|
[Table of Contents] [Previous] [Next] |
Alexander Campbell
The Christian Baptist (1889) |
| NO. 10.] | MAY 1, 1826. |
I DO not wish to occupy many pages of this work with a controversy on a subject which has most generally terminated in metaphysical jargon, and which usually becomes a mere logomachy, or war of words. If the scripture statements, in scripture connexions, and in scripture words, will not prove satisfactory on this subject; and if union, confidence and harmony, cannot be established and retained on such a basis--in vain will recourse be had to speculation, scholastic terms, and philosophical distinctions.
[ED. C. B.
For the Christian Baptist.
THE communication of Aquila, published in the Christian Baptist of January last, in reference to some things said in the third number of Christian Union, demands some attention.
The union of christians it is believed is essential to the glory of God, the happiness of the saints, and the conversion of the world. Jesus Christ is the foundation and the head of this union; and faith in him, according to the scriptural account of his nature and character, is the bond of it. Aquila, I suppose, will agree to these things; and whether he, or the writer of Christian Union, be correct or not in their views, it is impossible that they and those who think with them [233] can realize christian union as long as their ideas of the foundation and head of this union are materially different.
There is in the scriptures one doctrine, in which all the lines of divine revelation meet as in a common centre, and which is therefore, by way of eminence, denominated the truth. That doctrine may be thus briefly stated that Jesus of Nazareth is the true Messiah, the Son of God, and Saviour of sinners: that he was delivered for the offences of the guilty, and was raised for their justification, and that in him the Father is well pleased. This is the truth which came by Jesus Christ, (John i. 17) to which he himself bare witness, (John xiv. 6) which was attested by the voice at his baptism, (Matt. iii. 17,) and at his transfiguration, (Luke ix. 35.) To this truth all the apostles bare witness in their doctrine.--"Many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples which are not written in this book; but these are written that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing, you might have life through his name." John xx. 30, 31. "Let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made that same Jesus whom you have crucified both Lord and Christ." Acts ii. 36. Thus far I suppose there is no difference between Aquila and Christian Union.
Aquila agrees that men must be content with the Scripture statements of the nature and character of Christ; that Christ is really an object of worship, and that he is Divine. But he denies that Christ was worshipped as God, and only as the Son of the only true and living God. He denies also that the apostles and christians for worshipping Christ as God suffered death, or that it was the first cause of their persecution. The only point that is of any importance here is included in the question, What were the views of inspired apostles of the nature and character of Christ as an object of worship? Did they worship him as a man, or as an angel, or as a superangelic creature, or as a demi-god or as the only true and living God? Aquila will answer, that they viewed him as the Son of the only true and living God. I ask, What were their views of his nature and character as the Son of God? Did they view him as a man, or as God, or as neither, as do the Arians? Or did they view him as God and man? Whatever were the views of the apostles on this subject, it will be readily conceded they are essential to true christianity, and to the union of christians in truth and love. And it will be also agreed that the apostles in worshipping Christ had the same views of him which they have written in the New Testament. These things being premised, I observe, that the apostles did denominate Christ God, and ascribed to him the attributes of Jehovah. Paul tells us that as concerning the flesh, Christ came from the fathers, who is over all God blessed forever. Rom. ix. 5. This is a scripture statement, agreeably to which Paul, an inspired apostle, must have worshipped Christ; he worshipped him as God blessed forever, and so ought we.
But he is not only called or denominated God, but the perfections of God, such as creative power, omnipotence, omniscience, divine worship, divine honors, and eternal existence are ascribed to him in scripture statements. He is also described as a real man and is so denominated, yet without sin; he by the power of the Holy Ghost was conceived by the Virgin Mary, was born, increased in wisdom, grew in stature and in favor with God and man; he ate, drank, slept, labored; was fatigued, hungered, thirsted; rejoiced and sympathized with his brethren; wept and was in an agony; prayed, bled, died, and was buried, and rose again.
The ascriptions of divinity to him are sustained by divine words, as the ascriptions of human nature to him are sustained by human actions and sufferings.
Those who object to Christ being God as well as man, do it because they cannot understand the modus of the connexion between Deity and humanity--how a union of the divine and human natures could take place; and yet they believe, at least some of them do, that a human body was united to a soul not human. They have never yet told us to what order or class of beings this new compound belongs. According to their views he is not divine, only in the same way, but in a higher degree than the apostles were; he is not human, for a human soul is essential to human nature; nor is he angelic, for angels have no corporeal powers.
If Christ possesses not only the nature according to the flesh, that is human nature, which he derived from the fathers, but is also God blessed forever, Aquila will surely agree that "the worship of him always supposes and includes his godhead, in which the eternal, original, and essential dignity of his person consists." Again--the inspired evangelist John has told us that the Word was God and was made flesh, who is the same that Paul spoke of as above. Aquila, by reason of his not being able to comprehend, or even to understand the manner of the conception, or the mode of the union between the Deity and humanity of Christ, ought not to regard it as "a soul-revolting and a heart-chilling idea" for great is the mystery, God was manifested in the flesh. Instead of this being a heart-chilling and a soul-revolting idea, it is the delight and joy of the saints. It is also essential to christian union and to true christianity, according to apostolic views of it.
Every thing said of Christ in respect to his human nature, must necessarily be spoken of him in a capacity in which he is inferior to the Father. But it may be asked, How are we to distinguish between Christ's human and his divine nature? I answer, Just as when we speak of a man we distinguish whether what is said is said of his body or of his soul. When we say that Abraham is dead, we mean his mortal part. When we say that Abraham is alive, we mean his immortal part. When the Evangelist says that Jesus increased in stature and wisdom, and in favor with God and man; that he ate, drank, slept, wept, &c. he obviously means that his human nature did this, comprehending his body and soul. When he affirms that the Word was God, and made the universe; and when the apostle Paul says that Christ is supreme, God blessed forever, these are predicated of his divinity which can neither increase in stature or in wisdom.
