|
[Table of Contents] [Previous] [Next] |
Alexander Campbell
The Christian Baptist (1889) |
| NO. 2.] | SEPTEMBER 7, 1829. |
James Madison, D. D.
SOME men by their high standing in society, give great emphasis to all that they say or do. The same things said by persons in more obscure stations, would not have half the weight which they sometimes accidentally acquire from official dignity. The following expose of many sentiments for which I have been called a heretic, coming from a man who was in his days, and died in the office, of Bishop of the whole state of Virginia, will, to the minds of many, afford much more evidence of truth than if I had said them. Truth, however, is truth, whether a child or a philosopher affirms it.
I have not met in any one extract so many of the sentiments advanced in this work: nor have I seen so unexceptionable an exposition of my "peculiar views" from any pen; nor did I know, till yesterday, that any man in the United States had spoken so much good sense on these subjects, in the year 1786, as appears in the following extract. I wish Bishop Semple, Mr. Brantly of the Star, Dr. Noel, and some few others of the leaders of the day, to read the extract with more than ordinary attention.
ED. C. B.
Extract of a Sermon delivered by James Madison,
D. D. President of the University of William
and Mary, and Professor of Moral and Natural
Philosophy, before the Protestant Episcopal
Church, in the state of Virginia, May 26th, 1786.
The text is, "God is a spirit, and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." John iv. 24.
THE object of this sermon is to urge the necessity of Christian union, and the injurious tendency of creeds, &c. in originating and promoting dissentions and feuds among Christians.
Permit me, then, to make some observations upon the means most likely to forward such an event. This I attempt with readiness, however imperfect the observations may appear, not only because it is, in my mind, of great importance that we should particularly attend to those means at this period, but also because the same means which would most effectually promote the ends just spoken of, will be the best guides to us at a time when we are forming, as it were, anew our own religious society; for without attention to them, we shall deprive ourselves of the inestimable privilege of worshipping God in spirit and in truth.
Fortunately for Christians, those means are altogether of the negative kind. They depend upon the rejection, not the adoption of those human systems of belief, or rules of faith, which have often usurped the place of Christianity itself. They only require Christians to revert to the gospel, and to abandon every other directory of conscience. I will then venture earnestly to recommend to all Christians to reject every system as the fallible production of human contrivance, which shall dictate articles of faith; and adopt the gospel alone as their guide. Am I not sufficiently warranted, my brethren, in this recommendation? I trust there is scarce any one amongst us who will object to a recommendation of this nature whether we attend to the fallibility, the ignorance, the prejudice of men, or to the truth, wisdom and perfection of the Author of our divine religion.
I will take the liberty to advance a general proposition, the evidence of which, I persuade myself, may be established by the most incontestible proofs. The proposition is, indeed, simple and plain: it is, "that those Christian societies will ever be found to have formed their union upon principles the wisest and the best, which impose the fewest restraints upon the minds of their members, making the scriptures alone, and not human articles or confessions of belief, the sole rule of faith and conduct."
It is much to be lamented that the venerable reformers, when they burst asunder the cords of popish tyranny, ever departed from the simplicity of this scripture plan; and that, instead of adhering to it, they thought theological systems the only means of preserving uniformity of opinion, or of evincing the purity of their faith. The experience of more than two centuries has proved how far they are capable of producing either effect. On the other hand, the consequences which such institutions have been productive of, have been more or less severely felt in every part of the Protestant world, from the Diet of Augsburgh to the present time.
They have in former, as well as in later ages, caused a religion, designed to unite men as brethren in the sacred bonds of charity and benevolence, too often to disseminate amongst them jealousies, animosities, and rancorous hatred. They have nursed the demon of intolerance; nay, aided by the civil power, they have led martyrs to the stake, and have offered up, as holy sacrifices to the God of mercy, Christians who had the guilt to prefer what they esteemed the doctrine of Christ to the commandments of men. Even in America, the effects which they have produced on the minds of Christians, have been seen written in blood. But thanks be to God, those days are past! May such never revisit the earth! So long, however, as we can trace within those human systems of belief, principles oppressive to Christians and injurious to the cause of our holy religion, it matters not in how small a degree, I shall esteem it my duty to raise a warning, though perhaps, a feeble voice against them.
It is a maxim self-evident to every one, and which was held sacred by the fathers of Protestantism, "that the scriptures contain all things necessary to salvation, and are the sole ground of the faith of a christian." This maxim, the basis of reformation, and which is acceded to by all Protestants, is alone sufficient, independent of what experience has taught, to induce every Protestant church to reject all systems of belief, unless conceived in the terms of scripture, not only as unwarrantable, and in the highest degree oppressive to the rights of private judgment, but as presumptuous, and as casting an unworthy reflection on the scriptures themselves. Yet many pious and worthy Christians are apt to suppose that such systems of faith are necessary for the maintenance of true religion, or, for preventing that disorder which arises from a diversity of opinions. But do such Christians reflect sufficiently upon the example which our Lord himself and his apostles have placed before us? Did they, for this or any other purpose, prescribe or recommend summaries of faith? On the contrary, did not our Saviour constantly enjoin upon his followers to search the scriptures themselves? Do we not find that the Bereans were commended for their conduct in not receiving even the doctrine of the inspired apostles, until they had first searched the scriptures to see whether these things were so or not? Does not [578] St. Paul expressly say, that "other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ?" Does he not every where recommend to christians the duty of examining the grounds of their faith, "to prove all things, and to hold fast that which is good?" And St. John, does he not exhort us to "believe not every spirit, but to try the spirits whether they be of God?" Now, if summaries of faith had been necessary for the prosperity of our religion, can we suppose that Christ and his apostles would have neglected, not only to leave such as must have been most proper to maintain the true faith; but that, by their precepts as well as conduct, they would rather have taught us the duty of avoiding them? No, my brethren, we may be assured that Christ and his apostles did not esteem any other summary necessary than the gospel itself; and that whatever is essential either as to faith or practice, is there expressed with that clearness which a revelation from heaven required. We are directed there to search and to judge for ourselves; for religion, to be profitable to the individual and acceptable to God, must be the result of free inquiry and the determination of reason. This right of free inquiry, and of judging for ourselves, is a right natural and unalienable. It is the glory of our nature, the truest source of joy and triumph to an American, and constantly to recur to it, the indispensable duty of a christian. For should we neglect this duty, where then would be all manly rational belief, where the sincere practice of piety and virtue, where the surest guide to moral and religious conduct? In their stead, a mean credulity would prevail; hypocrisy would usurp the place of true devotion; religion and morality would degenerate into superstition and sanguinary zeal. To suppose then, that the gospel would authorize a deprivation of this right, or that such deprivation is necessary to its support and progress, is to cast an unworthy reflection upon the gospel itself; it is to suppose, that a religion which utterly disclaims all dominion over the faith and consciences of men, which is the most friendly to the essential rights of mankind, and which, indeed, cannot extol where they are invaded, still requires to be supported by their destruction.
