properly so called, define it to be, "the belief of testimony, either human or divine." And opinion is, "the notions, judgment, or view which the mind forms of any thing." For example, I believe the testimony which God has given to Jesus of Nazareth, or I believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, the Son of the living God. This is a well attested fact, in proof of which the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit have given, or agree in one testimony. Concerning this person, his mission, and character, various opinions may be formed. All things testified of him are articles or items of belief; and all views, judgments, or notions formed of the things testified, are matters of opinion. Now all the abstract views of God and man, of things present and future, with which these confessions are replete, are matters of opinion; and as the general character of these books should fix upon them their name, they should be styled Confessions of Opinions. To speak philosophically, I believe what is testified, I know what I have observed or experienced, and I am of opinion in all things speculative. It is true, in one sense, I may be said to know what I have believed, when my faith has been proved by observation and experience. But the terms faith, knowledge, and, opinion, should never be confounded. I believe that Jesus Christ died for our sins, I know that the sun gives us light, and I am of opinion that all infants dying shall be saved.
A person's faith is always bounded by testimony; his knowledge by observation and experience, and his opinions commence where both these terminate, and may be boundless as God's creation or as human invention. Perfect freedom and liberty should be granted to all opinions. The faith of Christians should be guarded and circumscribed by the revelation of God, and every man's knowledge admitted to be co-extensive with his observation and experience. In matters of this world those distinctions are realized and acted upon every day. A killed B. C believes it, D knows it, and E is of opinion that A killed B. C believes it to be true, because three credible persons have sworn that they saw him do it. D, one of the three witnesses, knows it to be true because he saw it done. And E, who neither heard the testimony nor saw the deed, but from some circumstances detailed to him, is of opinion that it is true. These distinctions are, we presume, evidently correct. A superficial reader may object that Thomas is said to have believed what he saw. But those who attend to all the circumstances will see that he believed the testimony which he had before heard, when certain evidences were presented to his eyes. In this sense the term may, by even correct speakers, be often used. But enough is said to suggest a train of reflections which must issue in the conviction that our confessions of faith are confessions of opinions, and as such ought to have nothing to do with the union, communion, and harmony of Christians. "There is one faith," says the apostle; but no where in the volume is it said, There is one opinion. Every new religious establishment, founded upon one opinion, will come to ruin, as all the past have done, and as all the present are doing. But the gates of Hades shall not prevail against those who build on the one faith, which is beautifully and properly called "the Rock."
EDITOR.
Boone county, Missouri, Nov. 23, 1825.
To the Editor of the Christian Baptist.
DEAR SIR--I TAKE my pen in hand to inform you that your influence is much injured in this country among the United Baptists, through a report that you belong to the Unitarians, and that you yourself are one. This report has been circulate by the Unitarians in this country.--Feeling tolerably well satisfied that you are not, I have labored considerably to prevent a belief of this kind. But not having seen any thing in your writings decisive on that topic, have not been able to keep the people from harboring a suspicion that you may be an Arian or Unitarian.
You will please do yourself the justice, and me the pleasure, of informing me of your standing; that is, what society you are in, and your belief of our glorious Redeemer.
| I remain yours in gospel bonds, | |
| T. T. |
Reply to "T. T."
DEAR BROTHER--YOUR favor of the 23d November was duly received; but my numerous [216] and multiform engagements hitherto prevented my replying to it; and I now do it through a medium that may prevent the necessity of my having frequently to furnish such replies. Many heresies and errors are ascribed to me by those who, are interested in keeping the people in ignorance and bondage. The only favor that I ask of the public, is, to accept my own statements and avowals of my sentiments, instead of the railings of my opponents, who, because of their own imbecility, or that of their cause, find it more easy to defame than to refute. And, of all calumniators, they do it with the most effect, and are consequently most obnoxious to reproof, who commend that they may defame; who say such a sentiment is true, and in this he is undoubtedly right; "but"(O! the tremendous BUT) "he is a Socinian or an Arian."
None of these pulpit defamers or fireside traducers dare, through the same medium through which I publish my sentiments, publish their slanders and defamations. But by their more private innuendoes and reproaches, and by whole phalanxes of omnipotent buts, like moles, work under ground, and bury themselves and their followers in the heaps they raise.
