|
[Table of Contents] [Previous] [Next] |
Alexander Campbell
The Christian Baptist (1889) |
| NO. 12.] | JULY 6, 1829. |
Paulinus, to the Editor of the Christian Baptist.
MAY, 1829.
DEAR SIR,--A correspondent, who appears under the signature of "A Lover of the whole of Divine Truth," in the last number of the Christian Baptist, has labored to make it appear that "Paulinus" in your periodical, is at variance with "Melancthon" in the "Religious Herald;"--in other words, that the writer with these different signatures is inconsistent with himself; and, indeed, that "Paulinus," at one period of his correspondence with you, is not altogether consistent with "Paulinus" at another period.
Giving this writer all due credit for his sagacity--and especially for smelling the wonderful secret that "there has been a lecture, caution, admonition, reproof, or rebuke, given from somewhere;"--(some people have the faculty of smelling out what never existed)--l must beg your indulgence to say a little in reference to this communication; much I have no desire to say, and I hope it may not be necessary.
In the first letter of "Paulinus," your correspondent finds many things highly to commend, and none, as far as I observe, to censure. Very well! In the second epistle, too, he is pleased to say, he finds "other excellent things." But here he begins to suspect that "Paulinus" is wavering; and further onward he becomes confirmed in the opinion that there was a desertion of the sentiments with which "Paulinus" commenced the correspondence; or some inconsistency with the professions and declarations which he had made.
To a person, sir, who thinks, that because a man has expressed himself to be highly pleased with the sentiments and operations of another, to a certain extent, he must therefore approve in toto;--to him who may consider it proper, implicitly to deliver himself up, to go, pari passu, with another, and even run before him; to such a person I own I may have appeared wavering and inconsistent; but from the decision of any such person, I must appeal to those who are capable of exercising more candor.
As it regards the inconsistency of "Paulinus" with himself, in his correspondence in the Christian Baptist, I do not feel concern enough, on this point, to trouble you, or your readers, or myself, with a review in detail of the quotations and remarks of this writer. If any of your readers should be so far interested in the matter as to examine for themselves, I refer them to the correspondence itself:--particularly to the first letter of "Paulinus," vol. 4, p. 266, and the answer, p. 268,--to the second letter, vol. 4, 306; and to Paulinus' note to the editor, vol. 5, p. 377. Let any intelligent person, without the colored spectacles of this writer, attentively read this correspondence, and then say whether the labor of this "Lover of the whole of Divine Truth," be not, thus far, lost labor.
It is of much more consequence to consider the charge of inconsistency between "Paulinus" [561] in the Christian Baptist, and "Melancthon" in the Religious Herald. Of much more consequence, I say, not on my own account, but because it involves a matter which I deem of great importance to the rising generation;--I mean, the moral and religious culture of the minds of children.
What now is the lamentable inconsistency complained of? Let us see: and let me endeavor to condense, for I begin to apprehend I shall occupy more room than may be desirable.
"Melancthon," in his fourth essay, treating on the religious instruction of children, recommends, for early childhood, the use of plain and simple catechisms, adapted to the capacity of children: and that we might be supplied with these means of instruction, and have them more generally adopted amongst us, he undertook to suggest to the Baptist General Convention, the propriety of taking certain steps, for the purpose of effecting this object.
And behold, here is the offence!--and here is the inconsistency of "Paulinus" and "Melancthon!" If you ask, How? (as well you may)--I answer, thus, viz. "Paulinus" had expressed much pleasure in your apparent aim, "to clear the religion of Jesus of all the adventitious lumber with which it has been encumbered, and bring back the christian church to its primitive simplicity and beauty." He had also expressed his hearty approbation of "your opposition to the errors and follies, too prevalent in the religious world." Moreover, he had spoken of the most effectual way "for sweeping off all that rubbish which has been gathered from the old ruins of former establishments; to build withal on christian grounds;--alluding to the arguments for christian institutions, drawn from the abrogated ceremonies of the Old Testament. All this "Paulinus" had said: and now, lo! "Melancthon" recommends the use of plain and simple catechisms, as a help in the mode of instructing children! What is the conclusion?--Ergo, "Paulinus" and "Melancthon" are inconsistent." But this logic (please to observe) takes for granted what will not be allowed; viz. that well adapted catechisms are to be considered as adventitious lumber--as errors and follies--as rubbish, gathered from the ruins of former establishments. That this mode of instruction has been abused, "Melancthon" readily allows: but when your correspondent proves the propositions just mentioned;--when he proves that to instruct children in this way is error and folly, and that all catechisms are lumber and rubbish, I can, by the same arguments (and a fortiori) prove the same thing, with regard to all religious periodicals and publications, essays, &c. intended to instruct full grown learners. I say, I can do this more forcibly: because, if persons who are fully capable of reading the Bible for themselves, need human aid, in deriving instruction from that sacred source, then much more do children need such aid, who cannot read for themselves.
