Dear Father: In your kind favor of the 15th instruction, you tell me if what you have written on the use or abuse of the sword is not satisfactory, to feel no backwardness in saying so. As I before remarked, I fear the discussion of the subject through the "Signs of the Times" will be productive of alienation of feeling rather than good results. Truth may be revealed to some brethren, which is not as yet taught to others of us: it has been said:
"The men of mind are mountains; and their heads
This may be true to some extent in the church of Christ; one thing I have observed, when any great principle of gospel truth is presented in a manner or form which is different from what has been generally understood in the age and vicinity where it is introduced, the saints are apt to be slow to receive it, until taught by the Spirit, individually, to know its truth. Such was the case recorded in Acts 10:11; but when the light was fully revealed to all the saints, they all could see alike: (a) so, if the doctrine of non-resistance, in the broad sense in which you present it, be the true and scriptural doctrine of Christ, it will in due time be revealed to all the saints by the teaching of the Comforter, whose peculiar office it is to take of the things of Jesus, and show them unto his disciples. Until this is done, I very seriously apprehend that all efforts to hurry their understanding on this point will only tend to bewilderment, confusion and distress. It would be vain for me to attempt to argue against you merely to maintain a controversy, and I had designed pursuing the subject no further; but at your encouraging suggestion, I will present a few additional objections to the construction you place upon the peaceful laws of our Lord:
(b) and first, permit me to entreat you in consideration of my weakness and lack of ability, to lay aside for the truth's sake the severe, if not sarcastic pen with which you replied to my incidental reference to the different standpoints from which brethren North and South view this question. My knowledge of your kindness of heart enables me to receive this in the spirit of a child who knows his teacher inflicts the rod for his own good; but there are many who look upon it rather as written in harshness; so that with them it may have the effect to provoke them to wrath. See Ephesians 6:4.
(c) Our blessed Lord says, "My kingdom is not of this world, if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now is my kingdom not from hence" (John 18:36). Now mark the object for which the Savior states that his servants would fight if his kingdom were of this world - for the preservation of their king. This is in substance to maintain religion by force of arms, which no Old School Baptist of my acquaintance contends for. But surely you will pardon my inability to see the force of this passage as applied to forcible resistance to oppression or ruffianism. While the defense of our religion is not to be left to the sword, not a word of reproof or admonition is recorded against the military officers whose cases are mentioned in Matthew 8 and Acts 10.
(d) Indeed, the very assertion of our Savior that his kingdom is not of this world implies that his laws do not abrogate the civil relations of his subjects; as in the case of the bond servant referred to by Paul in I Corinthians 7:20-24; so in the case of the soldier; the duty demanded by earthly relations is not annulled by the change from nature's night to the light of the kingdom of Christ.
(e) The general principles of morality are indeed included in the organic or fundamental law of the gospel kingdom. But in addition to these, there are other principles in the same glorious system which apply exclusively to the internal relations of the saints within that kingdom. Hence, our Lord teaches the exclusive duty of forgiving one another, while Paul prays that the Lord may reward Alexander, an enemy, according to his evil works.
Now if the principle of nonresistance and forgiveness were to be universal in its application, would not the inspired Apostle have prayed rather that the Lord would give that enemy repentance? You may say that Paul used no carnal weapon to repel that enemy; but this does not cover the case, since the point to be sustained is the propriety of a different feeling toward outside enemies from what should govern us in dissension among ourselves, and even natural discretion forbade an appeal to carnal weapons for defense against the united world at that time. The spirit of this imprecation is not expressive of love to that enemy.
(f) Again, if we must love our enemies universally, we certainly ought to love Satan, the arch-enemy, supremely, which is absurd. But if we understand that our personal animosities are to be no barrier to the free course of fraternal affection among those in whom the Holy Spirit has wrought the image of Christ, no such absurdity arises.
(g) The powers that be, mentioned in Romans 13:1-7, would cease to be a terror to evil doers if their mandates were not enforced by the sword, or military power.
(h) Is a Christian forbidden to hold a civil or judicial position, lest in the performance of the duties it involves, he should be obliged to do violence to an evil doer or criminal? If the executor of the law is guilty of transgressing the law of Christ in obeying the government, are not all who sustain that government guilty as being accessory to the crime? If I pay the assassin for murdering my neighbor, am I not guilty of the murder? Then, if it is unlawful to use carnal weapons defensively, it is unlawful to employ another to use them, and we should pay no taxes to hire sheriffs to take the lives of criminals: but where then is the terror of the law?