In different regions in this vast country they use different slanders. Their general rule appears to be this: Whatever seems to be the most odious heresy in the neighborhood is placed to my credit. Thus, in one place, I am a Socinian; in another, an Arian; in a third, a Trinitarian; in some places I am all at once an Arminian; in others, a Calvinist; here a Pelagian, and there an Antinomian; yonder I am a Universalist, and elsewhere a Sabellian. If these calumnies were drawn from what I have spoken or written, I would at once compliment myself as a very close follower of Paul. For as each of these sectaries contends that Paul favors his heresy, if any one teaches all Paul taught, he will be as likely to be represented as favoring these heresies as Paul himself is. Thus with the Methodist, Paul is a Methodist; with the Calvinist, he is a Calvinist; with the Universalist, he is a Universalist; and with the Socinian, Paul is said to have been a Socinian, &c. &c. But if none but Calvinists approved my course, or if none but Arminians censured me, I would conclude that I had disowned Paul. For to me it is certain, if any man teach all that Paul taught he will sometimes be approved by all, and sometimes blamed by all. There is no sect that does not contend for some things Paul taught. It is, therefore, most apparent, that he who is approved by one sect only, is, ipso facto, proved to be a setter forth of some new doctrine, or a retailer of some antiquated error.
But the misfortune is, that I cannot enjoy the above compliment in full, because I know that the rule of slander most generally approved, is, to accuse me of holding that error or heresy which is most damnable in the estimation of those amongst whom it is circulated. And when this will not serve the purpose, even my moral character is assailed. In Kentucky, some time after my debate with Mr. M'Calla, it was reported that I had stolen a horse; and not long since, in Illinois, it was said that I was excommunicated for drunkenness. Not far from Lake Erie I was said to have turned Deist, and by those too who bought their sermons in Boston, and read them in Ohio; and in many places, that I was known to be an "extremely immoral man" in my own vicinity. In fact, as a Doctor of Divinity told his people near Lexington, I am "a very bad man" in the estimation of many, and it would afford them a satisfaction, which I trust they will never enjoy, (and yet it is cruel on my part to deprive them of it) to be able to publish my fall and ruin to the utmost bounds of this union. I am sure of it. They would rejoice to be able, with some degree of plausibility, to accuse me of some high misdemeanor. For their own deeds and lispings avow it.
That I am not a Socinian, you may see by turning over to No. 8, 1st vol. C. B.--and as you know I have no faith in the divine right of Associations, yet, to shield me from such far-off and underhand attacks, as well as for other important purposes, that I may be under the inspection and subject to merited reprehension, I and the church with which I am connected are in "full communion" with the Mahoning Baptist Association, Ohio; and, through them, with the whole Baptist society in the United States; and I do intend to continue in connexion with this people so long as they will permit me to say what I believe, to teach what I am assured of, and to censure what is amiss in their views or practices. I have no idea of adding to the catalogue of new sects. This game has been played too long. I labor to see sectarianism abolished, and all Christians of every name united upon the one foundation on which the apostolic church was founded. To bring Baptists and Paido-Baptists to this is my supreme end. But to connect myself with any people who would require me to sacrifice one item of revealed truth, to subscribe any creed of human device, or to restrain me from publishing my sentiments as discretion and conscience direct, is now, and I hope ever shall be, the farthest from my desires, and the most incompatible with my views. And I hope I will not be accused of sectarian partiality when I avow my conviction that the Baptist society have as much liberality in their views, as much of the ancient simplicity of the Christian religion, as much of the spirit of Christianity amongst them, as are to be found amongst any other people. To say nothing of the things in which they excel, this may be said of them without prejudice to any. And that they have always been as eminent friends of civil and religious liberty as any sect in Christendom, will not, I presume, be denied by any. But that there are amongst them some mighty Regulars, who are as intolerant as the, great Pontiff of regularity and good order, no person will deny. And that there is in the views and practices of this large and widely-extended community, a great need of reformation, and of a restoration of the ancient order of things, few will contradict. In one thing, perhaps, they may appear in time to come, proudly singular, and pre-eminently distinguished. Mark it well. Their historian, in the year 1900, may say, "We are the only people who would tolerate, or who ever did tolerate, any person to continue as a Reformer or a Restorer amongst us. While other sects excluded all who would have enlarged their views and exalted their virtues; while every Jerusalem in Christendom stoned its own prophets, and exiled its own best friends, and compelled them to set up for themselves, we constitute the only exception of this kind in the annals of christianity--nay, in the annals of the world." I think it is not a very precarious perhaps, that this may yet be said of this ancient and singular people.--But should it come to pass that neither they nor any other people can say this of themselves. then, most assuredly, if ever there be a united and a happy state of the church upon this earth; if ever there be a millennium; the Baptist society, [217] as well as every other, will have to be immersed in that general catastrophe which awaits every sect who holds a principle incompatible with this millennial state of the church.