But "Paulinus" had declared his persuasion, that "the word of God is the instrument of our regeneration and sanctification:" and this writer asks, if a catechism is such an instrument for "these little immortals?" I answer, divine truth is God's instrument for doing good to the souls of men, whether it be held forth altogether in the express words of scripture or not; and whether viva voce or written. And if your correspondent is sure of the contrary, why does he attempt to teach by long lectures and by printed publications?
"Is this the way (asks our critical censor) to reform the church and restore the ancient order of things?" I answer, every well-adapted method ought to be used, for effecting a reformation where it is needed: and while the apostle enjoins on parents the duty of bringing up their children "in the nurture and admonition of the Lord," can your correspondent, by his sagacity, discover the precise method which we are directed to pursue?--or has the inspired writer left the modus operandi to christian prudence?
Let us hearken again. "Is this the aid he promised to correct the evils, to wit, creeds and confessions of faith, those fruitful sources of dissention," &c. And does your correspondent consider the mode of instructing children by a plain and simple catechism, the same thing with adopting creeds and confessions of faith, as standards (instead of the scriptures) by which to try the members of the church? If so, I may take the liberty to say, I differ with him; and very likely, so will most of your readers.
"Is this," (says he, in the same strain of fancied triumph)--"Is this his opposition to theories, or compiling abstract truths?"--A short quotation from Paulinus' second letter will suffice for the answer:--"not as mere abstract truths, but as having their adjuncts;--not as naked theories, but as practical lessons." Surely, sir, this writer uses terms without duly considering their import.
This method of proceeding, he conceives, is "carrying our jugs to the distillery to get alcohol, that our little immortals may tipple with us."--Your correspondent may enjoy the benefit of this happy application of the figure: but he (it seems) is a teacher in Israel, and doubtless wishes the people to attend his lectures.--Query;--to whose distillery then will they carry their jugs!
"What need can there be (he asks) of the influence of the Holy Spirit, when it is admitted that these ecclesiastical bodies' recommendation will have a powerful and happy influence?" It is enough to say here, that the writer ought to have resisted the temptation which led him to this ill-judged attempt at being witty.
But here comes the most serious charge. He thinks it "a deep reflection upon the wisdom and philanthropy of Jesus Christ, in not giving to these "little immortals" what Melancthon considers necessary for their religious education." He means, I presume, that it is a deep reflection, &c. to say that Christ has not given, &c. Now, sir, I believe that the holy scriptures contain all truth necessary to make us wise to salvation. But I believe also, that God designs we should aid one another in the economy of grace, as well as in that of nature; and particularly that the strong should assist the weak. And if this writer thinks differently, I ask again, why does he attempt to teach even grown folks by long lectures?
Your correspondent could stretch out his hand to pull down, but he has done nothing, in this case, to build up. Suffer me here to quote a passage from "Melancthon." "If, for a certain stage of childhood, a better method can be devised, in any regular or systematic manner to impart instruction, let some of the friends of these little immortals present it to our notice," &c. See Essays on Reformation, No. 4. Now, sir, I do think it is but the part of candor and good nature to admit, that "Melancthon" has shown a disposition to help forward in a most desirable object--and a disposition to do it in the most eligible manner. And deeply conscious of the importance of the object, he has invited the [562] "friends of these little immortals" to lend their aid. And what has this "Lover of the whole of Divine Truth" done, in compliance with this friendly invitation?--Let your readers judge.--I have already far transcended my proposed limits, and will only add--when next your correspondent attempts to write for the benefit of the public, I hope he may not amuse himself at the expense of a serious subject.
With every good wish I am, yours in the gospel of Christ,
PAULINUS.
It would afford me no little pleasure--themselves and their mutual friends much happiness--the cause of truth some service--and Satan no little disappointment--could "Paulinus" and the "Lover of the whole of Divine Truth" agree to co-operate in the restoration of the ancient gospel and the ancient order of things. If they will agree to refer all difficult questions about expediencies, and about matters of mere abstract opinion, to the verdict of the grand jury of twelve Apostles; and should the twelve refuse, one and all, to decide the question, then to refer it to the General Convention of the Saints at their first anniversary of the resurrection of the dead, I will vouch for their most cordial agreement in sentiment, and zealous co-operation in effort in all things affecting the honor of the Saviour, the harmony of the saints, and the conversion of the world. But should they get into a warm controversy about baby catechisms, and long lectures about the capital I and the little u, I will predict that the leader in such a controversy will shed tears for it; and should he win the day on earth, he will lose it in heaven. What a pity that a modern Paul and a junior Timothy could not, like the good old Paul and Timothy, be fellow-laborers in God's vineyard!
EDITOR.
VIRGINIA, March 20, 1829.