(i) The murderer, with his knife at the throat of my wife whom I have solemnly sworn to protect, is not a fit subject for conciliatory argument; and if I can prevent his murderous intent by shooting him, and fail to do it, I am in a measure guilty of her blood. Is this not so?
(j) Your reference to the disastrous result of our appeal to arms proves nothing, since the success of our ancestors in a similar appeal is a refutation of the implication that we failed because the saints appealed to carnal weapons.
The defensive use of the means which God has placed within our power can never involve a conflict between the saints, since they are never justified in attacking the equal rights of others.
 |
| Henry Holcombe (1762-1826) |
(k) This theory of non-resistance, based on the very identical grounds which you adduce, was advocated by the "Rev. Henry Holcombe Was born in Prince Edward County Va. Sept 22, 1762, son of Grimes and Elizabeth Holcombe; was a captain in the revolutionary war. Soon after it had terminated he concluded a study for the ministry, and was ordained in 1785. His first pastorate was at Pipe Creek Church S.C. and he was afterward pastor of four churches near Beayfortm S.C., and finally settledin that place and was one of the founders of the Beaufort college. In 1799, he was called to charge the First Baptist Church in Savannah, Ga., where in 1799, he preached the funeral sermon on Washington. He was a delegate to the convention of South Carolina for ratifying the constitution of the United States; was one of the foundrs of the Savannah female seminary; was editor of the Georgia "Analytical Repository:" was instrumental in establishing the Baptist missionary society. In 1810 he accepted a call to the First Baptist Church in Philadelphia, where he reamined until his death. In 1812 he published the "First Fruits" a series of letters written to his brother. Rev, James Holcombe, pastor of the Baptist church at Beach Island, S.C. Brown University conferred on him the degree of D.D. Henry Holcome died at Phialdephia Pa., May 22, 1826. , D.D." in a work published in 1823, entitled, "The Primitive Theology," and the Peace Society of New England has been urging most of the same arguments for about half a century. Does God enlighten the enemies of his people before he instructs his own church? I need not remind you that these lamb-like advocates of universal fraternity were foremost in the work of murdering and robbing Southerners during the late war, and even now while worldly politicians turn heart-sick from the horrors they have inflicted on us, the leaders of this politico-religious peace movement are still crying lustily for more vengeance and more blood. I know you do not approve their course; but may it not be advisable to examine through the process of reasoning by which you have arrived at the same conclusions with them, lest, peradventure the same error may mislead you which has deceived them.
I will now state explicitly the position on which we stand.
(l) We hold that the Christian stands in a two-fold relation;
first, and paramount, as a child of God he is subject, in the gospel kingdom, to the laws of Christ alone.
Second, and subordinately, he is bound to the earth by the ties of nature, and is subject, in common with the unregenerate world, to the natural laws and necessities which the creator has ordained and established. Hence, while no thought for the morrow, or consideration of consequences, should deter them from implicitly obeying every injunction of their Lord, yet their natural relations in life, as of husband and wife, parents and children, subjects and rulers, etc., are not abrogated, and consequently it is eminently proper that they should be diligent in business; sow, plant, and cultivate their crops, and in youth and in middle age, prepare for the winter of old age. The spiritual food and support of the saints is secure from thieves and corruption in heaven, and is given them day by day. In regard to natural food, the law is, if any man will not work, neither shall he eat.
The spiritual laws of the kingdom of our Lord are no more applicable to natural governments than the natural man is fit to be received into the kingdom of heaven.
(m) Is not confounding spiritual with natural things the source whence this non-resistance doctrine originated? I write with deference to the superior understanding of brethren who have adopted this idea; and express my grounds of dissent from it, in the hope that if I am in error I may be enabled to see and receive the right view on this subject.
I should be basely ungrateful could I for a moment forget the Christian charity of the Northern brethren and friends, which so far palliated the horrors of my imprisonment in Camp Chase; and I have been under the impression hitherto that our sufferings were regarded by them as the infliction of tyrannical injustice. Surely if they regarded our efforts at self-defense as in violation of the laws of Christ, their efforts to forgive was a glorious example of true Christian mercy, which is superhuman in its disinterested benevolence. So that even granting that we have erred, we are only the more strongly bound to appreciate the fraternal kindness of our Northern brethren, as manifested toward us who were thrown on your Christian charity by the storm of war. God forbid that this discussion or any other matter should ever prove a root of bitterness springing up to mar that sweet fellowship which was so severely tested by the late sectional animosities. Let the lusts and strife of carnal men war ever so fiercely, yet may the children of that kingdom which cannot be moved ever remember that they are united by the more enduring than those of the perishable nations of this world.