| Your brother, in the hope of the resurrection of the dead. | |
| EDITOR. | |
| January 17, 1826. |
P. S. There was a John Campbell in Pittsburgh, who was said to have been a Socinian. He is no longer one. He has gone to Hades, where there is not a Socinian, an Arian, nor a Trinitarian. Perhaps I may, in Missouri, have been identified with, or mistaken for this person. I need not cause you to pay the postage for the minutes of our Association, or any other documents, as I presume the above will be satisfactory.
Conscience.--No. II.
IN a former number we set out with this position, viz.--"Throughout christendom every man's religious experience corresponds with his religious education." This was partially illustrated in that number. We will make some additions in the present.
As there are some things similar and some things different in the education of most persons; so there are some things alike and some things unlike in their religious experience. In our last number on this subject we took notice of the influence which conscience has upon the religious experience of all; and that conscience was framed by those who first had access to the infant mind. This was proved by observing the varieties which appear in the consciences of different individuals.
What is called "the work of conversion," is, in many instances, but the revival of early impressions. And what a poor progress the teachers of religion, as they are called, would make in converting persons, were it not for the early impressions made by parents and guardians, may be easily ascertained by comparing their success amongst Pagans and amongst the descendants of christian parents. And even amongst the latter, their success is proportioned to the degrees of care bestowed upon some, in comparison of others.
Amongst the numerous accounts of "christian experience" which we have heard from the lips of the converted, and the histories of their conversion, we do not remember to have heard one which was not to be traced to, or resolved into, parental influence, or its equivalent. This appears to be the preaching which is most commonly instrumental in bringing sinners into the fold of God. I have sometimes thought that not one preacher in these United States has had the honor of being the entire and exclusive means of converting one of the descendants of those who made any pretensions to christianity, except in the case of his own family. Their hearers and attendants, in public assemblies, have heard that there is a God, a heaven, a hell, a Saviour, before they hear it from their lips. They predicate their pleas, arguments, exhortations, and addresses to their hearers, upon the hypothesis that they are in possession of these first principles. When any one is moved to fear or hope from their addresses, it is from comparing what he has heard, or from associating it with his former conduct and convictions.
This person was awakened on hearing a preacher read for his text these words, "How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation." On hearing these words he was struck with fear; his whole soul was harrowed up; he was almost driven to despair: but in the conclusion he was made to hope in God and to trust in his salvation. Ask him what he feared and why he feared, and he will tell you that he feared the wrath of Heaven for having neglected this salvation. But had he not previously believed that there was a future punishment awaiting the disobedient, how could his fears have been excited? "But," adds he, "I was not only afraid of the wrath of Heaven on account of my neglect, but I would rather than all the world that I could have believed in the Saviour and shared in his salvation." Well, why did you desire to believe in the Saviour if you had not previously believed there was a Saviour? Why did you wish to share in his salvation, if you had not before believed that you were a sinner, and that there was salvation? Your doubts and fears, then, were all founded upon your former convictions. And had it not been for these, neither the reading of these words, nor the preacher's remarks, would have produced one emotion. Nay, his strongest appeals to your conscience were based upon the supposition that you were in possession of these convictions. If he have been instrumental in any respect, it was in causing you to hope that notwithstanding you had long sinned against the light you had since an infant, there was room in the divine mercy for your pardon and acceptance, in believing and obeying the truths you had once received and acknowledged, and had been taught, whether your father was Protestant or Papist, High Churchman or Dissenter. He may have revived those impressions, and been instrumental in leading you to repentance for having lived in opposition to your own acknowledgments; but the seeds were sown before.