DEAR SIR--WHEN I wrote the observations that appeared in your monthly publication of November and December, concerning the intelligibility of sacred writ, I thought I had expressed my conceptions on that subject so guardedly as to preclude even a possibility of being misunderstood; with respect to that hope, however, I find I was mistaken. Some imagine that the condition of the creature's mind, to which, I had asserted, God had adapted his message, was its natural condition, unperverted by education, error, or prejudice; uncorrupted by evil inclinations, habits, or dispositions; and not its state as it actually exists when God's message visits it, perverted and corrupted by all these. This construction of my words, however, is certainly unauthorized by them, and the inference which some draw from their distinction is unsupported. God from all eternity knew, with absolute certainty, not only the quantity of intellect which he had determined to bestow on each of his rational creatures at their birth; but the actual condition of their minds, as produced by error, prejudice, habit, inclination, or disposition, when his message should be made to visit them: and to the then existing condition of the most illiterate, prejudiced, and depraved of them, is the clearness of his message evidently adapted. Hence it is, that, in his message to sinners, no allowance is made for the ignorance, illiterature, error, prejudice, or depravity of any of them.--God manifestly considers his message as sufficiently clear to his rational creature man in every condition in which it can visit him, and threatens, of course, to inflict the severest punishment upon him if he neglect, pervert, or reject it.--Now, had not the message been deemed sufficiently clear and certain to every sinner when it reached him, justice could not have approved such severity, nor God threatened to inflict it--for this plain reason, that an unintelligible message is no message.
To terminate the strife, let me observe that if the bible be an unintelligible volume, either God or man has made it such; and, of course, unfitted it to answer the end for which it was sent into the world--to enlighten it; and let those who make this charge say on whom this heavy censure falls; if on God, he cannot be that merciful and kind being which he says he is; and if on man it is high time that they undo the darkness which they have spread over the face of God's message to a perishing world. Nor let it be said that God, unable or unwilling to qualify the first publishers for rendering his message plain, has been driven to the necessity of raising up a succession of uninspired, and, of course, unqualified men, to remedy his original failure.
I now proceed to offer a few observations, calculated in my judgment, to evince that in every instance in which the Divine Spirit has judged it proper (for he never acts inconsiderately or inadvertently) to conceal his mind from man by the use of obscure or ambiguous language, no uninspired man can defeat his design, or make his mind more fully or clearly known than he has condescended to do. This fact is explicitly declared in Paul's first letter to the christian society at Corinth, ii. 11. and the declaration ought to have repressed the impious attempts of presumptuous mortals to pry into the secrets of the Almighty. But as it seems there are men, and, still more wonderful, Christian Doctors, too, who pay little regard to divine authority, we invite them to attend to a fact that occurs daily, and to the abortive labor of many hundred years, for instruction on this important subject.
The fact to which we allude, is, that when a fellow creature employs, either designedly or inadvertently, obscure or ambiguous language in the enunciation of his thoughts, it is impossible for any other human being to determine with certainty his meaning: conjecture concerning it is all that can be reached. If, then, the use of obscure or ambiguous phraseology be resorted to by men with absolute certainty that the veil which they thus spread over their thoughts will prove impenetrable, and for ever defy the sagacity of their fellow men to pierce it, how ridiculous is it to imagine that the obscure or ambiguous phraseology purposely introduced by the Divine Spirit into his message, can be removed by human sagacity.
But in case this fact, like God's explicit declaration, should fail to work conviction and check the daring impiety of rash mortals, let the abortive labor of innumerable learned commentators, expositors, sermonizers, &c. who have most assiduously cultivated this barren field, at length dash the vain hopes of self-conceited men. Where, we ask, is the obscure or ambiguous word, phrase, or passage, to be found in the whole book of God; which is clearer or more certain now than it was seventeen hundred years ago? Conjecture, mere conjecture about the Spirit's meaning is, in every instance, in which his own words do not clearly announce it, all that has been, or indeed could have been advanced on the subject. And will any christian suffer himself to be so excessively deluded as to build his faith and rear his everlasting hopes on such a wretched foundation as human conjecture? No--the faith of a christian can fix on no other [563] foundation than the clear and explicit declaration of a God who can neither lie nor be mistaken. Oh! human vanity! how long wilt thou obtrude thy disgusting visage upon us? How long wilt thou select the most obscure and ambiguous passages of God's word to exhibit thy self-conceit, and make an ignorant multitude gape, stare, marvel at, and talk about thy matchless skill in making darkness light?
Here it may not be improper to notice a fallacy which the learned as well as the unlearned are wont to practice upon themselves. It is not uncommon to hear people, who acknowledge that the words employed by the divine Spirit do not with certainty suggest his meaning to their minds, declare that by the aid of a commentator or other expounder, they can discover the Spirit's meaning clearly. We ask, How can this be? Have the words employed by the Spirit, or any of the inferior helps with which he has furnished us, undergone a change? Have they acquired a greater degree of fitness to reveal the Spirit's mind to us than they had before the commentator was consulted? We presume not. What then has happened? Just this--The commentator's notion has been substituted and mistaken for the Spirit's meaning. The deluded enquirer, pleased with an ingenious suggestion of his favorite commentator, admits it to be the real meaning of the Spirit, and henceforth employs it as a standard by which he tries the notions of others and his own. But it is plain that during this whole process of self-deception the Spirit's meaning is as little known to the enquirer, after he has got his commentator's aid as it was before; and instead of the Spirit's meaning, he has got only his commentator's notion--for it is not the Spirit's, but the commentator's words that suggest the meaning which he adopts.