Besides, the very attempt, in matters dark and disputable, to prevent diversity of opinion, is vain and fruitless. It has existed and must ever exist among all christians even those of the same society, so long as human nature continues the same. The God of nature has for wise purposes bestowed upon different men, different degrees of reason and understanding; so that if they think at all, they must necessarily think differently upon those dark, mysterious subjects, which, however, are often reduced into the form of articles of faith. Nor can such difference cease, until the same precise portion of intellect be imparted to every individual of the human race. To attempt then to prevent diversity of opinions upon such subjects, is to oppose the very laws of nature, and consequently vain and fruitless.
But, in truth, that diversity of opinion, which most churches have been so sedulous to prevent, is neither any disgrace to a christian society, nor incompatible with its peace and good government; unless it be disgraceful to men that they are men, and unless the christian dispensation is incompatible with the nature of man. On the contrary, such diversity may be considered as most favorable to the progress of christian knowledge, and should also be equally favorable to christian peace, by teaching us, that dark and disputable points instead of being made articles of faith, and standards of orthodoxy, should rather be considered as trials of our christian temper, and occasions to exercise mutual charity; or that those things alone should be held as essentials, which our Lord and Master has fully and clearly expressed, and which, therefore, cannot require the supposed improvements and additions of men. So long as men agree in these essentials, or fundamental articles of our religion, in those great and important truths and duties, which are so clearly expressed, that every sincere inquirer must readily apprehend them, where is the necessity, or reasonableness of compelling men to be of one mind, as to other matters of infinitely inferior moment, and which we may suppose, were designedly less clearly expressed? That christian unity, so strongly recommended to us as the bond of perfection, does not consist in uniformity of opinion upon abstruse, metaphysical subjects, but upon the great fundamentals of our religion, and in the unanimity of affections, love, peace and charity, which is enjoined on the brethren in Christ Jesus, who all walk by the same rule, and acknowledge one and the same Lord.
But still it may be thought, that theological systems, or seminaries of faith are necessary to exclude from the bosom of a church, men whose principles might endanger its very existence. But does experience, or do just observations upon human conduct justify such a belief? He will not be retarded in the accomplishment of his designs, or in the gratification of an avaricious appetite, though nineteen, twenty, or thirty thousand articles were presented to him. Trust me, articles will never prove a barrier to the advances of a secret enemy, or exclude from any church men of vicious principles, or no principles. Whom then will they be most likely to exclude? I answer with regret--Men of stubborn virtue, men of principle and conscience, men of that rigid tough integrity, which cannot be shaped and twisted to suit the system of the day, men who will not prefer the dictates and decisions of fallible mortals, to the infallible word of God.
I conceive, moreover, that no christian church hath a right to impose upon its members, human systems of belief, as necessary terms of communion. For what, I beseech you, do we understand by a christian church? According to the most general acceptation "every christian church is a voluntary society of men agreeing to profess the faith of Christ and stipulating to live according to the rules of the gospel." From this definition, we find the distinctive terms of union, or the fundamental laws of such a society, is to embrace the scriptures alone, as the rule of worship, faith, and conduct. Consequently every act of church government, which contravenes this fundamental law, is from its very nature void.
How then shall it be pretended, that other terms of communion may be prescribed to the members of a christian church? But all human systems, imposed as articles of belief, must be held as introductory of other terms. It follows then that every christian church, so far as it introduces such terms, is to be considered as having departed from its essential characteristic, and consequently to have exceeded its right as a church. This conclusion is the more incontrovertible, as it coincides with the maxim before mentioned, I should say with that christian axiom "That the scriptures contain all things necessary to salvation, and are the sole ground of the faith of a Christian."--What then, it may be asked, shall not a church prescribe to itself, terms [579] of communion, shall it not have its particular confessions or articles of belief, provided they be agreeable to the word of God? How many Protestant churches have been built on this foundation of sand, unable to resist the winds and the tempests which beat against them? The condition is inadmissible. For who shall determine with certainty, that those terms are agreeable to the word of God? How is it possible, that all the members of a church should be sufficiently assured of this important point? Or is private judgment to be entirely annihilated; if so, to what end, did the benign Author of our being grant reason to man? Is the conscientious Christian to forget, that it is his duty to search the scriptures themselves, or are those human expositions to usurp the place of the word of God? But let us in the spirit of charity admit, that every church supposes, or firmly believes its articles or rules of faith to be agreeable to the word of God. What then is the consequence? The difference between them is surely a proof, that infallibility is not the attribute of all of them. Truth, like the Eternal, is one. In which church then shall we find it? I will presume to say in none of them. He who would search for the truth must search for it in the scriptures alone.
Let us then abandon all those systems, which to say the least can only involve us in error. Our venerable forefathers erred, or why a reformation? Their descendants will err. Nor shall the resurrection of true christianity be seen amongst men, until it shall appear in the white garment of the gospel alone.
Light is dawning in old Virginia.
The following is from the Religious Herald of Richmond.
"Church rules.--Under the control of bigotry we might be compelled to withhold our support from every thing not designed to advance the interest of our own denomination; and governed by interest we might suffer to pass, unmolested, what we consider evils, countenanced and maintained among the Baptists themselves. But we owe no allegiance either to bigotry or interest.* [* This is like a servant of the Messiah.]
