ELDER JOHN CLARK ON THE OPINIONS OF MEN (CLARK) 1849

[This is the first letter or work we publish by Elder John Clarke.  He would later, after his death, be looked at as the founder of the Old Line Baptists, otherwise known in our circles as Conditionalists.  It should be made clear that whatever disagreements Clark had with Trott, Beebe, or Elder Thompson, he believed in Absolute Predestination since this was the doctrinal prospectus of the Signs dating back to 1832.  As far as we know this letter has never been published online or in print.  We publish it to give clarity to what Elder Clark believed and did not believe.  Tomorrow we will publish Beebe's response to this letter - ed.]

Dear Brother Beebe:

I have been a professor of religion upwards of 20 years nearly one-half of my natural life during which time I have had opportunities to hear the preachers of most of the orders and sects in our country; And to read the views as published by all; And I think I may safely say that if there's any one matter concerning which there is a resemblance among all the sects, whether true or false, professing Christianity, it is in their leaders and teachers warning and cautioning their respective charges against the opinions of men in religion. The Catholics and the Protestants, with all their various shades of distinction, are alike careful to guard their flocks against the opinions of men.

Having been called to reflect much upon this subject recently, I have concluded to try to analyze it, to view it in full length and breadth, in order to ascertain what is meant by the hackneyed saying, the opinions of men.

The word opinion occurs but seldom in the Bible. It is used by Elihu in his reply to Job, in the 32nd chapter, where it appears to have the same meaning attached to it, as is generally avowed by lexicographers, both in the language from which it was derived and in our own, viz; a preconceived notion; A persuasion of the mind without full evidence or proof.

The term was also used by Elijah, the prophet of the Lord, and his address to the people, when the God of Israel answered by fire, according to the words of Elijah, before Ahab and the false prophets of Bale, saying, “how long halt you between two opinions,” but the demonstration which followed this address was such as produced conviction upon the mind that, “the Lord he is God” that amounted to more than a mere persuasion without proof.

The expression, “the tradition of men,” “the traditions of my fathers,” we find in the scriptures, Colossians 2.8, and Galatians 1.14. But this term is objectionable, or commendable, according to circumstances; or is it to be understood in a good sense, or in a bad sense, as the school in say; and which is always known by qualifying terms accompanying it. Thus, when Christ charged the scribes and Pharisees with transgressing the commandments of God by their traditions, it was evident that such traditions had been introduced in handed down among them without divine authority. See Matthew 16.3, 6, 9. Mark 7.7, 8, 9 and 13; Also first Peter 1.18. When the term, however, is used to denote that the things so delivered, or handed down, are of divine authority, it is so stated, or can be so understood by the connection in which is found.  See I Corinthians 11:2; 2nd Thessalonians and 2 dot Stein, and 3.9.

 
The word in the first quotation here is ordinances, But it is the same in the original as in other places.

Thus it will be seen that, by the authority of Christ and his apostles, what was understood as religious faith and practice, without divine authority came under the denomination of the traditions of men or the opinions of men and must be rejected; But those traditions which God has instituted, we are to hold and maintain according to the revelation which he has given us.

In the controversy between the papists and what are called the reformed churches, upon this subject, it is stated that the latter maintained, “that the holy scripture contains all things necessary to salvation; so that whatever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby it is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of faith or be thought requisite, or necessary to salvation.”

The first member of the sentence here quotes it needs some explanation, but it is not embraced in my present purpose to attend to any such matters and is only cited to show that all orders and claw and classes regard something as a standard by which all questions in dispute come upon the subject of religion, may be settled.

The papists appeal to the Bible with the glasses, opinions of men, and endless appendages of the church and its Papa, or head at Rome, and the Christian to the Bible as it is: the pure word without note or comment. But the sects professing Christianity on the Protestant side of the question have the commentaries of Gill, Henry, Scott, Doddridge, and Clark, besides many lesser lights of both ancient and modern times; arranged on the Calvinistic or Arminian side, as to doctrine, according to their peculiar modes of interpreting the scriptures, or as they profess to understand them. Now what shall we do with these various expositions of the Bible? Shall we cast them all out because the authors undertook to comment upon the scriptures, and ventured to use terms, in giving their views of scripture, which are not found in the word of God, and therefore, as the mere opinions of men, their expositions are not to be regarded or believed?

If we take this ground then all that any of us, or all of us together, have ever written, (not to go farther back than the commencement of the Signs of the times 15 or 16 years ago,) must in like manner go by the board. For upon the abstract question here, we have no more authority for commenting upon the scriptures and publishing our views of the word of God, than the ancient authors had. If their course was anti scriptural so is ours. If it is necessary to guard the Church of Christ against such as ancient authors, so they should be guarded against us as modern authors; each acting alike under the name same kind of authority. (I am not sure but what it would have been much better for the Church of God if there had never been any commentary published upon the scriptures, either ancient or modern.)