But it may be asked, Has the Divine Spirit furnished no other means of ascertaining the meaning of his message than the words and phrases in which it is written? We answer, He has: even all the means that can be safely used to ascertain the meaning of any human speech or writing. Beside the words and phrases which the Spirit has selected to express his mind, he has given us the aid of context, connected phraseology, related passages, scope or purpose, and subject, recorded facts, antecedent institutions, previous and subsequent declaration of the divine mind, the state of morality and theology, and even the controversies that existed when any passage, to us obscure, was written. To all these, as to means furnished by the Spirit himself, and furnished to all alike, who have a bible in their hands, or its contents within their hearing, and which require, in order to obtain from them all the aid they can afford, not human learning, but common sense and scripture information. To all these, I say, we may occasionally resort, even where no doubt is entertained concerning the genuineness of the present text. And where the original text is suspected of having undergone any alteration, God has given us the benefit of ancient manuscripts, ancient translations, and even quotations of ancient date, by a diligent and cautious comparison of which, accidental alterations may be detected, and the original reading be restored. And here we admit human learning to be of real use, but here only. Now, though God has furnished the devout student of his word with all these inferior helps, yet the occasions are very few, we presume, on which he will find it necessary to use any of them. God's message being intended end constructed for the salvation of multitudes who have not leisure to peruse such subordinate aids, must be sufficient to answer his purpose without their use: nor can we believe that God meant that the illiterate should depend on the conjectural and of course uncertain information of the learned and ingenious, obtained from these inferior sources;--for this would compel the illiterate to depend on human sagacity, and not divine declaration; to build their faith on the suggestions of men, and not on the informations of God.
| Yours, &c. | |
| ALEXANDER STRAITH. |
The Bible.--No. III.
DEAR SIR,--AS closely connected with the consummate folly of attempting to remove the intentional obscurities and ambiguities of the Divine Spirit from his message, we mention the impious practice of attempting to make us more fully acquainted with events recorded--with minerals, animals, vegetables, and places; with manners, customs, and usages; in short, with any thing mentioned in sacred writ--than God has thought fit to do. What immense labor has been performed, what vast quantities of precious time have been spent, absolutely wasted, in vain attempts to furnish information; for example, respecting the formation of this planet and its inhabitants; its appearance when newly formed; the situation and extent of the place called the garden of Eden; its rivers and trees; the qualities of the tree called in scripture the tree of good and evil; the time man lived before he sinned; the animal by which Eve was deceived; the change produced by the prohibited fruit on the intellectual, moral, and physical constitution of our first parents; the duration of man's probationary state, and his destiny, had he continued to live in innocence; the change produced on our earth by Adam's transgression, and by the flood that succeeded it; and ten thousand other scriptural objects and occurrences in addition to what God has thought proper to give us. But, alas! this has proved to us another barren field, which learned presumption and folly have labored long and hard to change; the blasting curse, however, still adheres to it. Not one particle of certain information, additional to what God has condescended to furnish us, has been procured by the researches of man. Conjectures, often wild and extravagant, often puerile and ridiculous, generally variant, and even contradictory, but always uncertain, fill up the whole mass of pretended information which vain dreamers have affected to add to God's intelligence. Nor is this total failure of human labor a matter either of wonder or regret. Surely had God considered more information than he has furnished concerning any object mentioned in his word, to be either useful or necessary to man, his goodness affords the most ample assurance that he would have communicated it and given it absolute certainty. We ought, therefore, to regard the quantity of certain information concerning the objects mentioned in sacred writ which God has there vouchsafed to impart to us, as that quantity precisely which he knew to be fittest and safest for us, and, with it, it is our wisdom, our duty, and our interest, to be satisfied. To covet more is impious--to aim at more is downright rebellion. From the conjectures, notions, and dreams of self-conceited men, we can obtain no benefit from them, however, we may derive much harm Let us therefore reject and despise them as at least superfluous, if not pernicious, and cleave to the information of our all-wise Creator, as all that is necessary to make us truly wise and [564] happy. Indeed it is astonishing that men should covet and laboriously strive to acquire notions, in the truth and certainty of which they know that they can repose no confidence, and which, of course, must remain useless lumber in their minds!