"It is stated that cases have occurred to several portions of our commonwealth within the last year or two, in which individuals of unexceptionable morals and acknowledged piety, have been expelled from churches merely on account of difference of opinion, in some matters in church discipline; but not affecting the faith of the gospel, or necessarily connected with experimental and practical religion.--For our part we feel it our duty to say, that the longer we live we are the more convinced of the justice and expediency of liberality in all matters, and especially in those of religion. From religious tests, professed or understood (and they are oftener understood than professed) have arisen a large portion of the dissensions and wrangles and persecutions that have distracted the church and cursed mankind.--Human theories have been substituted for revealed truths and injunctions, and all who are conscientious enough to oppose them, have been denounced as heretics. What extravagance in Religion, as in Philosophy, has not found its advocates and supporters? Eminent men have denied the existence of matter, and others equally eminent, have opposed the doctrine of the connexion of cause and effect. Some have contended that the descendants of Adam are sinners by a Divine constitution; others by propagation--souls descending from parents to offspring by natural generation. One has asserted the identity and volition of out whole race with Adam in the first transgression; another, that moral character is transferred from one account to another, precisely as pecuniary transactions are; and a third, that in virtue or the death of Christ we are born with a corrupt nature only, but without guilt or exposure to punishment, original guilt being thus cancelled. Indeed almost every man has his own particular theory, as touching matters of opinion concerning human depravity, while that which the christian feels authorized and required to believe in, that by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned, Rom. v. 12; and so in relation to other matters in religion: the faith of the gospel is one and its experience is one; and theories and conjectures and opinions, may be as numerous as the race of men. But some of our brethren are of opinion that no creed or Confession of Faith is necessary but the bible, and that they are in fact injurious--that the exclusive system of rules by which a church should be governed are those contained in the New Testament, that the instructions and edification of believers are better promoted by expositions of chapters or sections of the scriptures than by sermons founded on isolated texts--that the same Elder cannot preside over several churches at the same time, although he may visit as many as is convenient or practicable--that the Lord's supper was celebrated by the early disciples, the first day of every week, and should be now:--because worthy brethren of sound moral and religious principles and lives, entertain opinions like these, shall they be declares disorderly and heretical, and expelled from fellowship!!
"Now we know a number of such brethren, who are retained in churches tenacious of doctrine and order, without a word said, or a hard thought cherished; and these churches act wisely and correctly. Let us suppose that such opinions are not required by the scriptures, does it follow that they are improper, or if they are, that they are so to such an extent as to merit censure and excision! But it would be difficult to show that the opinions above mentioned are improper and contrary to the word of God. And while, on the one hand, we deprecate the looseness of government and extent of charity which considers confusion to be order, and all sentiments proper, if sincere; on the other hand, we would watch with a jealous eye that rigour of discipline which demands unanimity of opinion in every particular, at the expense of pains and penalties, and those of the highest class allowed by the civil government under which we live. It is scarcely to be doubted that there are many persons, in other respects worthy of esteem, whose principles and habits would lead them, had they the power, to establish religion by law, and to renew all the terrors of excommunication, torture, confiscation, the inquisitorial tribunal sanctified by prayer, and the auto-da fe.* [* Like apples of gold in pictures of silver.] Thanks to God, we remain as yet free from the dominion of his Holiness the Pope, and are yet unthreatened by the glittering of the sword and the thunder of cannon; but unless our civil and religious liberties are guarded with a watchful eye, we may have, at some future period, to face the bayonet, or to go to the stake.* [* An important truth.]
"We hope that kind demeanor, and good [580] feelings will be cherished in churches in which such differences may exist. It is not our wish to wound the sensibilities of our brethren; nor would we set up ourselves as umpires of contending parties, but moderation and forbearance are respectfully and affectionately recommended. Let brethren who, without reproach as to morals, standing, and the faith of the gospel, have been discountenanced, be restored and be declared to be restored, to all former confidence and affection. If such differences as those referred to be inconsistent with harmonious union, let the separation be friendly. What good object is gained by strife? "Seeing you are brethren, why do you wrong one to another? Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God whereby you are sealed to the day of redemption. Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamor, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice. And be you kind one to another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another, even as God, for Christ's sake, has forgiven you. Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. For one believes that he may eat all things; another who is weak eats herbs.--Let not him that eats despise him that eats not; and let not him that eats not judge him that eats, for God has received him."--Eph. iv. 30. 32.--Rom. xiv. 1. 3.--Acts viii. 26."
"We are decidedly of the opinion that expulsions, or any other harsh measures, in cases like those to which we refer, are calculated to promote the object they are intended to impede. Persecutions always injure the persecutors, and benefit the persecuted. If severity in these cases were right, it would be impolitic, but its righteousness may be seriously called in question."
Queries.
Query 1.--DOES the parable of the Talents apply to Saints or Sinners, as recorded in the 25th chapter of Matthew?
Answer.--To neither as such. It is intended to represent the administration of the Reign of favor during the absence from earth of the King. The persons to whom the management of the affairs of this kingdom was committed during the time from the departure of the King till his second coming, were compared to the public servants or stewards of a prince or nobleman. To each of these public servants certain trusts were committed, and the management of these trusts was to be the subject of inquiry when the Prince returned.--The stewards, according to their capacity for management, had more or less committed to their management. To one was committed a very large trust, to another a less one, and to a third a very small one. The same fidelity and diligence were exhibited by persons of very different capacities and trust. Hence he that had gained five and he that gained two talents were equally praiseworthy, for as the ratio of increase was the same, so the diligence and fidelity were the same; and the reward was equal. Now had the steward who had the least trust, only one talent, managed it so as to have gained one he would have been as commendable as he that had gained five. But the error was that he thought himself disparaged, conceived himself neglected, and formed a very unfavorable opinion of the King. This paralyzed all his energies, and he did nothing. His evil eye was the cause of his apathy, and instead of going to work he set himself to frame excuses for himself. As is very natural for persons of this character, he threw the blame upon his Maker, and vainly expected to justify himself by criminating the administration of the King. The parable very forcibly demonstrates the consolatory and animating maxim of Paul--viz: "It is always accepted according to what a man has, and not according to what he has not." The widow and her two mites exhibits just the contrast of the man and the one talent, and unequivocally teaches all disciples that it is equally in the power of all to obtain the greatest eminence in the Kingdom of Jesus, whatever their earthly means or opportunities may be. This parable has been grossly misapplied when turned to the advantage of unconverted men.