Christian union is vitally concerned in unity of view and sentiment in relation to the nature and character of Christ. There can be no union in worship without this, as there cannot be in faith and love, for he is the Alpha and the Omega of both. Arians, who deny the Deity of Jesus Christ, do actually charge those who believe in it and worship him as such, with idolatry. How would those who entertain such discordant views commune with each other--realize a joint participation of the same blessings? those things which are soul-revolting and heart-chilling to one, are soul-attracting and heart-cheering to another. [234]
I have written with much frankness, and perhaps the things I have written may be considered as savoring too much of the language of Ashdod. Be it so. I cannot understand the use of facts, natural and supernatural, and of correspondent words and sentences as means of information, if they be not intended for, and used to impart ideas and knowledge of existences, natures, qualities, and characters, in relation to the objects and subjects to which they belong and apply.
In nature natural phenomena or appearances indicate and prove natural existences and properties, and form the bounding circle of all that can be known of nature. Supernatural phenomena, miracles, or divine works as distinguished from the operations of nature, properly so called, indicate and prove supernatural or divine existences, when associated with verbal explanation and used by the agents for that purpose. These, comprehending the phenomena and language, form the bounding circle of all that can be known of spiritual existences exclusive of the knowledge of the human mind, if indeed that can be termed spiritual knowledge, which may be known of the mind without revelation.
It may be objected that the number of places in the New Testament in which Christ is called God, are so few that they ought not to be relied on in fixing so important an article of faith as his Deity. To which I reply, that it is no more necessary that the fact should be stated in every chapter in the New Testament that Jesus Christ is God, in order that it should be known and believed as an essential article of christian faith and of christian union, than it is necessary that we be informed in every chapter of the bible that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, that it should be known and believed; or that a law of the state shall be reenacted every day by the legislature, to make it obligatory on the people of the state.
In casting my eyes over Aquila's publication, I was sensibly impressed with the truth of some of the remarks made in the third number of Christian Union, and which apply in a considerable degree, although not in the same way or in relation to the same subject, to all sectary christian associations, so far as their peculiarities are concerned. With the quotation of it I will conclude this paper.
"These disputes have originated a technical phraseology on both sides, (the Arian and Athanasian,) which has greatly narrowed the vocabulary of religion, and has rendered some modes of expression almost obsolete, which were indulged in without scruple by the sacred writers. They have occasioned, on the Arian side of the question, in many instances, the relinquishment of the latitude with which the scriptures express themselves on the nature and glory of Christ, and have produced a scrupulous and systematic cast of diction, which is altogether inconsistent with the freedom displayed by the inspired penmen. Many expressions are employed without hesitation in scripture, which are rarely found even in the direct form of quotation in their writings, and are never heard in their public addresses, but with a view of subjecting them to explanations and criticisms, which so mar and mutilate the nature and character of Christ as to render him altogether an unfit object for the worship of christians; and who, if he had been thus seen by Stephen, and Paul, and apostolic christians, had not been worshipped by them."
PHILO-CHRISTIAN UNION.
WE have always designed and endeavored that this work should not present a one-sided representation of things, of sentiments, and practices of the time in which we live. We have nothing to lose in the pursuit of truth; and we never desired that our own views should ever obtain any other authority over the minds of our brethren, than as they are authorized and supported by the apostles and prophets. We have therefore given publicity to all the objections candid or uncandid, which have been respectfully submitted by our brethren or opponents. We wish to give our readers every opportunity of judging correctly of every thing we advocate, and have therefore given much more of the objections offered by our correspondents, than of the commendations and encomiums which have been received. The FOLLOWING LETTER speaks for itself, and demonstrates that its author possesses talents of the first order. I publish this letter literatim et punctuatim; but had I taken any liberty with it, there are two or three words and phrases which I would, for his sake, have erased. I need not add that my giving publicity to this document affords some evidence that I am willing to meet any objections which can be made to my views or to my course.
EDITOR.
Saturday Morning, February 11th, 1826.
MR. EDITOR,--MY own consciousness approbates the goodness of the injunction, "Judge not," and intimates the folly of expecting "perfection" in any man living: but we expect "consistency," especially in a reformer, and a restorer of the primitive order of things in the church of Christ. Suffer me to call your attention to a few things which demand, on your part, a public elucidation. In your reply to T. T. of Boone county, Missouri, you say "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," &c. Now, sir, I have no doubt but you feel honestly about this "full communion" with the whole Baptist society, but in fact and in effect, it is but a white lie; an equivoque, a time-serving expedient and tends to shake the confidence of those who love you, as to the downright sincerity of the Christian Baptist. It has, at least, disturbed me not a little. Pray sir, what is "full communion?" Is it not "full union in the common worship, doctrine and institutions of any church or denomination." Yes, this is the understanding where the language comes from the lip, or pen of integrity. Your profession implies, according to your own principles, a sincere conviction that the whole Baptist society (regular associated Baptists) is the church of Christ, of which Jesus is the head, and that they are conformed to the New Testament law as respects doctrine, worship, and order. You, by this, publicly avow that in your judgment, the regular associated Baptists exhibit the model of Christ's house, are the election of grace, and may be pointed out as the living epistle of the Holy Ghost to be seen and read of all men. This is not what the Christian Baptist says, but it is what your visible standing and professing conduct says. If so, in what sense are you a restorer of primitive christianity? If they, as a society, are the church of Christ, what right have you to interfere with their existing order and state? But if, at heart, you do not confess them as holding that order, which would [235] rejoice the soul of an apostle, what do you mean by professing "full communion" with them?