There is another current practice, which, as it offers to the Deity, if possible, still grosser insult, merits severer condemnation. It is the practice of attempting, by human researches and discoveries, to render God's declarations more credible than his veracity can render them. Many who seem but little disposed to believe the occurrence of events, or the existence of objects mentioned in scripture, merely because God has declared their existence, are ready, if any trace of the declared occurrence, or any specimen of the asserted object be now found, where the scripture says the occurrence did take place, or the object, whether animal, vegetable, mineral, custom, manner, usage, or place did exist--to admit that God has at least once told the truth, and deserves credit. This is truly horrible! Divine testimony accounted unworthy of belief till confirmed by human discovery! What insult here to that veracity, which, when it stamps its declarations with the seal of truth, suffers no other testimony, no other evidence to approach it. Vision itself creates not that certainty which divine veracity begets--which divine declaration affords. Away then with all confirmative discoveries, all confirmative arguments or reasonings of man, with respect to any matter concerning which God has made an explicit declaration! And let it be remembered also that one explicit declaration establishes the truth and certainty of what is declared, as effectually as if the declaration were to be repeated ten thousand times. And this, by the bye, manifests and condemns the impiety of the practice of attempting to render any explicit declaration of sacred writ more credible, by resorting to other passages in which the same declaration may be found.
A. S.
TROY, MIAMI COUNTY, OHIO, June 8, 1829.
MR. EDITOR--Here is a glass of cordial to revive your spirits: it is presented merely as a compliment; and as treats are becoming quite unfashionable among the more temperate, I shall not think it impolite in you not to accept it. Yesterday I attended a Methodist camp meeting, where I was again reminded (as I have often been within two years past) of a remark your father, Thomas Campbell, made to me nearly three years since; it was substantially this--"If you attend the ministry of a Presbyterian, you will hear many good things; if you hear a Methodist, many glorious truths will be uttered; should the preacher be an Episcopalian, he may edify you; a Baptist preacher will say many things that are said in the Bible; the Universalian is not entirely ignorant of the gospel; the Unitarians sermon is true in part; and the like may be said of every sect in christendom; but among all these sects, without exception, nearly one-half you hear is false, or, to say the least, doubtful; that is to say, it is not to be found in the scriptures."
Among the many good and bad, true and false declarations, which were made from the stand yesterday, the following is one, or several in one. To which class does it belong?--
Presiding Elder, James Finley, upon the first of three heads, into which he divided this text, "For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, works for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory," announced, with much warmth, "That he must, in justice to the cause of truth, warn his congregation to beware of the doctrines propagated by one Campbell of the Baptist church, who denies the agency of the Holy Spirit in the conversion of a sinner, and opposes the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. Every thing pertaining to the new birth, regeneration, and pardon of sin, he resolves into baptism, and this into immersion!! He makes immersion the earnest of the inheritance. One of that class of preachers, when baptizing some persons in the Miami, near Dayton, not long ago, said to them, 'The time it coming when you will look down from Heaven upon this place, and rejoice that you here received the earnest of your inheritance,' meaning that baptism was the earnest! One of them came to Sandusky, and told the christian Indians and others at that place, that he had been at considerable pains in coming a long distance for the purpose of preaching the gospel to them, and requested an audience, with which the Indians very politely favored him. He commenced by telling them that he had a message of salvation for them; and, in the course of his lecture, informed them that this salvation was to be obtained only by being immersed; that the water would wash away all their sins, and they would be pardoned and justified immediately. After a consultation, as is the custom of the Indians in such cases, they made him the following reply: 'We thank you for the interest you have taken in our own welfare, and for all your trouble in coming so far to instruct us poor ignorant Indians. You have said some very good things, which we know by experience to be true; but you have said some things which we do not understand.1 We do not understand how the water can wash away our sins. I have washed my body all over in the Mississippi, in the Missouri, in the Wabash, and in the great lake, many a time, but it did not wash away my sins. All my sins remained just as they were, until the blood of Christ was applied by the Spirit of God; then they were all taken away at once. The water could not wash away my sins, because it went no deeper than the skin, and my sins were not on my skin, but in my heart: nothing could get at them, but the Spirit of God, and if it could get at them, nothing but the Spirit of God could break them down and destroy them."
"Such preachers are ignorant of the gospel themselves. They have no experience of the love of God shed abroad in their hearts by the Holy Spirit. Would God call such a person to preach the glad tidings of salvation to lost sinners?"
The above is an abridgement of Elder Finley's observations on this part of the first head of his text. I think that in several sentences I have his own language verbatim; I should have given his own words throughout could I have recollected them. I have not intentionally added one thought, but have omitted several for brevity's sake, which were not essential to the design of the extract, or necessary to screen myself from the charge of misrepresentation.
After the discourse, I called on Mr. Finley as politely as one of my little etiquette could well do, and modestly asked him for a written extract of that part of the discourse, for the use of Mr. Campbell and the public. I informed him that I had resolved to make report of his representation of Mr. Campbell's doctrine as well as my memory and the imperfect notes I had taken would [565] enable me; [not knowing what was coming, my notes were not commenced in time;] but wishing not to misrepresent Mr. Finley to the least, I wished to have it from his hand in the very terms that he would wish to come under your review. The only satisfaction he gave me was this,--"I have heard his preachers say those very things, and I have seen them in his writings. B------ preaches the same things, and he says he got them from Campbell!!!" I repeated my request, accompanied with such reasons as candor and christian charity would suggest; but he turned from me, observing, "I am no controversialist." Every body, however, in these parts knows that there is not a greater controversialist (if this be not an abuse of the term) in the country than he, when his antagonist is not present.