Query 2.--Is an unmarried person or a youth who has never been married, eligible to the office of bishop or overseer?
Answer.--If Paul be admitted a competent witness in the case, he is not. A stripling married or unmarried, is not eligible. A person of middle age if recently converted, is not eligible. And a man who has had no experience in domestic management is illy qualified to manage the family of God. But Paul says a bishop or overseer must be blameless, and as very intimately connected therewith, "he must be the husband of one wife." That elderly persons were most eligible is evident from his adding, "having believing children," of good behaviour too, "not accused of riot, nor unruly." We have very good reason to believe that if the apostle's qualifications were all literally observed in selecting such persons only as possess these qualifications to the discharge of the duties of this office, it would be much better with the christian communities; and that the evils which are supposed to flow from the want of bishops of some sort, are much more imaginary than real.
The Scriptures.--No. I.
THE next impious practice, which as well on account of its general adoption amongst people who profess religion, as its pernicious tendency, claims attention, is that of resorting in pursuit of religious information, to other means of instruction, than those with which God has himself furnished us in his own word. To evince the folly and impiety of this evil device, I offer the following remarks:--
1. God has declared expressly, that the writings which he has himself furnished us, and just as he has furnished them, unaltered by the tongue or pen of man, unmixed, undiluted with a single human conception, do contain all the information which our salvation needs. His Holy Spirit tells us positively, that the holy scriptures are, as worded by him, sufficient to make us wise to salvation: that his word implanted in our minds, can save them; nay, that even the hearing of his word, can save both ourselves and our families; and that by belief of the scriptures the deliverance of lost sinners is rendered absolutely sure. It is then certain, that in order to insure the salvation of our souls, we stand in no need of any other information than that which the sacred pages, untouched by man, afford.
2. Sacred writ contains all the correct and certain information on the subject of religion, which the world ever enjoyed or will obtain. Nay more, its words selected and consecrated by the Spirit have not only been the only vehicles of his mind to man, but in all ages, have also been the only guardians and preservers of what they did convey. No sooner did remote antiquity abandon the phraseology of the Spirit, and employ words of their own devising, to express their religious notions, than with their new [581] terms they introduced new and erroneous conceptions of God and divine things, and sunk into idolatry every where. And by the same cause a similar effect has been produced oftener than once in after times. No sooner did the Jewish clergy cease after the captivity, to employ in their religious instructions and services, the words used in their sacred books, and invented terms, fitter as they no doubt thought, to express their religious conceptions, than with their new religious language, they brought into vogue doctrines, rules, institutions and practices, unknown and unsanctioned by the word of God. And by a like departure in their religious instructions and services from the words employed by the Holy Spirit in the New Testament have christian teachers introduced into the world a multiplicity of notions, institutions, rules and practices wholly unauthorized by sacred writ. So invariably true is it, that if we would with absolute certainty secure the sense or ideas of a writer or speaker, we must retain his words.
3. But if the only certain means of securing the ideas or sense of an author be to retain his language, it follows, that if we would certainly secure to our minds the ideas which the Spirit of God has communicated to us in sacred writ, we must resort to the very words which he has employed in sacred writ to convey them. For there, and then, alone can we infallibly find them. When men attempt to express the Spirit's ideas by words of their own selecting, we have no certainty that their attempts have been successful. On the contrary we are certain that complete success never attended the enterprize. Into every performance of the kind error more or less has never failed to insinuate itself; and certainly this danger, from which no human language is free, ought of itself to be sufficient to deter us from resorting in a matter of such infinite importance as the eternal happiness of our souls to these sources of religious information, from which we are as liable to inhale ruinous error as saving truth. And here let me add as a general truth, that there exists no other method of guarding any message from misrepresentation, but that of selecting and prescribing the very words which the person charged with its publication, is to employ for that purpose.
4. God's information, as conveyed in his own words, unaltered by man, is alone safe, alone certain, alone entirely exempt from error. As just hinted, the notions, opinions, harangues and compositions of men, not excepting their religious notions, opinions, harangues and compositions of every name, are all fraught with error, mistake, misconception and misrepresentation. In God's declarations alone are unmixed truth and infallible certainty to be found. What inducement, then, can any rational being have, what reason or apology can he devise for his conduct, when he abandons even for a single moment the sure unerring information of his God, and devotes his time and attention to hearing, reading, studying, searching, and consulting sources of information which he knows to be replete with danger, from which he is certain he is liable to imbibe error, suck in falsehood, and deceive, mislead, and ruin his soul eternally?
5. When we prefer human to divine means of information, of which vile preference we are incontestably guilty, when we lay down our bibles and take up the written compositions or listen to the religious harangues of men, we grossly insult our Divine Teacher--we tell him flatly, that he is not as capable to teach, inform and instruct us as our uninspired fellow-creatures, and therefore we abandon his offered means of instruction and resort to theirs. For surely no reason can be assigned for closing our bibles and giving our eyes our ears, our time and attention to the means of information offered by fellow-mortals, but that we expect during the same time to receive more information and greater benefit, from the latter than we do from the former! And is not God insulted, grossly insulted, by such an expectation?
6. Again, when we resort to human means of instruction, we in effect make the Spirit of God a liar. As already observed, God has declared the information which he has provided for us, sufficient, without alteration, for the salvation of our souls. Do we not, then, when we abandon that information more or less, and resort to that which our fellow-creatures offer, tell our Divine Teacher that we have no confidence in the declarations which he has published concerning the sufficiency of his message to save our souls, at least before it has been altered, modified, and largely mixed with what is human? We in reality deny its sufficiency.
7. God has not only not commanded us to resort to any other means of acquiring religious information, than that which he has provided for us in his word; but he has peremptorily forbidden us to resort to any other teacher than himself, which is manifestly equivalent to forbidding us to seek religious instruction from any other source than the bible.
8. In innumerable passages of his word God commands his creatures to read, search, meditate, remember, and converse about the contents of his message; and to these commands the pious have yielded prompt obedience in all ages. Like David, they have day and night read, studied and meditated the information sent them by their God; but nowhere are we told that they ever applied for religious instruction either to uninspired men, or uninspired books. There is no such precedent on the divine record. Indeed, till the fatal Jewish Apostacy, which occurred not long after the Captivity, there is strong ground to believe that no uninspired man ever dared to set himself up as a religious teacher, in the modern sense of that term. It was then, for the first time, that uninspired men arrogated to themselves the titles, honors, functions, and homage due to an inspired instructor, and the lamentable result of this impious innovation is well known.