In the same manner the influences of Heaven take hold of these truths, however first communicated to the mind; and persons are not unfrequently, without a preacher, influenced to act according to the light formerly received, and then illustrated and revived--'tis true, not without a preacher, in the scripture sense, but in the popular sense. For parents, guardians, or whosoever pronounces the words of the preachers specially called and sent by God, only gives extension or sound to words long since announced.
But the seeds are sown in "a land of bibles," always in infancy or childhood, which, under the divine blessing, in riper years, bring forth fruit to everlasting life. Conscience is then formed, and without this, a man might as rationally expect to be instrumental in converting fish as men. But it most commonly happens that tares are sown with the wheat in the mind, though not in the sense of the parable; or, in other words, improper views are communicated with the truth of God, which, in after life, give rise to that mental perturbation and those varied feelings of which many are conscious. The catechisms and little manuals, put into the hands of children, together with the old wives' fables which they are wont to hear, lay the foundation for many a doubt and reverie, of which, otherwise, they never would have known any thing.
Every person who will reflect, and who can reflect upon the workings of his own mind, will readily perceive how much trouble he has experienced from mistakes. Nay, much of his present comfort is derived from the correction of former mistakes and misapprehensions.--Who that has read John Bunyan's conversion, John Newton's, or Halyburton's, or any of those celebrated standards of true conversion, has not observed that glaring mistakes and erroneous views were amongst the chief causes of their [218] long and gloomy trials; and that their after peace, and joy, and hope, arose from the correction of mistakes which the errors of education had thrown in their way.
For example: The numerous speculations on the different kinds of faith has pierced with many sorrows innumerable hearts. In all the varied exhibitions of Christianity, much stress is laid on faith. And as soon as it is affirmed that he that believes shall be saved, and that care should be taken that faith be of "the right kind," the attention of the thoughtful is turned from the truth to be believed to "the nature of faith." The fears and agonies which are experienced are not unfrequently about "believing right." The great concern is about true faith. This person is looking in himself for what he has been taught are the true signs of regeneration, or of the faith of regeneration. He is distressed to know whether his faith is the fruit of regeneration, or whether it is mere "historic faith." Unable to find such evidences as he is in quest of, he is distracted, he despairs, he agonizes. He tells his case. He is comforted by being told that these are "the pangs of the new birth." He draws some comfort from this consideration, which increases or decreases as these pangs are supposed to be genuine or the reverse. Thus he is tossed to and fro in awful uncertainties, which are more or lees acute according his moral sensibilities. By and by he hopes he is regenerate, and a calm ensues, and he is joyous because he fancies he has been regenerated. Thus his comforts spring not from the gospel, but from his own opinion of himself.
Another, under the same system, receives no comfort because he has not found the infallible signs in himself of being a true believer. He despairs--he is tormented. He concludes that he is one of the reprobates. He is about to kill himself. What about? Not because there is no Saviour, no forgiveness, no mercy. Not because the gospel is not true; but because it is true, and because he cannot find in himself the true signs of genuine conversion. Thousands have been ruined--have been shipwrecked here. This the bible never taught. This case never occurred under the apostles' teaching. It is the genuine offspring of the theological schools. It is the experience of a bad education. A few drops of acid sour a puncheon of the sweetest wine. And thus a few wrong notions convert the love of the Saviour into divine wrath--make the gospel of non-effect--embitter life--and make it better not to have been born.