M.
Remarks.
I THINK it is ten to one, in the doctrine of chances, whether Elder Finley ever struck upon the meaning of the Apostle Paul in the text, if he brought me out in the sermon. Paul's light afflictions which wrought out for him and his associates an eternal glory, were neither the toothache, rheumatism, pleurisy, jaundice, nor fever of any grade. Neither were they the little or great difficulties, pains, mortifications, prosecutions or persecutions, to which some are liable in the pursuit of wealth or fame. But that I am one of those light afflictions which was working out for Mr. Finley so much future glory, is one of the rarest things which my last mail laid upon the table. But the greatest curiosity is yet untold. How could Elder Finley think in lightly afflicting me he could promote his own glory! I should have expected more good sense from him than to change the theme of suffering light afflictions into a scene of creating light afflictions for one that never afflicted him to the burthen of a moschetto in his whole life.
But to get a little closer to Mr. Finley, I would seriously ask whether himself or the Indians so far perverted my language as to represent me as placing pardon, regeneration or the eternal inheritance, in water, or in more immersion in water. Suppose he should tell the good people of Ohio, that through prayer "pardon and acceptance with God were obtained;" what would he think, or say of me, should I invent or publish an Indian colloquy, representing him, or some of his brethren, as stating that air or wind exhaled in a particular manner, caused guilt to be removed from the conscience, and effected a good understanding betwixt a sinner and the Sovereign of the Universe! Or suppose that he should have taught that good works, such as feeding the hungry, and clothing the naked, were some way necessary to admission into the everlasting kingdom; would he be pleased with me should I represent him as teaching that a certain quantity of corn and wool, or cash, was necessary to admission into heaven! Or suppose that he taught that men were pardoned, justified, and saved through faith, would he say that I did him justice if I held him up to ridicule in a public assembly for teaching that one single thought or act of the mind cancelled all guilt and brought a man into the enjoyment of the smiles of Heaven! Or suppose that he taught that the Holy Spirit regenerated an unbeliever or made him a christian in an instant of time, independent of a preacher or a written revelation! Or that the Spirit physically operated' upon the human mind anterior to faith and made man able and willing to believe, could he say that I acted the part of a Christian if I held him up to scorn for teaching that men were as passive in being born again, as the trees in spring are in being covered with foliage and blossoms, or as the mill wheel is in performing its revolutions! Most certainly he would complain of me. Well, now, what if I should tell brother Finley that there is "one text" in a little book which he loves very much, which says, "All things you would that men should do to you, do you even so to them," and ask him to make a sermon upon it?
But now let me discourse familiarly with my friend Finley. Well, Mr. Finley, what is faith? Do you not define it an act of the mind? And what is prayer but words or sounds addressed to the Deity, expressive of the feelings or desires of the heart? And what is repentance but sorrow for the past? And what is reformation but a ceasing to do evil and a learning to do well? And what is the Lord's supper but eating bread and drinking wine in commemoration of the Lord's death? And what is baptism but immersion in water, or, as you may perhaps think. sprinkling a person into water? Well, now, what efficacy is there in any one of these elements or acts more than in any other elements or acts, but which the divine appointment communicates?
Your Indians, and a Syrian Indian who had the leprosy in the days of Elijah the Prophet, seem to have been methodistical logicians of the same school. They both laughed at the stupidity of a Jewish Prophet for thinking or saying that the water in Jordan had any such efficacy as to cure the leprosy of soul or body, or that it was any better than the waters of the Mississippi or the Lake of the Woods. No doubt they were very merry at the weakness of the old believer, and satirized his enthusiasm. However, the event proved, as you may remember, that the Indians of that day were all sophists: for God had given such efficacy by his own mere appointment to the water in Jordan as made it omnipotent to cure. Such efficacy, too, once had the waters of Siloam when God presided over them! And such efficacy old Paul found in the waters of Damascus after he had believed in the blood of Jesus. He washed his sins away at the command of a messenger of the Lord. Without faith, however, neither the waters of Jordan, Damascus, or Siloam, could possess such virtue. And if you have not this faith, we only ask you neither to mock nor defame those who are so credulous as to believe that he who once turned water into wine, is able to forgive us our sins through water, if we cheerfully receive him as our Prophet, Priest, and King, and submit to his institutions.
If you can only understand how men are born of the Spirit, and cannot understand how they are born of water too, I only request you to allow them who understand both, and have experienced both, to explain themselves. And when you hear Indians saying that sins are not in the skin, but in the blood or flesh of the heart, tell them that sin is not located in flesh, blood, or bones, and that no material application is ever taught, as in its own nature, qualified to absorb, wash away, or deface such moral impurities. But tell them that the blood of Jesus alone can cleanse the conscience from guilt. But, at the same time, there must be some act, medium, or means; some channel in and through which this blood can be felt, apprehended, or communicated. And moreover it will do them no harm to tell them that one Peter, who had the keys of the reign and kingdom of heaven, once proclaimed to all who asked what they should do--that they should [566] reform and be immersed for the remission of their sins, and God would grant them the Holy Spirit. Tell them, So the New institution reads, and that God does neither mock, insult, nor mislead the understanding of the fallen creatures of his love.--And if any one deride you, tell him that he may deride the whole scheme of redemption, and laugh at the mission and sacrifice of Jesus Christ as unworthy of God and unnecessary for men--but tell him if he laugh now, he will mourn and weep by and by. Tell him that the Messiah said, with the most solemn asseverations too, that unless a man was born of water and of the Spirit he could not enter into the kingdom of God.