Let me now ask, if God's information, believed, but not altered, be, in his judgment, sufficient so to enlighten our understandings, purify our affections, elevate our desires, and rectify our conduct, as to render us fit to become members of his family and subjects of his kingdom, why resort to other or additional means? Can we expect to derive ampler or clearer information from human discourses and human writings, than we can obtain from the unadulterated instructions of the Divine Spirit? Can we imagine that a small fragment, a few words, torn from their connexion with the rest of God's message, and wrought up into, or diffused through, such a huge mass of human notions and human words, as require an hour to utter them, and which so dilute and obscure the fragment, that not a trace of it can be discerned, can by such violent separation and such immense dilution, be rendered more fit to convey the Spirit's meaning, inform the human mind, or impress the human heart, than it was when it occupied its original place in God's book, and its primitive concentration? Truly, we cannot believe it. If either the principal objects, [582] concerning which sacred writ professes to give information, be the existence and attributes of God, the dignity, office and character of the Redeemer, the character and office of the Spirit, the nature, character, condition, prospects and duty of man, and the means provided by God for man's extrication from his present ruined state, and elevation to a state of moral perfection and complete happiness: I say if these be the great objects concerning which the bible treats, can any rational being be so senseless as to suppose that he can, by any ingenuity of his, render God's information concerning these things, fitter to answer its purpose than he has made it? Is it not mere waste of time, then, is it not worse, is it not contempt of God, to resort to tracts, (silly stories,) to pamphlets, sermons, lectures, commentaries, expositions, to the neglect of God's own information on these infinitely important subjects? Depraved, indeed, must that taste be which prefers the muddy, filthy stream, to the clear unpolluted fountain!
It was my intention to mention at least a few of the many sad evils which have been produced by the impious innovation now the subject of censure; but one must suffice at this time. It is the tendency of this innovation to bring God's information into disrepute, and alienate the affections of men from it, and so keep them ignorant of it. This is the natural effect of the imposition practiced on an ignorant and credulous world by an artful and interested clergy. By them mankind have been long taught to believe that God's information, at least before it is acted on by their metamorphosing powers, before it is completely new-modelled, before it is perfectly saturated with their ingenious notions, before its arrangement and connexion formed by the Divine Spirit, have been thoroughly subverted, and its plain phraseology also the choice of its all-wise author the Spirit, has been compelled to give place to their gaudy, pompous diction, is fit for no human purpose, can convey no instruction that can be depended on; in short, is entirely unfit to save a human soul. They must break the bread of life ere it can be chewed, swallowed, digested, or a particle of nourishment obtained from it. Is it any wonder that creatures, justly alarmed about their perishing souls, should, under such persuasion, pay little respect to God's word, expect little benefit from it, and flatter, caress, and fairly idolize a set of men, from whose ingenuity and eloquence they are taught to expect the deliverance of their endangered souls?
A. STRAITH, M. D.
VIRGINIA, JULY 20, 1829.
Brother Campbell,
DEAR SIR:--THE divided state of the worshipers of God has been a source of much unhappiness to me for many years. I do cordially believe it is owing to the presumption of the teachers making their opinions a bond of union. And every attempt to perpetuate this state of things is at war with the spirit of the gospel. In every sect there is a set of opinions, which is the lifeblood of the sect, and made paramount to the word of God. A dissent from these opinions invariably produces a breach of fellowship in that sect; of course there cannot be any improvement or correction of any error without the consent of the leading teachers. This is not to be expected while they have full sway over the consciences of their disciples; for they have the power of stopping the mouth of every dissenter in their congregations. One popular teacher of ten sways the sceptre over thousands. My opposition to this state of things brought me into collision with some of my brethren. When I read brother Melanchthon's recommendation to an ecclesiastical body, I felt mortified, believing, as I now do, it will only tend to perpetuate the spirit of sectarianism, which every lover of truth ought to banish from the earth. This is my apology for my letter to you in your May number.
I see to your last number "Paulinus again" I wish to say a few things, and I am done with this subject, without new matter should be introduced.
The Baptist, in this section of country, I am satisfied is nearer the Christian church than any other denomination I know of here. If they would exercise more liberality, pay a greater attention to the character and conduct of the New Testament Christians, and the manner of their instruction, it would soon place them, in my estimation, upon the ancient order of things. It is truly pleasing to me to find of late a growing spirit of liberality flowing from the press, and I do hope ere long to hear it from the pulpit. There is great room for reformation here. Brother Melancthon promised in his next essay to go there. We shall watch him closely.
I do not love the spirit of the capital I, and the little u, and I hope brother Paulinus does not. "Charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up." "I am less than the least of all saints."--Paul.
Again, his letter contains not that simplicity for which he is noted. This may be owing to a conviction of the difficulty of supporting his recommendation from revelation--pari passu, modus operandi, fortiori, ergo. Many of your readers do not know what these words mean. Were it not for a Latin dictionary, he would have been a barbarian to me. "Except you utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken, for you speak into the air?" "Therefore, if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be to him that speaks a barbarian, and he that speaks a barbarian to me." "In the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue."--Paul.
What the magnet is to the needle on the compass, this world is to the spirit of a man. Speaking of me, "From such a one I must appeal to those of more candor," says brother Paulinus. When the ancient order of things was attended to, we hear nothing of appealing to brethren's opinions. This brings to mind a stratagem of two travellers, who were without money, to procure them a drink of alcohol. They caught a frog just before they reached an inn, which they agreed to call a mouse. One was to go on before the other and ask the keeper of the inn if that was not a mouse. He replied, "No--it is a frog." The traveller proposed a wager of a pint of whiskey that it was a mouse, and would leave it to the first man that passed by. The inn-keeper agreed to it. Up comes the other traveller. "What is this?" said the inn-keeper. "It is a mouse," replied the traveller. "A mouse! No, sir, it is a frog." "You are mistaken, my friend," replied the traveller; "it is a mouse." Thus, the inn-keeper, contrary to the evidence of his own senses, was made to pay the wager. In ancient times, in all matters of difficulty, "What say the scriptures" was the watch-word, and not to the candor of erring mortals. "He that sows to the flesh, shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that sows to the spirit, shall of the spirit reap life everlasting."--Paul. [583] Again brother Paulinus measures my corn by his bushel, because he goes an equal pace with others. Pari passu, I go with you, and even run before you. "We dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise." "We know no man after the flesh; ergo, if any be in Christ Jesus, he is a new creature." "But we have a measure to reach even to you," &c. "Charity thinks no evil."--Paul.