You see that I find no fault with your reasoning, but differ with you in the application of the spiritual laws of Christ's kingdom to the natural relations to this world; just as you would consider it a perversion of the command of our Lord as recorded in Matthew 23:9, if I would refuse to reverence you paternally.
I would be thankful if this subject is continued in the "Signs" to see something from our venerable brother, Elder T. P. Dudley, of Kentucky, relative to it, as I think on this subject, days should speak, and multitude of years should teach wisdom. As ever deferentially and affectionately your son.
William L. Beebe
Covington, Ga.
December 24, 1866.
[ed. For those who wish to hear as well as read this article, we provide a YouTube video from out channel.]
Reply to our son, Elder William L. Beebe:
A thorough investigation of every important subject connected with the faith and practice of the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ, if conducted in a candid and truth-seeking spirit can hardly fail to result beneficially to the saints; for however well we may be established in the truth, by careful investigation the mind takes a wider range of thought, and meeting opposing arguments, the truth is made more fully to appear; and error, if we have imbibed any, is more likely to be detected; and Christians, we have a right to believe, have only to be convinced that any point, however cherished, is erroneous, and they will at once discard it. We are not willing to think that the discussion of so important a subject as that which we now have under consideration can produce alienation of feeling among those who strive not for mastery, but for the truth as it is in Jesus. In the further prosecution of our discussion of the subject, we would wish our son to divest himself of every restraint or embarrassment arising from our fleshly relationship to each other. Whatever of reverence or honor may be due to a father from a son, relates only to our fleshly relationship; but in the discussion of the things of the kingdom of our Lord we should know no man after the flesh. In the spiritual organization of the church, as the body of Christ we are all one in Christ Jesus.
The saying that "men of mind, are like mountains, whose heads are sunned long ere the rest of the earth," may be true in natural things, but not in spiritual; for God has hidden the things of his Spirit from the wise and prudent, or men of superior intellect, and revealed to babes. The pride of human minds is humbled, and he that glorieth, must glory only in the Lord. Still we will not dispute that the Lord does enlighten the minds of some of his children, and even the very feeblest of them, in regard to some things, before the same things are made equally clear to others.
It is perfectly right that the saints should carefully examine every proposition presented, and try it by the infallible standard, the scriptures, before they subscribe to, or endorse it; and beware of novelties and vain speculations in divinity. And further, we believe that we should be very slow to discard the faith or the practice of long standing in the church of God, unless compelled by the testimony of the scriptures; but when the scriptures are clear and emphatic on any point, its opposite, however long standing and popular, should at once be laid aside. The case which you refer to, of Peter going to the house of Cornelius, and preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, is to the point.
In reviewing the well written article of our son on the subject of a Christian's obligations in regard to carnal or human war, to prevent confusion we will mark the passages on which we wish to remark, in their order by letters of the alphabet, that the reader may know to what part of the article our remarks are intended to apply.
(a) It was not our intention to take any broader ground, on the subject of non-resistance, than that laid down in the scriptures; if we have inadvertently stretched our line beyond that standard we have gone too far, and will willingly recede to scriptural limits. The entire breadth of our non-resistance doctrine, as we desire to be understood, is measured by the words of our Lord. "Resist not evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matthew 5:29). In repelling a personal insult or injury, the disciple is forbidden to avenge himself, but is commanded to bear it patiently and leave the result to him to whom vengeance belongeth. An inspired expositor of the laws of Christ has said to the saints, "Recompense to no man evil for evil" (Romans 12). We think it would be straining this divine rule were we to say, if the assassin's knife were at the throat of a wife or child, or of any other of our fellow beings, and we possessed physical power to prevent the assassination, we should not do it; for that would not in our judgment be resisting evil with evil. It is our duty to do what we can to preserve life. For this we have the example of our Lord, who came not to destroy men's lives, but to save them. (See Luke 9:56.)
But we hope, whether our view on this subject be correct or not, you will reconsider your reasoning, that an effort to teach, or make that truth manifest to the saints, before the same point of truth is made plain to them by the Holy Comforter, will only tend to confusion. If this be so, we should be very cautious in our preaching, lest we confuse the saints by presenting any points of truth which they do not already understand. I think that you will perceive that your apprehensions are unfounded, for the ministers of Jesus must be apt to teach. If you only mean that we cannot teach spiritual things to carnal minds, or so as to be understood by those who have not been born and taught of the Spirit, then we are perfectly agreed.