I have no preachers, Mr. Finley; and I acknowledge no man as a servant of Jesus Christ who is content to take my conclusions, or John Wesley's ipse dixit, for any thing appertaining to the salvation of men. They must not be the servants of men who profess to be the servants of Jesus Christ. I trust they who proclaim reformation towards God, faith in Jesus Christ, and immersion for the remission of sins, know something of the love of God in their hearts and of the Holy Spirit, notwithstanding you have pronounced them destitute of both. As to our comparative ignorance I am not a judge. Though you were as wise as Solomon and as intelligent as Paul, you ought to have compassion on us poor ignorant disciples, and teach us the way of the Lord more perfectly. But I cannot conclude these remarks without calling upon Mr. Finley for the proof that I "oppose the divinity of Jesus Christ; deny the agency of the Holy Spirit in the conversion of a sinner; resolve every thing pertaining to the new birth, regeneration, and pardon of sin, into immersion, and make it the earnest of the inheritance." While I publish this calumny of yours to every state in the Union, I will give you an opportunity of explaining yourself to all who read these remarks, if you have any thing to offer in extenuation of this most illiberal and unfounded charge. You should know, reverend sir, that your say so is not like an oracle from heaven. We are not bound to believe you without evidence. Produce the evidence and we will try it. That I understand the gospel in quite a different light from the coloring you may give it, I doubt not. But you are not infallible; and when I choose a Pope, I will certainly have one better instructed, and more learned than you, to dictate to me what I must believe on peril of condemnation. No Methodist teacher, that I know of, has gone so far in the downward path of detraction as you, Mr. Finley; and I shall be sorry if your illiberal and unfounded calumnies should in the least mar that good understanding which now exists between me and many of the methodistic brotherhood, who are well disposed to call no man Master or Father on earth in the kingdom of Jesus.
EDITOR.
Debates, Tumults, the Two Seeds, &c.
SO GREAT has been the accumulation of essays, queries, and reports, for the last two months, that I find it impossible to lay any reasonable proportion of them before our readers in the present number. I have therefore resolved not to attempt it, and postpone them indefinitely. As I propose bringing this work to a close in the next volume, and as there are several subjects only commenced and on the way in the previous pages I must occupy a considerable proportion of the next volume in completing them. When this work is finished, I have proposed to publish another as sui generis as this has been. This work has been but the pioneer--like the voice of one crying in the wilderness--a mere answer to a question proposed nearly three thousand years ago--"Watchman what of the night?"
As was said of the Israelites, so we say of the generations of men now coming upon the stage: One shall chase a hundred, and ten shall put a thousand to flight. The present generation will dissipate the mists and exhalations of many generations and the next will nearly, if not completely, vanquish the host of darkness and error. The period of antichrist is nigh its end: and the prophecies as well as the signs of the times clearly indicate the speedy dissolution of the present ecclesiastical heavens and earth. I have been astonished to see labors of friends and foes of the restoration all tending to one happy result. Those who advocate primitive christianity, and those who advocate the modern sectarian establishments, are both accelerating the march of truth, and securing the triumphs of light over darkness. Like the "Paidobaptist" of Danville, every new number diminishes the ranks of the Paidoes, and fills up that of the Baptist; so the struggles of the sectaries wound themselves, and strengthen the arms of the sons of the kingdom, without any such intention on their part. Hence all things work together for good to them who love the ancient gospel.
A correspondent from Ireland informed me per last mail, that six Episcopalian and six Roman Catholic divines recently debated fourteen days in Londonderry, on the points at issue betwixt Protestants and Catholics. In 1827, a debate took place in the city of Dublin between Messrs. Pope and M'Guire, the former a Protestant, the latter a Catholic. Both these controversies terminated in favor of Protestantism, and to the more intelligent part of the community in favor of New Testamentism.
A debate of two days continuance took place in Cumberland county, Kentucky, in April last, between Elder Stumper, a Presiding Elder in the Methodist Church, and Elder W. G. Jourdane, of the Christian Church, on this proposition--"Jesus Christ is the very and eternal God." The former affirmed, and the latter denied. This is a question which, of all others, I conceive the most unsuitable for a public discussion. If men could debate such a question upon their knees, it would be scarcely admissible then. It is an "untaught question," a scholastic one in its form and terms, and tends to perpetuate a controversy and a peculiar style of speaking, which the sooner it could be forgotten the better for both saint and sinner. I have learned that during this controversy the correctness of Dr. George Campbell's translation of John iii. 13, was called in question; and as this affects the character of the new version which we have lately published, I will give Dr. Campbell's note. The phrase is, "Whose abode is heaven." Chapter i. 18, has a similar expression--"Who is in the bosom of the Father?" Both are intended to denote what is habitual and characteristic of the person, rather than what obtains at a particular instant. By the phrase, "Who is in the bosom of the Father," is meant, not only who is the special object of the Father's love, but who is admitted to his most secret counsels. By the phrase "Whose abode is heaven," is meant whose home, whose residence is there.