Again--"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 that cannot read for themselves." Brother Paulinus is an excellent portrait painter, and by his pencil has drawn his miniature of the subject in controversy. The burthen of his argument is this. If old children that can read the scriptures for themselves, need lectures--then little children that cannot read, much more need catechisms! "From a child you have known the holy scriptures, which are able to make you wise to salvation."--Paul. If brother Paulinus' catechisms are purely historic they cannot do this, and are as innocent as breath. If he aims at the salvation of these little immortals, catechisms will prove injurious to them, as much so, as any Catholic manual, creed, rubric, or formula. They will dogmatize. Fortiori. "If I will prove catechisms," &c. If catechisms cannot quicken and convert the souls of these little ones that cannot read,, then they are RUBBISH. If they can read let them read the scriptures; and brother Paulinus says "they contain all truth necessary to make us wise to salvation; and that wherever they come, they lay hold of every human being with the grasp of divine authority, while they present the exhibition of divine mercy. What a pity men are not satisfied with God's way of saving sinners, but must hew out cisterns of their own which hold no water. This was Israel's error of old."1
I have never considered them clothed with ecclesiastical authority as those catechisms have sought to be, and thereby obtaining "a powerful influence amongst us." The keeping alive a sectarian spirit, and the opinions of brethren as a bond of union, is supplanting the word of God (and what I opposed) by acknowledging and soliciting the powerful influence of the kingdom of the clergy, which was one of the evils which brother Paulinus wished to aid you in correcting. "I stretched out my hand to pull down," &c. If my attention to the education of my children, teaching them at my family altar, the contents of the New Testament, and exhorting my brethren to do the same, is doing nothing, this charge is correct, God has commanded teaching and exhortation. Brother Paulinus appears to prefer his catechisms. I have nothing to build up. If dissecting the word of God to get materials to build up catechisms, is what he means, I must beg to be excused in not lending a hand to this work. This is to keep up the old divisions, if not to make new ones, and I maintain that they have a vicious tendency in keeping back the salvation of the world.
Your advice is so reasonable, I cannot doubt that brother Paulinus will cheerfully comply before long; nor can I see how any man can refuse to comply with such a course, unless he has prospects of sitting in the chair, and thereby to lord it over the consciences of his brethren. This advice followed up by all sects, would soon restore the purity and simplicity of the gospel of Messiah, bring about the millennian state of the church, and banish from the earth party spirit in the holy religion of Jesus Christ. All sects that are honest acknowledge errors are among them. Could they but once see error is no advantage to men, angels or devils, saint or sinner, every honest man in pursuit of truth, would cast it away from him as folly and rubbish, and inquire, "What say the scriptures?" and if they are silent, leave it to the first general convention of the anniversary of the saints at the resurrection of the dead. May the minds of all your readers be directed to this important point, is the constant prayer of
A LOVER OF THE WHOLE OF DIVINE TRUTH.
Sermons to Young Preachers. No. I.
MY YOUNG FRIENDS,--YOU are so much accustomed to preach from texts that I shall have to take one when I preach to you. My text at this time will be found in the first book of kings, xviii. 38. "And they cried aloud and cut themselves after their manner, with knives and lancets till the blood g cashed out upon them." I intend no allusion to those reverend gentlemen who officiated in the temple of Baal, as analogous to you, save one and that I will specify in its proper place. You know, I presume, my young friends, that the term prophet means not primarily to foretel future events. This is an appropriated sense of the term. There have been hundreds of prophets who have never foretold any thing except that all men will die. The interpreters of oracles were called prophets as well as the poets by the Greeks and Romans. Extemporaneous speakers on all subjects, especially upon religious matters, were called prophets. He that interpreted, as well as he that predicted, was, in the scripture sense, called a prophet. You, my young friends, perhaps, had better assume the name of prophets, than that of elders, bishops, or ministers. You are sometimes heralds, or criers, or preachers, and all these three are comprehended in the term prophet. You sometimes interpret, and an interpreter is a prophet. I therefore move that all young preachers who have no certain dwelling place; no special charge; who are not overseers, nor strictly called evangelists, be denominated prophets. When you proclaim the gospel, interpret ancient oracles, and speak extemporaneously, you are truly prophets. Now, having found a suitable name for you, I proceed to show you the bearing of my text.
All superstitions, false oracles, and false gods have had prophets. Every thing has been counterfeited except a rogue, a villain, and Lycurgus' iron money. You must know we have had counterfeit gold, silver, and brass coins. We have had counterfeit bank bills, and the world has been filled with counterfeit gods, oracles, and priests. Counterfeiters seldom deal in brass, or in small bank bills. They are mean villains who counterfeit cheap articles. High minded rogues have counterfeited the most precious metals, and bank bills of the highest denominations. Hence it came to pass that gods, priests, and oracles have had the largest stock, at all times, in the counterfeit markets. But in all these things I have no allusion to you. For I am speaking to my young friends, who are desirous, sincerely desirous, of promoting glory to the heavens, peace on earth, and good will among men. Baal, however, you may remember, had four hundred and fifty prophets [584] for one Elijah. But the point to which I allude, and which I wish you to consider, is that they appear to have been very sincere and very vociferous. The doctrine which I deduce from my text is therefore, this, that persons may be so sincere as to wear out their lungs, and so zealous as to spill their blood in the cause of error--"They cried aloud and cut themselves with knives." And you may cry aloud and spill your blood sincerely and zealously without proving that your doctrine is true. I do not know that loud talking and blood letting will prove any opinion, theorem, or proposition to be true.