(b) We have carefully reviewed what we said in our former article in regard to the standpoints, and feel somewhat surprised that our remarks were regarded as sarcastic or severe. We certainly did not design to indulge either in sarcasm or severity on so grave a subject. To us the cause is a common one; we know no geographic lines dividing the interests of the saints. If one member of Christ's body suffers, all the other members sympathize with it, and we think it will not be disputed that we, at the North, did sympathize with our suffering brethren at the South; but we designed to show that an appeal to arms, so far as the brethren both North and South were concerned, was totally unproductive of any good, but of indescribable evil to the saints in both sections of the country. Our remarks were designed exclusively to be applied to the brethren; for we have neither the authority nor disposition to endorse or censure the policy of children of this world, or to dictate in the political affairs of the world. We designed only to say, in candor, soberness, and kindness, that after making all allowance for the sufferings of the brethren at the South that they may claim, still we honestly believe that so far as the saints are concerned, it would have been better for them to have borne the wrongs inflicted on them until deliverance should come from above, than to attempt to avenge themselves.
(c) The declaration of our Lord that his kingdom is not of this world else would his servants fight that he should not be delivered to the Jews, to our mind presents this palpable truth, that the kingdoms and governments of the world are governed on worldly principles, by human policy and physical force; but his kingdom is not of this world in any of these respects and therefore his subjects are not allowed to fight in carnal warfare, not even to repel the persecution, proscription or assassination of their King. Can we fairly infer that while forbidden to fight in defense of their King, they are at liberty to fight for their own personal rights, or for the defense of human governments? What is his kingdom? Who are his servants? And why may they not fight? His kingdom is his church over which he presides as her blessed and only Potentate. His servants are the members of his mystical body to which he is given to be Head over all things. They, as his body and members, cannot therefore engage righteously in any strife in which their Head cannot participate, without being severed from their Head, so far as such strife is concerned. Nor can they do what he, as their only Potentate, has not commanded, especially what he has forbidden. In this respect they cannot serve two masters. All subordination of his servants to human authorities, or parents, husbands, masters, magistrates, kings, governors, and rulers, is restricted to his supreme command; we are to obey them, not because they, but because he, commands us.
So that the Christian, in rendering tribute to whom tribute is due, honor to whom honor is due, and obedience to whom obedience is due; are to do so in obedience to Christ, and in a way in which we call no man on earth our master or our lord. We cannot be subordinate at the same time to two distinct and conflicting laws, or governments. Under no circumstances, not even to save our lives or property, or to escape the wrath of human rulers, are the subjects of Christ's kingdom permitted to depart from his laws. Can it be right for the saints to shed blood in defense of their life, liberty, or human rights, and at the same time wrong when in defense of the higher and more sacred cause of their divine Lord and Master? Or is it less safe for us to commit the preservation of our natural lives and interests to the keeping of God, than the keeping of our spiritual interests?
It is true, there is no word of reproof recorded, as having been given to the centurions, mentioned in Matthew 8 and Acts 10; and this fact seems to favor the idea that a military position is compatible with a Christian profession. But, let us examine: neither of these centurions were disciples of Jesus at the times referred to. It was the faith of the one mentioned by Matthew, and not the former practice that Jesus commended; and of his subsequent life, whether he ever took on him the yoke of Jesus, and identified himself with the church, we are not informed: if he did, it is quite probable that he resigned his commission in the army, and became a soldier of the cross. Cornelius was a centurion, but we have no account of his serving in the army after he became a Baptist. Could we find that either of these centurions, after uniting with the church, still held their places in the army, without reproof, it would be to us clear and satisfactory proof that our views of the incompatibility of human warfare with the Christian calling, are untenable.
On this point we will submit for consideration whether the qualifications for military service do not disqualify one for discipleship to Christ; and vice versa? To be a soldier under military discipline, martial law forbids him to sympathize with, or render aid or comfort to an enemy; and requires him to put them to death without mercy when so commanded by his commanders. The law of Christ by which his disciples are governed, commands that we shall love our enemies, and render to them all the aid and comfort in our power. Is there a single case or record of any one of the primitive saints holding military positions, either as officers or privates? If there is, that will settle the matter, and end the discussion. But in the absence of any such example on record in the New Testament, and in the seeming opposition to all the examples and precepts of Christ, is it safe for us to teach that Christians may without violation of the laws of Christ, or of the peaceful principles of our holy religion, use the sword in carnal warfare?