But it may be said, that we should not reject the views of any author or commentary upon the scriptures, only so far as such views are in harmony with the word of God. Very well. But who is to be the judge of what is consistent or inconsistent with the scriptures? Why, in the absence of a conscience keeper, and one who can negotiate all matters of faith between us and God, as the Pope is said to do, we must judge, every man for himself; we must interpret the text, and criticize the comment thereupon according to our understanding of the word of God. This we do individually and that cannot be otherwise; And the only way to produce harmony of such sentiment and unity of faith is for all to be taught and led by the same infallible teacher the spirit of God.

It is not necessary in order for the introduction of our peculiar views, if they are correct, then we should make an indiscriminate sweep of all that was ever written before us by uninspired men upon the subject of religion, that we should brand all such productions as the opinions of men. It is quite natural, however, for a person who is anxious to establish his own peculiar theory or views and to become formed as a great leader and reformer, to wage war upon all previous authors, and their productions as the opinions of men. Alexander Campbell furnishes us with a case illustrative of this position. A few years ago he came along the preach a crusade against all sects and creeds pointing the people to the scriptures as the infallible rule to settle all controversies upon religious matters; Inviting all parties and religions to union and harmony upon that platform. But it was soon ascertained that he too was a sectarian of the straightest order, that he too had a creed an iron bedstead on which men were stretched out or cut off, according to their longitudinal dimensions; and that all that was meant by union and harmony upon his plan, was for everybody to believe and practice as he did! Do that was to believe the scriptures! And, in a general way, what is meant by taking the scriptures as our guide, is to take some particular interpretation of the scriptures. Upon the principle that the scripture is to guide, we want to enter no interpreter other than him who has the power to “open our understanding, that we may understand the scriptures” for why should we go to the stream when the fountain is near and accessible as it is written, “if any man lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, that gives to all liberally and upbraids not; And it shall be given to him.” John 1.5

A word or two of experience here, I have, whilst searching the scriptures with a desire to know the will of God as Darren revealed, been sometimes enlightened upon particular passages, have felt an enlargement of mine, a company with a new view of some text, which I did not doubt was supplied by the spirit of God; And the same also occurred with me sometimes when preaching; But afterward I have found the same views published hundreds of years before some ancient author. I have also heard ministers in our connection and balanced views upon portions of God's word, which I have seen afterward in the writings of men.

Earn profession of religion, a brother then living at Fredericksburg, Virginia, put into my hand some old volumes of a very ancient work, in which there was a great deal said, which I hoped I understood upon the subject of salvation through Christ; and also upon the theories called supralapsarian and sub sublapsarian overfall way, and the underfall way, and hence much was said about the pure mass and the corrupt mass. And some writers stated in reference to the controversy, that the advocates of each scheme seemed to vie with each other to see which should give God the most glory in the salvation of the church.

I know not whether any of our modern authors or, the writers in the Signs have ever seen or read these old works, for they are rare in this country, and I know not where they can be found, but I have seen many things in the Signs that reminded me of these writings. But I would not infer from hence that those brethren were plagiarists. The truth of God has been the same in all ages. God's method of salvation does not change with changing time, but in every age, and among every nation where its effects have been felt, the exercises and views of its subjects have been the same. Why should we not believe that if God now leads his people into an understanding of his word, he in like manner, led them hundreds of years ago into the same knowledge of his will? And this being the case, if they should write or publish their views, would there not be an agreement, an oneness of sentiment?

But if we adopt the same mode of interpreting the scriptures and entertain the same views upon prominent points of doctrine, that the church did in ancient times, admitting, indeed, that they are scriptural, we shall be mere copyists; We shall have no credit for originality of conception, nor for finding out and presenting something new upon the subject of religion. And this being the case, what evidence can we furnish of a reformation of advancement in divine knowledge? And moreover, if we happen to entertain a sentiment in common with Gill, or Scott etcetera we shall be called a Gillette or some other ite, and of course, guided by the opinions of men in religion. New for my own part, whilst I have read no commentary systematically, or with any particular care or attention, yet in the best of them say Gill I have seen things which I did not accord with. For he that writes much will be pretty sure to write some nonsense. I might however find something in Clark, or the Wesleys, that I can approve of, but I still can get on without the aid of any of them, either ancient or modern. And if brethren who are so frequently calling upon the contributors to the Signs for their views upon particular passages of scripture, would go to the Lord in fervent prayer, and ask of him wisdom and understanding in the scriptures, he would grant them all needful instruction; And let those who write or preach, do so as their minds may be led by some infallible guide. I can see no difference between the cases where one brother inquires of John Gill his views upon a particular portion of scripture, and another brother asks Brother Beebe his views of the same or any other passage. The querist in either case, must either have no settled view of the scripture made the subject of his query, and therefore needs instruction, or else he has a view of the passage and wishes to know whether others will agree with him, and if so to confirm him in his view. Nice suppose he may be deceived? First, he may not have made up his mind about the text, and the view presented in answer to his query may be wrong. 