Pray sir, who or what are the associated Baptists in the United States? Are they not a large denomination of religionists, differing from the other religious sects in no respect, affecting this question? After you have approved their dipping, and reprobated the sprinkling of the others, in what other particular are the associated Baptists a peculiar people, unless it be that after having made one right movement, their conformity to the "course of the (Christian) world" is more sinful as it is more inconsistent and glaring? This may be contradicted, but cannot be disproved from God's word; and he who has "full communion" with the whole Baptist society, as the New Testament church, and yet refuses to extend the right hand of fellowship to the rest of the evangelical sects, is a purblind pharisee, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel.
Dialogue between "Regular Baptist" and the "Editor," who are professedly of one faith, of one mind, of one church, speaking the same things, and of one heart to serve the King of Zion, as he has commanded, &c.
Reg. B. Our churches are founded on the Philadelphia Confession, as the bond of union, and the statute of discipline; is not that proper and scriptural?
Ed. By no means; it is antichristian and must be considered rebellion against the Great King and Head of the Church!
Reg. B. It prevents varieties in doctrine, which could not be tolerated among us as particular Baptists, and sound Calvinists. Is not Calvinism according to the scriptures? I mean the limited supra-sub-lapsarian plan?
Ed. I think not. Calvinism is a corruption of Christianity, and of course a curse to the world, by perverting men from the simplicity of the faith!
Reg. B. Indeed! but Mr. Editor, what think you; ought the Lord's Supper to be attended oftener than once a month, or is it a matter left to the churches to fix, as suits their views? You know the scriptures say "as oft," without telling how oft, and the Associated Baptists throughout the union consider it a matter of indifference until determined by a vote of the church. They generally commune once a month, or at least once in three months, in the country churches. Is not our order scriptural?
Ed. Unquestionably it is not. The church of Christ must break bread every first day; nay, it is the main design of their coming together. Monthly communion is a vile deviation from gospel order!
Reg. B. At any rate the Associated Baptists are right in casting out of the Associations any church that has more than one Bishop or Elder. It has been lately done; was that not strictly scriptural?
Ed. No! The primitive churches had each a plurality of elders or bishops, and without at least two bishops was not fully organized. They grew up in the church and were never imported. Know air, that in each church there was a presbytery! Examine and you will be satisfied of this too.
Reg. B. Well, well, Mr. Editor, though we don't agree in most things, yet we are one as respects the glorious duty of going down into the water and coming up out of the water. We both despise babyrantism, do we not?
Ed. Even here, you are blind and uninstructed. You are dipped for no better reason than binds you to any other duty, such as speaking the truth, or paying a debt. Learn sir, that the baptismal water washes away sin, and is the only divinely appointed pledge that the blood of Christ has cleansed the conscience of the obedient disciple. Why do you stare so? Go home and read your bible and you will see that your regular, particular, Calvinistic, Associated Churches are of the world, and their services an abomination, for it is written "In vain do you worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men!"
Reg. B. O dear sir! I was mistaken in you.--Pray Mr. Editor are you a Regular Baptist?
Ed. Why yes I am and I intend to be in "full communion" with the whole Baptist society in the United States. Though I agree with you in almost nothing, yet by keeping up this nominal fellowship, I can be more extensively useful! I confess that this plea is preferred by almost all the Evangelical in their respective communions, as a reason for infant sprinkling, episcopacy, but what then?
Reg. B. O nothing! As our brother Doctor says, utility is the standard of virtue, and conscience is the creature of circumstances. Besides you will, Mr. Editor, be better protected by the Association at your back, than if you only relied on Christ's promises. It is at least a good thing to "lay heavy burthens on the shoulders of other men, though we do not touch them ourselves with one of our fingers."
Ed. Well, let us say no more on this head. Good by my brother!
Dear sir, I have used plainness of speech--print this, and speak in your own behalf--If Associations are scriptural, why then, say so--If not, then "Come out from among them"--If you are acting a part from pride, love of popularity or singularity, be assured that in their train comes contempt. These things have I written, hoping you are desirous of consistency--a man of integrity and uprightness, and from a desire to make you more and more amiable, that I may love you more for the truth's sake.
AN INDEPENDENT BAPTIST.
To an Independent Baptist.
DEAR SIR,--AFTER thanking you for your fidelity, and great plainness of speech, and for the favorable opportunity you have afforded me for vindicating my course from imputations, which many may make, when, and where, I should never hear them; and also for the occasion which you have given for illustrating more fully a principle which I think is not yet well understood by many intelligent Christians, I proceed to observe that your very ingenious dialogue, and, indeed, your objections altogether, proceed upon the hypothesis, and terminate in one point, viz. that my course, or rather my declaration that "I and the church with which I am connected are in full communion with the Mahoning Baptist Association, and through them with the whole Baptist society," &c. is inconsistent with the sentiments and views exhibited in the "Christian Baptist." If so, your dialogue and letter are unanswerable; I must lay my hand upon my mouth: if not, your shafts have missed the mark, and carry no conviction to my mind; and cannot to any intelligent reader.
I agree with you that consistency, though a very rare commodity, is essential to a good character, and especially in any person who would call the attention of men to the bible. It is a [236] misfortune, however, to see men always consistently doing wrong. Consistency is a virtue only when the professed principles of action are good. In every other case it is very far from being commendable. Perhaps Satan is a very consistent character since the seduction of Eve. Neither sincerity nor consistency are virtues abstract from the qualities which constitute a good man. But without them no man can claim any regard from his fellow-men, nor can his conduct or example be worthy of imitation, whatever other good qualities he may possess. I consider, therefore, that the charge of inconsistency, when the professed principles of action are good and sacred, is no trivial imputation.