(d) Although we fail to deduce the same inference from the declaration of our Lord that his kingdom is not of this world, yet we are perfectly satisfied that the laws of Christ's Kingdom, instead of abrogating such relations and civil obligations as God has instituted and ordained, especially provide and command that they shall be respected, observed and obeyed. But all such are specified, defined and restricted to such limitations as infinite wisdom has ordained. But we do infer from the declaration of our Lord that his kingdom ruleth over all. (See Psalm 103:19.) And while it conforms to none, it is distinct and independent of them all; and destined to break in pieces and destroy all other kingdoms, and stand forever.
(e) We can make no distinction between general and organic or fundamental, in the laws of the kingdom of Christ. All the laws of Christ are organic and fundamental; so they cannot be dispensed with in his kingdom. There, and there exclusively, they belong; they were not given to the world, nor intended for the regulation of worldly governments. Nor can we consent to the restriction of the law of Christ, wherein he commands his disciples to love their enemies, to those only which are brethren or fellow members of the kingdom. We have an example in the prayer uttered by the Savior on the cross. "Father, forgive them," and in the same spirit in Stephen praying God to lay not the sin of his murderers to their charge. The prayer of Paul that the Lord should reward Alexander according to his works, we cannot regard as a malediction, or imprecation, but rather that his devices and opposition to the truth might prove ineffectual; that his iniquity might be exposed, and the saints preserved from his wicked influences. But whatever may have been the design, the appeal was to the Lord, to meet out the reward, as to him alone belongeth vengeance. To him also may all the oppressed saints freely appeal for protection from the violence of their enemies and to dispose of them as he sees proper. He certainly reproved his disciples for proposing to call for fire to destroy their enemies. We do not understand that Alexander was an outsider, but having at least a nominal standing in the church was capable of doing more harm than a regiment of outside enemies. Therefore, Paul delivered him and Hymenaeus unto Satan, that they might learn not to blaspheme (I Timothy 1:20).
(f) The Savior does command the disciples to love their enemies, and to bless such as curse them, and to pray for those who persecute and despitefully use them; but no where do we find his command to love Satan. It is not their enmity, nor their spirit that we are commanded to love. But knowing that such were some of us, and that God had made us to differ, we are to cherish a compassionate feeling towards them, like that expressed in the words before written, "Father, forgive."
Indeed we fail to see how the supposed "absurdity" would be avoided by restricting the application of our Savior's command to enemies, persecutors, spiteful and malicious members in the church, since the same spirit of Satan instigates their hostility and malicious conduct that betrays itself in those who are without. But we trust that the examples we have referred to, of Christ on the cross, and Stephen in his martyrdom will suffice to show that the inference suggested is not justified by the scriptures.
(g) The necessity or propriety of enforcing the laws of men by the sword, in order that their laws should be a terror to the wicked, does not belong to this discussion; for we have not disputed that God has authorized the potentates of the earth to enforce their wholesome laws by the sword. But while the potsherds of the earth may strive, the saints are called out from the strife and turmoil of carnage, and are subjects of a kingdom whose subjects are commanded to put up the sword.
(h) We know of no direct precept forbidding a disciple of Christ to holding a civil office, where such office does not interfere with his religious standing. But for Christians, especially those who profess to be ministers of Christ, to seek such offices, never fails to lessen them in the esteem of their brethren. We do believe however that such offices as require them to execute the death penalties of the law, or to be engaged in carnal warfare are altogether incompatible with their holy profession; that they cannot fill them without disobedience to Christ. Caesar does not lack for men to execute his laws. Christians who are redeemed from among men, and brought under law to Christ, should come out and be separate from the world. They have better and sufficient employment in the kingdom to which they belong. The laws of Christ's kingdom do not apply to any but the subjects of his spiritual government; therefore we have no judgment to pass against the men of this world in regard to these things. All that Christians have to do to sustain human governments is enjoined on them by the laws of Christ; they must pay tribute, and submit to every ordinance of men, for Christ's sake because he commands it. But the less they have to do with politics, the better. If we pay assassins for murdering our neighbors, or otherwise encourage them to do so, we truly are accessory to the murder. But if we simply pay tribute to Caesar, as we are commanded to do, and Caesar employs the revenue so collected for the destruction of our fellow men, he, and not us, is responsible.