I well remember what pains and conflicts I endured under a fearful apprehension that my convictions and my sorrows for sin were not deep enough. I even envied Newton of his long agony. I envied Bunyan of his despair. I could have wished, and did wish, that the Spirit of God would bring me down to the very verge of suffering the pains of the damned, that I might be raised to share the joys of the genuine converts. I feared that I had not sufficiently found the depravity of my heart, and had not yet proved that I was utterly without strength. Sometimes I thought that I felt as sensibly, as the ground under my feet, that I had gone just as far as human nature could go without supernatural aid, and that one step more would place me safe among the regenerated of the Lord; and yet Heaven refused its aid. This, too, I concealed from all the living. I found no comfort in all the declarations of the gospel, because I wanted one thing to enable me to appropriate them to myself. Lacking this, I could only envy the happy favorites of heaven who enjoyed it, and all my refuge was in a faint hope that I one day might receive that aid which would place my feet upon the rock.
Here this system ends, and enthusiasm begins. The first Christians derived their joys from an assurance that the gospel was true. Metaphysical Christians derive theirs not from the truth of the gospel, but because they have been regenerated, or discover something in themselves that entitles them to thank God that they are not as the publican. The ancients cheered themselves and one another by conversing on the certainty of the good things reported by the apostles--the moderns, by telling one another what "the Lord has done for their souls in particular." Their agonies were the opposition made by the world, the flesh, and the devil, to their obeying the truth. Our agonies are a deep and solemn concern for our own conversion. Their doubts were first, whether the gospel were true, and, after they were assured of this, whether they might persevere through all trials in obeying the truth. Ours, whether our conversion is genuine. More evidence of the truth removed their first doubts, and the promises of the gospel, with the examples around them, overcame the last. A better opinion of ourselves removes ours. In a word, the philanthropy of God was the fountain of all their joys--an assurance that we are safe is the source of ours.
The experience of the Moravians differs from the experience of almost every other sect. They teach their children that God is love, and through his son loves all that obey him. This principle is instilled from the cradle. Their history does not furnish an instance of a work of conversion similar to those which fill the memoirs and magazines of all the different bodies of Calvinists. Perhaps enough has been said to prove our position, that "throughout Christendom every man's religious experience corresponds with his religious education." If not, a volume of evidence can be adduced.
EDITOR.
Honorable Title of "D. D." Refused.
IN some eastern papers "the Rev. Spencer H. Cone, a Baptist clergyman," was reported as recently dubbed D. D. But this was a mistake. It was the Rev. Samuel H. Cox who was dubbed and refused the honor. We are sorry to observe a hankering after titles amongst some baptists, every way incompatible with their profession; and to see the remarks lately made in the "Columbian Star," censuring Mr. Cox for declining the honor. Those who deserve honorary titles are the least covetous of them. We have not met with any baptist bishop who is more worthy of a title of honor, if such these double D's be esteemed, than Robert B. Semple of Virginia; and when the degree was conferred on him, he, like a Christian, declined it.
The following remarks are worthy of a place in this work:--
"In the New York Observer of the 26th ult. we find an article occupying nearly two closely printed columns, with the signature of Samuel H. Cox, Pastor of the Lightstreet Presbyterian Church, N. Y. in which the writer, after stating that he had seen a newspaper paragraph from which he learned that the trustees of Williams College, Mass. had taken with his name the very customary liberty of attaching D. D. to it, says. "I ask the privilege of announcing that I will not accept of that appendage." And after some other observations, he adds, "It is high time--the spirit of the age demands it--that this mania [219] of graduating should itself be graduated, and that without favor in the enlightened estimation of the public. Itaque illud Cassianum. Cui bono fuerit, in his personis valeat. The cui bono question in reference to those academico-theological degrees, and for the best possible reason, has never been answered. It is an affair that belongs to another category. It has nothing to do with good, but only with--honor!"
Having disavowed any disrespect to Williams College, or to his clerical brethren, especially the order from which he repudiates himself, he makes the following remarks:
"The purely academic and literary or professional degrees, such as A. B. or A. M. or M. D. or L. L. D. and such as merely indicate office or station, and which colleges do not confer, as V. D. M. or S. T. P. are out of the argument, and 'against such there is no law.' If doctorates in divinity meant any thing, they would sometimes be libelous. There are those, it is too notorious, who need a great deal more than collegiate or colloquial doctoration to impart to them intellectual, or literary, or theological, or (I blush to write it) even moral respectability; and whose doctoration, while it is the acrimonious laugh of the million, becomes a solid reason, were there none better, to those who prize good company, for abdicating the eminence of being classed with them in the associations of the community. 'To their assembly, mine honor, be not thou united.'"