But what constitutes consistency? In acting conformably to our own professed sentiments and principles, or in acting conformably to the professed sentiments and principles of others. In answering this question, your letter is answered. I have no doubt of being able to make it quite obvious that this obnoxious sentence is perfectly consistent with the views and principles exhibited and advocated in this work. But if consistency requires a person to act conformably to the views of "An Independent Baptist," (a proud and imposing name) or to the views of any other person differing from his own, in that case you are unanswerable; but if not, a pigmy is an overmatch for a giant panoplied with dialogues.
To come to the point at once, what are the principles of union and communion advocated in this work? Has not the one foundation which the apostle affirmed was already laid, and besides which no other can be laid, which will stand the test of time and of critics, which is the only one on which all Christians can unite, and have "full communion," and against which the gates of Hades shall not prevail; I say has not this been the only bond of union which the "Christian Baptist" ever advocated? And what is it, but a sincere and hearty conviction, expressed or confessed by the lips, that Jesus is the Christ: and this belief, exhibited by an overt act of obedience which implies that the subject has put on Christ, prepares him, or qualifies him, if you please, to be saluted as a brother. So long as he confesses with his lips that he believes in his heart this truth, and lives conformably to it and supports an unblemished moral character, so long he is a worthy brother.
Your dialogue artfully keeps out of view every thing about the one Lord, the one faith, the one hope, and hardly will admit the one baptism, and every other point of general agreement in the Baptist society, and to the best advantage exhibits the points of difference. Now a person equally ingenious with yourself could frame a dialogue on the other side, showing how inconsistent I would be, with the principles asserted in this work, if I had refused communion with the whole Baptist society. Did I say as ingenious as yourself? Nay, with the ingenuity of a stripling, he might confound me. On the hypothesis that I refused or declined union or communion with the Baptist society, he would introduce an artificial, regular, or associate Baptist, who would ask me, Do not the associate and unassociate Baptists believe that Jesus is the Christ? Nay, do they not believe that he died for our sins, that he was buried, that he rose the third day, that he ascended into heaven, that he sent down the Holy Spirit to advocate his cause, to convince the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment; that he will come again to raise the dead, and to judge the world. Nay, do they not declare their belief that his kingdom is not of this world. That the subjects of it are born again, new creatures, and must maintain good works, and cultivate holiness; without which no man shall see the Lord? To all such queries I would be constrained to answer yes.
He would next say, Do you not contend that unity of opinion is not essential to Christian union; that the one Lord, the one faith, the one hope, and the one baptism, comprehend all that can legitimately be required? To this I must consistently answer yes. Well, then, says he, you are a hypocrite, a pharisee, insincere, and most inconsistent, and a transgressor, building the things which you have demolished. To which I must consistently plead guilty.
You see, then, how little ingenuity would be requisite to confound and silence me, should I act the part of an "Independent Baptist" while contending for the principles exhibited in this work. The inconsistency of which you complain is therefore not in me, but it is in your own views.
I am yet but entering upon the subject. I shall now give my own explanation of this offensive "full communion" with the Baptist society. Your full communion and my full communion are very different things. You define your full communion to be "full union in the common worship, doctrine, and institutions of any church or denomination." Again you say, "Your profession implies, according to your own principles, a sincere conviction that the whole Baptist society (regular associated Baptists) is the church of Christ, of which Jesus is the head, and that they are conformed to the new testament law, as respects doctrine, worship, and order, exhibiting the model of Christ's house," &c. I question very much whether you yourself have this sort of full communion with the one congregation with which you associate. But this will not excuse me. Again, I question very much whether Paul the apostle could have broken bread with the congregation in Rome, in Corinth, in Thessalonica, or with the congregations in Galatia, and others, at the time he wrote his letters to them. Nay, I do not think that the Saviour himself could have instituted the supper amongst the twelve, or that they could have had full communion on your principles in that one institution the night in which he was betrayed. For none of these congregations at the times alluded to were exhibiting the model of Christ's house, "were conformed to the new testament, as respects doctrine, worship, and order," or had this sincere conviction that all was perfect--just up to the standard of full perfection in all these particulars.
In the full import of the words full communion, when carried to their utmost extent, I do not know that such a communion ever was, or ever will be exhibited upon earth. The word full, I admit, may be so explained as to confine this sort of communion to the heavenly state. But in ordinary acceptation, or in its loose acceptation, it means no more than joint participation in a certain act or acts. When I unite in prayer with a society of disciples, I have full communion with them in certain petitions, confessions, and thanksgivings; but requests may be presented, confessions made, and thanksgivings offered, in which I have not full communion. The same may be said of any other social act of worship. All that I intend by the phrase is, 1 that I will unite with any Baptist society in the [237] United States, in any act of social worship; such as prayer, praise, or breaking bread in commemoration of the Lord's death, if they confess the one Lord, the one faith, the one hope, and the one baptism: provided always, that, as far as I can judge, they piously and morally conform to their profession. But that congregations may be found, under the banners of this profession, with whom I would not unite in one single act of social worship, as well as individuals, I will cheerfully declare. And with not one would I unite in prayer or praise, or breaking bread, if that act is to be interpreted into a full, perfect, and entire approbation of all their views, doctrine, and practice, as a society or individuals. Here then is the fundamental difference between your full communion and mine. Every act of the one, you understand, as unequivocally expressing full and entire approbation of every thing among them. I consider every act as only expressing approbation of the thing represented, and of them in so far as they conform to it. Therefore, I frankly and boldly declare to them, as Paul did to the Corinthians, the things in which I praise them, and the things in which I praise them not. And I know of no way, of no course, that any christian can pursue consistently with the whole new testament, consistently with his serving God and his own generation, but this one. Therefore I advocate it and practise it.