(i) Perhaps no stronger case could be supposed than that which you have stated. The murderer, with his knife at the throat of your wife, or we will say, at the throat of any other person, we believe if in our power we should prevent the commission of the deed, as best we can. But that is a case which we believe could never occur with a Christian whose trust is wholly in the Lord. The Christian who can trust the salvation of his soul to God, we would suppose could also trust his personal safety, and that of his family to the same guardian care. "Behold I send you forth as lambs among wolves." Can we conceive of greater exposure than this? In what then are they to confide for safety? Not in purse, or scrip, or staves, or warlike armor; for they were forbidden to take any. But God has assured us that he has created the smith that bringeth forth an instrument for his work, and also the waster to destroy, and he says, "No weapon formed against thee shall prosper, and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord."
Can a Christian be more safe in trusting in a sword, and in his own power and skill to use it, than in committing the preservation of his life and all his interests for time and for eternity to God? "He that leadeth into captivity, shall go into captivity." "He that taketh the sword, shall perish by the sword." "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." "They that trust in the Lord shall be like mount Zion which cannot be moved, but abideth forever."
(j) Our reference to the failure of an appeal to arms to secure any beneficial effect to either section of the country, was not designed to prove that such appeals have never been successful; but rather to show that had the peaceful doctrine of the gospel prevailed in the North and South more than a million of lives would not have been sacrificed, and untold millions of treasure would have been saved. And now what has been gained? The South has not gained their independence, nor has the North secured what our Congress declared to be the sole object of the war on their part, the restoration of all the states to the Union, with all their rights unimpaired. But with the policy of the states, either North or South, this discussion has nothing to do, either to commend or to denounce. The simple question involved is whether the subjects of the kingdom of the Prince of Peace may under any circumstances stain their hands with the blood of their fellow men.
(k) We remember the time when Dr. Holcomb of Philadelphia published the work alluded to; but what were his arguments on the subject of peace, we do not so clearly remember. But admitting that he advocated the doctrine on the same ground that we do would not prove that God reveals his truth to the enemies of the cross before he does to his people; for if our position be correct, the primitive saints were enlightened, did understand and practice these very principles. The Peace Societies of New England could not have occupied the same ground with us, as we confine the laws of Christ to his Kingdom and disciples, while they would apply them indiscriminately to the world. We are not aware that we have arrived at any conclusions on this subject by any process of reasoning. We design only to take the word as it reads upon this subject, and abide by its instruction.
(l) Your explicit statement of your position is substantially the same which we also hold; so far at least as is stated from (l) to (m) as marked in your letter.
(m) Ours is not properly called a non-resistance doctrine; for we are commanded to resist the Devil, and to resist evil, but not with evil. And we hold that the Christian's whole allegiance is due to Christ; as he is given to be the head over all things to his church. The laws of nature which God has enacted will enforce themselves, and we are forbidden by the law of Christ to transgress them. The laws also of civil governments are made binding and obligatory on Christians so far as they do not conflict with the paramount laws of Christ. So in all things the Christian is governed by Christ; and in his law, thoroughly furnished by precept and example to every good work. We do not design to apply the spiritual laws of Christ to any but to his spiritual subjects.
We have before said that in what we have written, we have not the slightest intention to censure our brethren, either North or South. We wish only to call the attention of the household of faith to some of the precepts of our divine Lord and Master; that whatever may have been our errors in times past, we can henceforth understand the way of the Lord more perfectly.
In conclusion we wish to say that we hold none responsible for our views; not even the Warwick Association, whose circular of last June gave rise to this discussion; for we have not consulted with them, and we know not that they will fully endorse our views. Neither do we wish our views on this or any other subject to prevail any further than they are sustained by our only authorized standard, the scriptures. Our judgment is weak and imperfect; but the scriptures are infallible and perfectly safe. We may fail in many points to understand them correctly. We think our views are about as clearly and candidly stated as we are capable to present them; and we only wish them to pass for what they are worth. So far as they are sustained by the scriptures may they be blessed to the instruction and edification of the heirs of immortality; and wherein they are not so sustained, may God enable the readers to detect the wrong and avoid it. "Prove all things. Hold fast that which is good."
We sincerely join with our son in the desire by him expressed that nothing growing out of our discussion may tend to mar the sweet fellowship of any of our kindred in Christ. We are truly glad to find that not even filial affection and regard for an aged parent, of which he has never been deficient, would tempt him to endorse ought from us, until he can find it sustained by the divine rule. Unless our son, or some other of our brethren, shall see cause to call us out again upon this subject, we shall submit what we have written, at least for the present.
Middletown, N.Y.
February 1, 1867.
Elder Gilbert Beebe
Editorials Volume 6
Pages 437 - 450
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for commenting. If an answer is needed, we will respond.