I cannot approve of any one of the sermons, debates, or essays, with which the public ear is assailed, and public eye addressed, so repeatedly upon this question. From the days of Arius [567] down to this day, it has ever been on the stage; and much mischief, but no real good, has resulted from the discussion. If the language of the holy apostles, the scripture names, phrases, and epithets will not suffice, in vain will the learned umber and scholastic jargon of the barbarous ages, be sought after to give satisfaction. If the time spent in arguing about the rank and honors of the Saviour of the world, were employed in the praises of God and the Lamb, we would have less wordy, but more holy and happy christians. There are many questions which may be debated with much propriety and profit, but they are practical, and lay at the foundation of the human establishments which have supplanted the institution of Jesus Christ.
Besides these debates, others have been threatened, and challenges proclaimed. Religious court martials have been erected, and modern "star chambers" have been opened. About the seat of government, in Kentucky, a religious court of inquiry has been established; and before some preachers are admitted into the sacred desks of the high priests of that vicinity, they must be interrogated on the five points of the Synod of Dort. If the preacher says shibboleth, loud and broad, proclamation is issued that all may do him reverence; but if he falters, or squeaks out sibboleth, he is proscribed and devoted to the pelting and pitiless storms of proscription. These are partial results of the great revivals at the Great Crossings and Frankfort.--Some of the most gifted men in Kentucky have been, as we have heard, proscribed already.
Particularism, under the auspices of my friend of Oakly and the new theological school, and the doctrine of the "Two Seeds," is rather looking up on the banks of the Licking. Elder Parker, of Illinois has been translated to Kentucky through the efficacy of his faith in the "two seeds."--He founds election on the natural birth, by a discovery which eluded the eagle eye of Calvin and Beza and all the Jansenists of Rome. He found that Cain was literally begotten by the Devil, and Seth by the Almighty, through the instrumentality of Adam. And so it has been ever since. The Devil is the literal father of all the non-elect, and the Almighty of the elect. Hence the sons of Seth were literally the sons of God, and the daughters of Cain were really the daughters of the Devil; and so each after death must necessarily return to their respective parents.
Friend Parker has reduced the "five points" to two. His first is, that "God never created a set of beings, neither directly nor indirectly, that he suffered to be taken from him and made the subjects of his eternal wrath and indignation." The wicked are therefore indirectly created by the Devil. Mr. Parker has literally taught this doctrine. This is the best argument against catechisms Illinois has yet produced. Mr. Parker cannot, dare not, ask any child, "Who made you?" for the good reason that neither he nor the child knows whether God or the Devil made it!!--Thus the friends of the creeds and catechisms are likely to help us much. His second point is, that "God, as God, in no case possesses more love and mercy than power and wisdom." This is sublimated fatalism. This new creed has great simplicity about it, though its inventor has made it so shameful in his different theories of generation and regeneration, that my nerves have never been strong enough to read it all through. There is a mystery in all cases of twins, which my friend Daniel Parker has not fully solved.--He admits, it is true, that the Devil begat Esau, and the Almighty begat Jacob, but fails very much in his exposition of the modus operandi. The struggling of the unborn infant comes in to his relief, but does not help him quite through. But his theory makes Jesus the Saviour no more the Son of God, than Jacob the brother of Esau.
I threw this pamphlet aside about a year ago, and never intended to open it again; but recent information that the Particulars in Kentucky were placing this modern Daniel along side of Silas and John, and about to have a theological school for teaching the marrow of modern divinity, in which one of the three was to act the Principal, I took it up to see if it had mellowed by time: but it smells as rancid as ever--and I cannot now read it all.
In Essex county, Virginia, several attempts of the "star chamber" stamp, have been recently made against a very intelligent and pious brother, who has rendered himself obnoxious to some little high priests in his vicinity, by his boldness in the faith of the ancient gospel; but some of the more sagacious ones began to see that their commands and threats were likely to have the same effect with those of the venerable Fathers of the Sanhedrim, who gave an injunction to Peter and John in old times to speak no more in their name, and they have desisted. I might fill a pamphlet with this case; but if they will reform, I will not hand their names to posterity. All these things are working together to open the eyes of all who can be made to see, and to hasten on the triumph of the ancient gospel and the ancient order of things over the sectarianism of the age.
EDITOR. [568]
END OF VOLUME VI. [568]
[TCB 561-568]
|
[Table of Contents] [Previous] [Next] |
Alexander Campbell
The Christian Baptist (1889) |