I have tried the pharisaic plan, and the monastic. I was once so straight, that, like the Indian's tree, I leaned a little the other way. And however much I may be slandered now as seeking "popularity" or a popular course, I have to rejoice that to my own satisfaction, as well as to others, I proved that truth, and not popularity, was my object; for I was once so strict a Separatist that I would neither pray nor sing praises with any one who was not as perfect as I supposed myself. In this most unpopular course I persisted until I discovered the mistake, and saw that on the principle embraced in my conduct, there never could be a congregation or church upon the earth.
As to "the purblind Pharisee who strains out a gnat and swallows a camel," because he will not have full communion with all the evangelical sects in the mass, I have to remark, that it is not optional with me or you whether we would have christian communion with them. They have something to say upon that subject; and here, once for all, it must be noted, that my having communion with any society, Baptist or Paido-Baptist, depends just as much upon them as upon myself. Some Baptist congregations would not receive me into their communion, and if any Paido-Baptist society would, it is time enough to show that I am inconsistent with my own principles when any "evangelical sect or congregation" shall have welcomed me to their communion, and I have refused it. At the same time, I frankly own, that my full conviction is, that there are many Paido Baptist congregations, of whose christianity; or of whose profession of christianity, I think as highly, as of most Baptist congregations, and with whom I could wish to be on the very same terms of christian communion on which I stand with the whole Baptist society. There is, I confess, a great inconsistency somewhere; yes, every where, on the subject of communion. Baptists, and Paido-Baptists generally confine communion to the Lord's table, and, indeed, call it, by way of distinction, the communion. Hence full communion, with the majority, means no more than the breaking of bread together, or sitting down at the same "communion table." Here originates all error on the subject of your dialogue, and on the whole subject of intercommunity with the christian world. Another proof, too, that conscience is a creature of circumstances.
There is a certain place called "The Family Altar." Baptists and Paido-Baptists, of different name, often meet at this "family altar," and there unite all in one communion. In their monthly concerts for prayer, &c. there is another "altar," at which all sects sometimes meet; and all have full communion in prayer and praise. But if on the next day the Lord's table was furnished, they would rather be caught in company with publicans and sinners, than sit at the side of those with whom they had full communion in prayer and praise a few hours before. Their consciences would shudder at the idea of breaking bread in full communion with those with whom, yesterday, or last night, they had full communion in adoring, venerating, invoking, and praising the same God and Redeemer. There is something like inconsistency here. It must be confessed, too, that the New Testament presents baptism as prior to social prayer and praise, as indispensably preceding these, as the Lord's supper. I have thought, and thought, and vascillated very much, on the question, Whether Baptists and Paido-Baptists ought, could, would, or should, irrespective of their peculiarities, sit down at the same Lord's table. And one thing I do know, that either they should cease to have communion in prayer, praise, and other religious observances, or they should go the whole length. Of this point I am certain. And I do know that as much can be said, and with as much reason and scripture on its side, to prove that immersion is as necessary prior to social prayer, praise, &c. as it is to eating the Lords supper.
Dear sir, this plan of making our own nest, and fluttering over our own brood; of building our own tent, and of confining all goodness and grace to our noble selves and the "elect few" who are like us, is the quintessence of sublimated pharisaism. The old Pharisees were but babes in comparison to the modern: and the longer I live, and the more I reflect upon God and man--heaven and earth--the bible and the world--the Redeemer and his church--the more I am assured that all sectarianism is the offspring of hell; and that all differences about words, and names, and opinions, hatched in Egypt, or Rome, or Edinburgh, are like the frolics of drunken men; and that where there is a new creature, or a society of them, with all their imperfections, and frailties, and errors in sentiment, in views, and opinions, they ought to receive one another, and the strong to support the infirmities of the weak, and not to please themselves. To lock ourselves up in the bandbox of our own little circle; to associate with a few units, tens, or hundreds, as the pure church, as the elect, is real Protestant monkery, it is evangelical pharisaism.
If we would heal the sick, we must visit them; if we would restore the lame, we must take them by the hand; if we would correct, inform, or reform erring christians, we must do as the Saviour did;--bear with their weaknesses. We must seek every opportunity of converting the sinner from the error of his way, of instructing the weak and feeble-minded. It is lame charity which requires all its objects to be as rich, as wise, and as strong as ourselves. And the history of the world does not afford one instance [238] of any man, or set of men, reforming, or restoring, or enlightening, or comforting the society from which they separated. And the systems and sects which they built, in the lapse of a few years, were as much in need of reformation, as those from which their founders separated.
The Baptist society exhibits a greater variety than any other society in christendom. They are a people made up of all religious persuasions, and, generally speaking, their platform is more consonant to the freedom of inquiry, to freedom from ecclesiastical tyranny, and to the independence of congregations, than any other. With the exception of some rigid "regulars," confessions of faith and the authority of associations, are held in no great esteem. The congregations in most places are extremely jealous of their rights, and delegate nothing to any superior judicatory. I know some associations whose meetings are as innocent as a tea party, or any social or friendly interview. Some, I know, do imitate the beast, only they want horns. They resemble a hornless ox; they push with their heads, but cannot gore. But so long as they will bear reproof, suffer exhortation, and allow us to declare our sentiments without restraint; so long as they manifest a willingness to know the whole truth, and any disposition to obey it; so long as they will hear us and cordially have fellowship with us, we will have fellowship with them, we will thus labor for their good, and endeavor to correct what appears to be amiss--commending when praise is due, and censuring when it becomes necessary. I do hope in this way always to have the approbation of Him whose commendation is more to be desired than the admiration and praise of ten thousand worlds. This, I think, you must see, I do in perfect consistency with the sentiments advocated in this work. But if you still think otherwise, I am willing to hear from you again, and pay due regard to what you have to advance.
| With best wishes, I remain, &c. | |
| EDITOR. |
The Baptist Recorder.