From these desultory remarks I come now to the application of my sermon. And although I dare not boast of my eloquent exordium, nor logical distribution, if I can only make a good application, I will be pleased with myself, and that, be assured, is the main point. For many a preacher pleases his congregation, who fails to please himself. And now for the application--
Young orators, in the pulpit and at the bar, are more in need of an instructor than children at school, or students at college. For if they begin wrong, and contract a bad habit, they seldom can cure it. Their ideas will only run in a certain channel. Often have I seen a preacher try to get his mind abroach until he began to snuff the breeze like a whale snorting in the North Atlantic Ocean. It is more easy to bring a seventy-four gun ship into action in a gale of wind, than to get the mind to bear upon the text, until the nostrils catch the corner of a volume of air, and sneeze it out like a leviathan in the deep. I have seen other preachers who can strike fire no other way than by the friction of their hands,, and an occasional clap, resembling a peal of distant thunder. In this holy paroxysm of clapping, rubbing, sneezing, and roaring, the mind is fairly on the way, and the tongue in full gallop, which, like a race horse, runs the swifter the less weight it carries. The farther from nature the nearer the skies, some preachers seem to think. But so it is whenever they acquire this habit it is almost incurable. They can neither speak to God nor man in the pulpit to purpose, as they think, unless when, like the boiler of a strain boat, they are almost ready to burst. This is one extreme. There are various degrees marked on the scale before we arrive at this dreadful heat. There is a certain pitch of voice which at least is ten degrees above a natural key. To this most preachers have to come before their ideas get adrift. Their inspiration is kindled from the noise they create. I have seen children cry who began quite moderately, but when they heard the melody of their own voice their cries rose in a few seconds to screams. No person can tell how much is to be ascribed to these factitious influences in giving play to the imagination and wings to our ideas. Some people have to milk all their sermons from their watch chains--and others from the buttons on their coats.
Now all these habits are no more according to reason, than were the screams and cuts of the prophets of Baal. And as for religion I hope none of my young friends think there is any of it in a watch chain, or a button, or in mere vociferations.
Some preachers seem to think that suicide is equivalent to martyrdom; in other words that it is a good cause in which they die who burst their lungs in long, and loud, and vehement declamations. I doubt not but that hundreds kill themselves or shorten their days by an unmeaning and unnecessary straining of their lungs.
I do intend, my young friends, to devote a few sermons to yourselves, and I wish I could put them in a corner of the Christian Baptist which none could find but yourselves. I am conscious you need a few sermons to convert you from customs and habits as injurious to yourselves to your health, usefulness, and improvement, as intemperance is to the well-being of the soul, body, and estate of the worshipper of Bacchus.
I do think that nature, when followed, is a better teacher of eloquence than Longinus, or all the Grecian and Roman models.--Mimics never can excel, except in being mimics. There is more true gracefulness and dignity in a speech pronounced in the natural tone of our own voice, and in the natural key, than in all the studied mimicry of mere actors, whether stage or pulpit actors, and which is the more numerous we will not be able to decide till after the census of 1830. But above all others, these prophets of Baal are the worst models for young preachers; and I trust none of you, my friends, will, from this time forth, ever follow so scandalous an example.
EDITOR.
A Restoration of the Ancient order of Things.
No. XXXII.
Official Names and Titles.
THE religious theatre of public actors is crowded. To find suitable names to designate them all would be a desideratum. We have Ministers, Divines, Clergymen, Elders, Bishops, Preachers, Teachers, Priests, Deans, Prebendaries, Deacons, Arch-Bishops, Arch-Deacons, Cardinals, Popes, Friars, Priors, Abbots, Local Preachers, Circuit Preachers, Presiding Elders, Missionaries, Class Leaders, Licentiates, cum multis aliis. I do not know what to do with them all. I would call them all by scriptural names if I could find them. But it is very difficult to find scriptural names for unscriptural things.
I have rummaged the inspired books to find some scriptural names for them all, or some general names, under which, with some sort of affinity, we might hope to class them. But this is also a difficult task. I find the following are the nearest approach I can make: Deacons, Bishops, Preachers, Evangelists, Antichrists. This last term is a sort of summum, genus for a large majority of them. The term preacher will hardly apply to any of them, in its scriptural import. Christian mothers who make known to their children the glad tidings, or the facts concerning the Saviour, are the most worthy of this name of any persons now on earth. Evangelists will not strictly apply to any, in its primitive usage. Though the printers of the history of Jesus Christ, and those who proclaim the ancient gospel, in the capacity of public speakers, may, of all others, deserve to inherit this name with the most reasonable pretensions. Elders will apply to old men, only, whether they are official or unofficial members of society. Overseers or Bishops will apply to all, and to none but those who have the presidency or oversight of one congregation. Deacons, to those males who are the public servants of the whole congregation. Deaconesses, to those female public servants, who officiate amongst the females. Teacher, is a generic term which will apply to all men in the capacity of public instructers. As for the others, I cannot classify them. The word antichrist covers a goodly number of them: and it is not worth the labor to tell which of them may escape the enrollment. They who have more leisure may amuse themselves with such speculations.
The officers of the christian congregations found in the New Institution were overseers and [585] public servants, or bishops and deacons.--Every well ordered congregation was supplied with these. They had one, or more, male and female deacons, who served the congregations in performing such service or ministry to the male and female members of their respective communities, as circumstances required; but all these official duties were confine to one single congregation. Such a thing as a bishop, over two, three, or four congregations, was as unknown, unheard of, and unthought of in the primitive and ancient order of things in the christian communities, as a husband with two, three, or four living wives. There is just as much reason and scripture for one pope and twelve cardinals, as for one bishop and four congregations.
A bitter sweet or a sweet bitter is not more incongruous than a young elder, or to see a young stripling addressed as an elder. It is not long since I saw, in a newspaper, such an annunciation as this: "Elder A. B. will preach at such a place at such an hour." But the satire was, that elder A. B. was not twenty-three years old. Another equally incongruous was, that "bishop W. T. will lecture in the court house on the first Sunday of July." The humor was that Bishop W. T. had no diocese, nor cure, nor see, nor congregation, nor oversight on this side of the moon. Now what shall we do with these anomalies? I answer, call no man a bishop or overseer, who has not a flock or an oversight; call no man a deacon who is not the public servant of a community; call those who proclaim the ancient gospel evangelists.