In assigning reasons for refusing the honorary title of D. D., Mr. Cox makes the following remarks:
"I believe that the principle of ministerial party is both evangelical and important, and that the system in question is very inimical to it; that there is no higher earthly honor in the relations of life than that of a minister of Jesus Christ, who loves his master and understands the truth and magnifies his office; and consequently I dislike a system that so evidently and popularly implies something unintelligibly more, and arrays one ministerial brother in an adventitious superiority over his peers; and that it is anomalous for a secular and literary institution, without any faculty of theology, to come into the church universal of Jesus Christ, and diversify his officers, and confer permanent degrees of official honor, which neither deposition nor excommunication, should they succeed, has power to annul; and all this where he has said, "Be not you called Rabbi; for one is your master, even Christ; and all you are brethren." It is also a grand reason that I think it a "scarlet" relic of papacy, and that demands retrenchment; but the greatest reason is, that it is earthly, and at variance with the spirit, if not with the very letter of the gospel. The passage in Matt. xxiii. 5-12. appears incapable of a fair solution in coincidence with the innocency of doctorial honors in the church. Many other scriptural references might be made. Take a few more: Matt. xviii. 1-6, v. 19. Luke xxii. 24-27. xx. 45-47. John xvii. 18. xii. 25. 43. v. 41. 1 Cor. 1-5. Rev. iii. 21. xii. 4. xvi. 15. xvii. 12. The Old Testament contains much to the same purport.
"To conclude, I believe that the usefulness, the moral worth, the genuine respectability of the sacred profession, and, of course, the honor of our common Master, require the abjuration of Doctorates."
Unity of Opinion.
UNITY of opinion, abstractedly considered, is neither desirable nor a good; although considered not in itself, but with reference to something else it may be both. For men My be all agreed in error; and, in that case, unanimity is an evil. Truth lies within the Holy of Holies, in the temple of knowledge; but doubt in the vestibule that leads to it. Luther began by having his doubts as to the assumed infallibility of the Pope; and he finished by making himself the comer stone of the Reformation. Copernicus and Newton doubted the truth of the false systems of others before they established a true one of their own. Columbus differed in opinion with all the old world before he discovered a new one; and Galileo's terrestrial body was confined in a dungeon for having asserted the motion of those bodies that were celestial. In fact, we owe almost all our knowledge, not to those who have agreed, but to those who have differed, and those who have finished by making all others think with them, have usually been those who began by daring to think for themselves; as he that leads a crowd, must begin by separating himself some little distance from it. If the great Hervey who discovered the circulation of the blood, had not differed from all the physicians of his own day, all the physicians of the present day would not have agreed with him. These reflections ought to teach us that every kind of persecution for opinion, is incompatible with sound philosophy. It is lamentable, indeed, to think how much misery has been incurred from the intemperate zeal and bigoted officiousness of those who would rather that mankind should not think at all, than not think as they do. Charles V. when he abdicated a throne, and retired to the monastery of St. Juste, amused himself with the mechanical arts, and particularly with that of a watch-maker; he one day exclaimed, "What an egregious fool must I have been, to have squandered so much blood and treasure in an absurd attempt to make all men think alike, when I cannot even make a few watches keep time together." We should remember also that assent or dissent is not an act of the will, but of the understanding. No man can will to believe that two and two make five, nor can I force upon myself the conviction that this ink is white, or this paper black.--[National Gazette.
[This is all very good; but in the christian religion there are no new discoveries, no new improvements to be made. It is already revealed and long since developed in the apostolic writings. We may discover that there are many new errors and old traditions, which are alike condemned in those sacred writings. But truth is at least one day older than error; and what many now call "the good old way," was two or three hundred years ago denominated a wicked innovation or a chimerical new project. Old things become new when long lost sight of, and new things become old in one generation. But truth is eternal and unchangeable.]
ED. C. B.
[TCB 213-219]
|
[Table of Contents] [Previous] [Next] |
Alexander Campbell
The Christian Baptist (1889) |