WE have duly received seven numbers of The Baptist Recorder, edited by Messrs. George Waller and Spencer Clack, Ky. Sundry articles in these numbers exhibit a belligerent aspect towards this paper. The anonymous pieces over the signatures S. M.--S. W.--and P. D. we pass without a single criticism, for two reasons. First, because when a writer opposes a person who is known, and disliking to be known himself, conceals himself behind two letters as a mask, there is something so suspicious in his character, so undeserving of notice, except from a person like himself under a mask, that we cannot deign him a reply. We appear unmasked. Those who expect from us any attention must come forward in their full name. And in the second place there is no reason, argument, of good sense in those pieces, that should induce us either to desire to know their authors, or, if known, to require a moments reflection. If the authors make themselves known, I will publish some of their pieces in this work without a single remark, believing that their very appearance in this work would be a sufficient exposure of their imbecility, or of that of their cause, if they have any.
I feel myself in duty bound to pay some attention to the editorial department of this work, or to what the editors themselves have to say on the great things of the kingdom of Jesus in the present and future state. I am, indeed, much pleased to see them come forward to oppose what they do not like, and to correct what they think wrong. I do assure them that it will give me great pleasure to be corrected by them in any respect whatever. I trust I have not yet to learn the value of truth. Like gold, every particle of it is precious. I do earnestly desire to be in the full possession of as much of it as I can by any means acquire, and I am always thankful to every man, woman, or child who imparts to me the knowledge of what I knew not before. Besides, I am much pleased with their efforts on another account. The Christian Baptist is extensively read in Kentucky, and if it is doing any injury it will be corrected and repressed in its career; and if it is doing any good it will receive a new impulse and be accelerated in its course. I care not for its circulation on any other account, than as it does good. If it does evil, the sooner it dies I will rejoice. But I must be convinced before I can be converted to any thing. And such is the constitution of my mind, that nothing will operate upon it but truth, reason, argument and evidence.
There are, in the numbers which have been issued, but two topics that demand our attention. The one is the editorial remarks upon "experimental religion;" the other is some remarks of Mr. George Waller upon his "casting vote in the Long Run Association." Had Mr. Waller confined his remarks to the subject on which he professedly wrote, we should have endeavored to have found room for his whole piece; but he has indulged in too much acrimony, and gone off in a tangent from his subject to insinuations which are neither creditable to himself nor his cause. We shall, however, present the reader with what pertains to his casting vote:--
"Finding in the last number of the work alluded to, [Christian Baptist,] page 215, under the head of "the Casting Vote, or the Creed triumphant over the Bible," a few remarks, in which I (with the Long Run Association) am implicated as acting an unworthy part, and considering myself in that connexion singled out as an object of slander, it seems altogether important that I pay some attention to that subject. It is true, as stated in said number, that the Long Run Association, at her session of September, 1825, reported three thousand and sixty-four members; that I did preside in said meeting as Moderator; that a circular letter, written by P. S. Fall, pastor of the Baptist church in Louisville, Ky. was presented for inspection, the subject of which was as stated in said number. It is also true that I am a descendant of the Wallers of Virginia; once persecuted by those who, having the form of godliness, but denying the power of it: and so great is my attachment to my predecessors, and that gospel which they so warmly espoused, that I am content (if the will of God be so) to suffer persecution from a similar source. It is not true, as expressed at the head of said remarks, that in the rejection of said letter, the creed was triumphant over the Bible. Nor is it true that in giving the casting vote in that case, I copied the example of Doctor Lightfoot by acting from the same reasons. I must acknowledge myself at some loss to understand the allusion in the expression, "for the same reasons:" if reference is had in this expression to the reason given by the publishers of said circular letter, for the decision of the moderator. Although I have no disposition to impeach the motives or veracity of the publishers, yet, to say the least of it, manifest injustice is done to the moderator on the subject of his vote. It is [239] admitted that something to that effect may have occurred in the course of examination on that subject, but not in the shape of a reason for the casting vote. It is not true, as insinuated by the Christian Baptist, that the creed and the Bible were in question before the Association; and I cannot persuade myself that Mr. Campbell believes they were; for he knows too well the views of the Baptists in the adoption of the creed, to be innocent when he thus represents them; for support of these remarks, see Confession, ch. i. of which Mr. C. cannot be supposed to be ignorant, especially as he has so much to say against them. It will be recollected by those who were attentive to the proceedings of the Long Run Association, that after the circular written by P. S. Fall, had passed the examination of the committee, and it was presented to the Association for adoption, there were two additional notes, one of which declaring that it was not the intention of the writer to call in question the propriety of creeds: this was done at the suggestion of the moderator, in committee, and with a design to waive any objection to the letter, before the Association, which might arise from the supposition that the letter was designed to oppose and put down the creed. Not having the manuscript (as it appeared after amendments) before me, I do not pretend to detail the facts precisely as they occurred; but the substance is given, to the best of my recollection. These things in view, and it is impossible that any person can believe, either that the creed or Bible were in question before the Association, or that the casting vote of the moderator rendered the creed triumphant over the Bible."