This, upon the whole, is the least exceptionable name for them. It does in its etymology, just express the proclamation of the glad tidings; and if it did not import any thing more, it cannot now. The ancients called those who wrote as well as those who spoke the facts constituting the gospel history, by this name. Besides, the office of evangelist, as a proclaimer of the gospel, was always contingent. He was needed only in some places, and at some times, and was not a permanent officer of the christian church. His office now answers to that of the prophets of old.
The prophets as extemporaneous and occasional teachers became necessary. When, then, any congregation has a brother well qualified to proclaim the gospel, and when there is, in the vicinity, a people in need of such a service, let the person so sent by them, be called an evangelist. Perhaps the present distress requires such persons as much as any former period. But when christian congregations cover the country, and walk in the instituted order of the new constitution, such persons will not be necessary, any more than a standing army in time of peace.
But when we speak of the armies of the sects, how shall we denominate them? Let us call them all teachers of their respective tenets; such as teacher of Methodism, teacher of Presbyterianism; or Independent teachers, Baptist teachers, Methodist teachers, &e. This is not at all disrespectful nor incongruous. In addressing letters, or in publishing the names and offices of persons, in order to save time, paper, and ink, let us use the following abbreviations: Bp. for bishop, Dn. for Deacon, Et. for Evangelist.
Distinctions of this sort are only necessary for discrimination from persons of similar names in the same vicinities. There is a great love in the American people for titles. So strong this passion that many retain the title of an office, which, perhaps, they only filled a year or two, all their lives. How many captains, mayors, colonels, generals, esquires have we who have become obsolete. Christians cannot, consistently with their profession, desire the official name without the work. If a man, says Paul, desire the office of a bishop, he desires a good work. The work then and not the name or title engrosses the ambition of the christian.
In the common intercourse of life, it is requisite that we give all their dues. Even where honor is due, the debt ought to be paid. Paul thought it no incongruity with the christian apostleship to call a Pagan governor "Most noble Felix." This very term, Luke, the amiable physician, and evangelist, applies to a christian brother of high political standing, "most excellent Theophilus." We ought to address all men wearing official titles, when we address them publicly, by the titles which designate their standing among men. There is a squeamishness of conscience, or a fastidiousness of taste, which some men, and some sectaries exhibit about giving any official names or titles to men of high rank or standing. This proceeds more from pride than from humility, and more from the intimation of some eccentric genius than from the examples of either patriarchs, prophets, saints, or martyrs in the age of God's Revelations. Let us then endeavor to call things by their proper names; and render to all men their dues.
EDITOR.
New Harmony Gazette, now the Free Enquirer,
of New York.
IT would seem, if any reliance could be reposed upon the testimony of those who reject testimony as a source of certain information, that the materialists, once of New Harmony, now of New York, are carrying all before them. These philosophers have silenced all the cannon of all the christian batteries of New York, themselves being judges, and have even pitched a bomb into our camp, a distance of four hundred miles. These good reasoners came hither to build up a social system in the back woods. They founded the city of Mental Independence, and proclaimed a new era, on the Wabash somewhere. But finding themselves and their converts too social, so that love itself burned into jealousy; and mine and thine no longer designated wife or husband; becoming in fact too social and too much in the community spirit, they found it expedient for these and other good reasons, to turn their mortal souls and dying minds to pull down that fell demon, religion: for the traces of it, still remaining, though scarcely legible, on some of the good hearts of some of the good citizens of New Harmony, made some of the folks willing to have some interest in their wives and children, and therefore religion became inimical to the social system. Those who loved their wives and offspring, fled from the city; and of the rest some who had no wives nor husbands resolve to form a league offensive and defensive against religion.--Hence the New Harmony Gazette renounces "Harmony," in word and deed, in time and space, and freely inquires, in New York, whether man or woman ought to form a more intimate compact than that existing between Miss Frances, Mr. R. D. O. and Mr. Jennings, as coeditors of free inquiries. They have swords and lances now to pierce the hearts and kill the souls of all who love religion; and have devoted their whole souls to the cause of no religion.
But, to come to the point at once, these new era folks have agreed to write down religion; and so, have made that the all-engrossing theme in every number of their Free Enquirer. One of these three editors, in the 8th of July number, [586] gave me a sort of an indirect challenge. It will be time enough for him to offer the terms when he has seen how it fared with his father at Cincinnati; or perhaps he is determined to wage war at all events and at all risques. Now I must tell my friend R. D. Owen that I have examined all the principles which have issued from the new school as proposed by Robert Owen, Esq. in our late discussion, and I have read and examined most of the principles of the old school of sceptics, and I heard all that forty years' experience, reading, and observation could array in vindication of them without any other emotion than that of wonder, why men, claiming to be governed by so much reason, could be so much the dupes of imagination, and hold principles antipodes to reason, knowledge, and experience. I now know as certainly as I know that I have physical strength to lift fifty-six pounds avoirdupois, that I can demonstrate that every system of scepticism is at variance with all reason, knowledge, and human experience; and that the sceptics, one and all, are as surely infatuated as ever was an idealist, who imagined there was not a particle of matter in the universe. This much I did not say before I put on my armor, but this much I now say, that I have put it off, and laugh as you please, gentlemen, unless you repent and believe the gospel, you will as surely perish as you die. I know all you can say against the bible, gentlemen, the priests, and corruptions of christianity, and it weighs no more in the scales of reason than the logic of the old woman in the Highlands of Scotland, who ridiculed the idea of the sphericity of the earth, by alleging that the hills in Jura were ocular evidence 'that the world was not round.' But so soon as any sceptic of learning and writing talent, such as I believe some of the editors of the Free Enquirer are, shall have deliberately read through our discussion, and if he shall then be willing to attack any one of the evidences on which we have made the truth of christianity to rest, I will then show, in my periodical, that he cannot undermine, sap, weaken, or impair a single pillar in the citadel of supernatural truth.--Every position that I have taken in this discussion, belonging to the logical defence of christianity, I will defend against every opposition whatever. That I can do so I profess to be as certain as that I can raise my arm or wield a goose quill.
EDITOR.
[TCB 578-587]
|
[Table of Contents] [Previous] [Next] |
Alexander Campbell
The Christian Baptist (1889) |