Now let the reader observe that every thing stated in the article alluded to in the seventh number is admitted by Mr. Waller, excepting the head or title prefixed to the article. That the creed was triumphant over the bible was the natural consequence in my mind, for this reason: First, because the letter advocated neither more nor less than that the bible is "the one only sufficient, perfect, and infallible rule of christian faith and manners." And Mr. Waller admits that the extracts given in the seventh number do, in truth, express the substance of the whole letter. Has Mr. Waller assigned any other reason for giving his casting vote, other than stated by the publishers of said letter? Does he now give his reasons for said vote? And what damnable or condemnable doctrine was in said letter, except that it contended that the bible alone was the only sufficient, perfect, and infallible rule of christian faith and manners? Was not the substance of the letter the reason why he rejected it by the casting vote? If not, pray what was it? And if it was the substance, I must again declare, notwithstanding the question was not put in the very words whether the creed or the bible shall be the only perfect and infallible rule, &c. that still it was in fact and in effect, "the creed triumphant over the bible;" and to quibble now about the form in which the question was put, or to make that an excuse for the vote, is only weak and childish. Will the reader please turn over to the seventh number of this volume and read the extracts of said letter there given, and remember that Mr. Waller has affirmed them to be correctly stated, and then ask himself whether the title given to the casting vote is just or unjust, and I will abide by his decision.
As to what he says about copying the example of Dr. Lightfoot, I did not say he "copied" it. And his saying that he was not actuated by Dr. Lightfoot's reasons, and then declaring that he did not know what they were, I must charitably say, deserves no notice. I am glad to observe that he is now ashamed of his vote, and that he considers it "slander" to be reminded of it, or to have it published without a disrespectful word. I have only to add my earnest desires that all who vote as he did against such a document as said letter, may consider it "slander" to be told of it again.
I will give another extract immediately following the preceding, which I am sorry to say is but a poor defence of himself, and unworthy of a good cause. This I consider undeserved slander, and of the lowest kind:--
"I take this to be the whole secret: Mr. C. has set out to cut a figure in the learned world, and no plan so likely to succeed as to set himself to oppose the whole religious world. If this course can be freed from the charge of bigotry, (against which he inveighs so vehemently,) I can only say that I am mistaken: this, however, is no new thing under the sun, for in every instance where new sects start up, their leaders must (in order to success) show that every body else is wrong as to religious matters, and themselves right: it is true, the baptists are complimented, not only with assertions that they are right on the subject of baptism, but to their support on that subject one public controversy after another has been bestowed upon them. This, however, is not surprising, when it seems a reasonable calculation, that by means of a press at hand, publications of those controversies might be productive of a considerable income to the donor. The exertions of Mr. C. in opposition to associations and confessions of faith, or opinions, cannot be accounted for upon principles satisfactory to me, in any other way than by admitting the following as the cause. That in order to enlarge the sphere of his operations every thing like dependence of the churches, one upon another, must be destroyed by the destruction of associations, and that of the members of churches by the destruction of confessions of faith. And why must associations and creeds be destroyed? Because they are human productions. No person pretends that there is express precept or example in the word of God, yet I esteem it impious that the scripturality of associations or creeds should be denied."
Here my motives of action are represented as vile, and what I have said must be false, because my motives are judged, condemned, and execrated. I had thought that "God alone searched the hearts and tried the thoughts of the children of men." On this I will make no comment. I do not impute any thing to the motives of Mr. Waller; I trust they are pure and upright, and I assure him I will be the last to impeach them. It is with what he says and does I have to do. I leave the rest to him "that sees not as man sees." I have not room to be more particular in my remarks, nor more full in my extracts on this subject. There are some sentiments expressed on the subject of creeds and associations which I cannot believe are the real sentiments of the author. He says, "I esteem it impious that the scripturality of associations or Creeds should be denied." I will not comment upon this saying until the writer avows it to be his real sentiment on this subject, believing it to have been written at an unfavorable moment when under the influence of some mental perturbation. For assuredly no Baptist can think that it is a sin against God, or the want of reverence for him, to deny that human creeds and associations are commanded in scripture. [240]
Again he says, "To say that creeds and associations were introduced among us, with any other than religious feelings, desires, and motives, is unpardonable impiety." Now I would rather think and say that Mr. Waller did not understand or weigh the import of his own words, than to think he really means that the mere saying that creeds and associations were introduced not as he represents, is a sin against God that has no forgiveness, neither in this world nor the next. There are so many things of this kind in brother Waller's piece, that I would rather impute them to any cause than to suppose them the genuine views and feelings of his mind. His remarks on the new version of the New Testament, which he never saw, are of the same kind, and indicate some mental perturbation, which forbid my commenting upon them until I am assured that they are his cool and deliberate sentiments.
On the subject of "experimental religion" the editors have been hinting, hoping, and doubting something about my orthodoxy. I am glad they have begun here, and that they have published my first essay on this subject. Had they also been so obliging as to have published my last one, or even an intermediate one on the same topic, I should have appreciated their candor and liberality still more. I think my remarks on Conscience, vol. 3, No. 7, being the last thing said on that subject, ought to appear in connexion with No. 8, vol. 1. I shall feel obliged to acknowledge a favor done to myself individually, and to the cause which I espouse, should the editors publish the article on "Conscience," No. 7, vol. 3.
While on this topic, I must just remark, that as the editors have not as yet attempted to elucidate this subject, or to give their views, or any views, other than a few vague expressions, it would no doubt be of importance to the community that they should fully discuss the subject. And still I put the question, What is "experimental religion?" The words import neither more nor less in any acceptation of them, according to the English language than a religion founded upon experiment, or proved by experiment. It is optional with those who contend for the thing signified by the phrase, to say which of the two. If it mean a religion founded upon experiment, let them illustrate the nature and properties of those experiments: if proved by experiment, let the experiments be explained. I will not do it for them, because I cannot. Let them who so warmly contend for the name and for something under the name, explain it, and I will examine and declare unequivocally my views upon their exposition. As to "christian experience," the language is intelligible, and I understand the words precisely. They mean the experience of a christian. And I am persuaded that every christian in the world has experience. Yet a great portion of what is commonly called "christian experience" is as much the experience of deists and apostates, as it is of christians. Neither convictions of guilt, nor fears of punishment, nor hopes of exemption, nor desires for reformation, are peculiar to christians. Simon Magus, and Judas Iscariot, and ten thousand others have experienced these, whom few of the populars would put on their lists of christians. If the phrase "christian experience" must be retained, let it be defined; let those who consecrate it give us a definition of it that comports with the import of the words or with their views. My remarks in the 8th No. vol. 1, on this subject, may be ridiculed and laughed at by those who do not understand them, or by those who have been misled and are misleading others in this wild course; but they have not yet been able to show that they are either logically or scripturally erroneous. I have too many documents to prove that thousands are depending upon their experiences and experimental religion as the bases of their hope towards God, whose experience and experimental religion are not worth a straw.
I am assured that every one that is born of God feels as well as believes, hopes and fears, loves and abhors, rejoices and trembles, and that they are conscious of all these; that they are purified in their hearts, reformed in their lives, and zealous of good works; that they are fervent in spirit, constant in prayer, and intent on showing forth the praises of him who has called them out of darkness into his marvellous light. And I contend that, without these, a man is blind and cannot see far, and dead while he lives.
As to the modus operandi, as described by the populars, it is all foolish philosophy; vain and deceitful jargon, and a ship load of such theories is not worth one inspired word. If I cannot prove them such by unanswerable arguments, I will become a spiritual metaphysician, a theoretic doctor, a retailer of theological receipts, as Orthodox as Beza or Calvin.
I have now to propose to the editors of the Baptist Recorder:--You, gentlemen, have selected what you call my views of experimental religion, out of the numerous topics in the Christian Baptist. This appears from your beginning with this topic. If, of the numerous essays on this subject, you think the first one on this topic answers your purpose better than any other, I have no objections to your availing yourselves of it, irrespective of any thing afterwards published on the same topic; or if you please to select any other one down to the article headed "Conscience," No. 6, vol. 3. or if you prefer to publish your own sentiments on the subject, I will promise to publish any thing you write on the subject, to the amount of four or five pages in one number, and will take no more to myself in replying to it--on the following conditions: 1st. That you publish my replies in full in your paper; and 2dly. That you confine yourselves to one topic at a time, and abstain from every expression of passion, from every insinuation about my motives, which you know nothing about; in a word, that you confine yourselves to argument and scripture. I do not stipulate these conditions as though I feared a non-compliance, or any thing like injustice on your part; but the insinuations over the name of Geo. Waller have given some apprehension that the latter may not be an untimely hint. My willingness to be instructed or put to rights, and to give every opportunity to my readers to judge for themselves, have dictated the first condition. I court investigation, and only ask for what is commonly called "fair play," and good order in the plan of conducting it.
One topic at a time, and a firm adherence to the oracles of truth and to argument, are conditions which common sense and common justice dictate, and against which we know of no objection which honesty, integrity, and the consciousness of a good cause can offer. All of which is respectfully submitted, by your humble servant for the truth's sake,
THE EDITOR.
MANY of the great men of all departments of science, in their lucid intervals, have expressed the same views of the bible and of systematic theology: [241]
Milton's Treatise on Christian Doctrine.
If, then, the scriptures be in themselves so perspicuous, and sufficient of themselves to make men wise unto salvation through faith, and that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works, through what infatuation is it that even Protestant divines persist in darkening the most momentous truths of religion by intricate comments, on the plea that such an explanation is necessary; stringing together all the useless technicalities and empty distinctions of scholastic barbarism, for the purpose of elucidating those scriptures which they are continually extolling as models of plainness? as if scripture, which possesses in itself the clearest light, and is sufficient for its own explanation, especially in matters of faith and holiness, required to have the simplicity of its divine truths more fully developed, and placed in a more distinct view, by illustrations drawn from the abstract of human science, falsely so called."
Dr. George Campbell's views of Commentators and
Commentaries, extracted from his Lectures on
Systematic Theology.
"The dogmatist knows nothing of degrees, either in evidence or in faith. He has properly no opinions or doubts. Every thing with him is either certainly true, or certainly false. Of this turn of mind I shall only say, that so far from being an indication of vigor, it is a sure indication of debility in the intellectual powers."
"Of most of our commentaries we may almost say, they speak an infinite deal of nothing.--Their reasons are as two grains of wheat hid in two bushels of chaff; you shall seek all day ere you find them, and when you have them they are not worth the search."
"Almost every commentator hath his favorite system, which occupies his imagination, biases his understanding, and more or less tinges all his comments."
"How unsafe, then, must it be to trust in men. When we thus implicitly follow a guide before inquiry, if we should even happen to be in the right, it is, with regard to us, a matter purely accidental."
"Whilst therefore it is by far the too general cry, 'Read, read commentators, systematists, paraphrasts, controvertists, demonstrations, confutations, apologies, answers, defences, replies and ten thousand other such like;' I should think the most important advice to be, devoutly study the scriptures themselves, if you would understand their doctrine in singleness of heart."
"Rica having been to visit the library of a French convent, writes thus to his friend in Persia concerning what had passed: Father, said I to the librarian, what are these huge volumes which fill the whole side of the library? These, said he, are the interpreters of the scriptures.--There is a prodigious number of them, replied I; the scriptures must have been very dark formerly, and very clear at present. Do there remain still any doubts? Are there now any points contested? Are there? (answered he with surprise,) Are there? There are almost as many as there are lines. You astonish me, said I; what then have all these authors been doing? These authors, returned he, never searched the scriptures for what ought to be believed, but for what they did believe themselves. They did not consider them as a book wherein were contained the doctrines which they ought to receive, but as a work which might be made to authorise their own ideas."
[TCB 233-241]
|
[Table of Contents] [Previous] [Next] |
Alexander Campbell
The Christian Baptist (1889) |