Secondly, he may have made up his mind in the case which may be wrong, and the view or illustration furnished to him may also be wrong, so he is ultimately confirmed in his error.

I have been asked repeatedly in private communications, and sometimes through the Signs, for my views upon particular passages of scripture and such passages too as I had understanding of (for I frankly confess that there are portions of god's word upon which I have no certain or particular light) but I have invariably refrained from complying with such requests for reasons, in part given above.

Search with writing Tracts to show the Tracts ought not to be written; And so it may be said, that we become authors to prove that authors are not to be read. And with all the zeal that we have shown in our demonstrations against new things among the New School, it cannot be disguised but there is a spirit of novelty abroad among us, that we must have something new to, notwithstanding all our efforts against others hence the aspect of the Signs for the last month or so; what a confusion of tongues! How have the hearts of the Saints been made to droop in sadness at the spectacle! Antichrist in the world can see in part the fulfillment of their prediction, that after our war upon them, we would turn in upon each other; And so we bid fair to become a laughingstock to all. Instead now of turning to the Signs as soon as they come to hand with the ability to read the epistles of love from the scattered flock which we want to do, they are merely glanced at to see what they contain and then laid aside without being read at all. In addition to this, the question is discussed, whether the Signs have not done as much harm as good, or if the existing state of things continues, whether this will not ultimately be the result.

If brethren find out new things in the Bible let them be cautious how they press upon them upon the consciousness of others who do not understand or believe them; and let them not be too hasty in making these things tests of their free intercourse with brethren.

I will remark, however, that I do not understand that a view of any particular text is necessarily wrong, because it may be new; But it is wrong if it is inconsistent with the general tenor of scripture; Or the analogy of faith, thank you if you choose to call it so; which I understand to be simply this: to interpret the scriptures by the scriptures. Although I have already written more than I at first designed and will promise that if you will give this a place in the Signs I will not trouble you again for a season before I close I wish to present aummary of some of the new things which have been found among us, some of which have been advocated in the Signs, and which I am fully satisfied that 9/10 of the old school Baptists not only believed to be new things, but erroneous things, and therefore come under the denomination of the opinions of men.

First. that the devil is a self-existent and independent spirit and that the non-elect are his children literally in the same sense in which I am the child of my earthly father; And that therefore God did not make them.

Second. That the world, or that portion of the ungodly distinguished from Antichrist, make a distinct third class of the human family, for which no place is provided hereafter, and therefore they go into annihilation after death.

Third. That the nonelect are not under law to God, and there is no distinction, in any sense, in condemnation, and of consequence in damnation.

4th. That we are not quickened or regenerated, by the spirit of God, but by a created existence in Christ made distinct from his divinity and his humanity and therefore there is an eternal creation, and we are quickened by a creature, which sustains this triplex character.

 
5th. That love the everlasting love of God, is not that which unifies Christ to his church; And which is made reciprocal when the “love of god is shed abroad in our hearts by the holy ghost which is given unto us.”

6th faith is not the act of the believer or new man; Although the gift of god and the fruit of the spirit. In other words, it is not the believer that believes.
About some of the above-named points, it has been said that the difference among brethren was of but little consequence, as it related exclusively to those that are without, and that there is agreement among them as to the Church of Christ.

The 4th item, however, shows a difference about Christ himself, not as to what he does, for all maintain that “the Son quickeneth whom he will.” (but not as a creature) but a difference as to his character, and the work of the Spirit of God.

And brother Beebe, I must candidly own, that would all do difference to the wisdom and experience of brethren who are understood to favor these views, as I know understand it if that is the gospel I never preached it, never knew it and don't know it. And may we not ask that if these things be so, has the gospel ever been preached since the Apostolic age? Can it be shown in ecclesiastical history that this view of the character of Christ was ever held by any branch of the Church of Christ?

My pathway, brother Beebe, has been in a great measure strewed with thorns, but I know of nothing that has given me more unfeigned sorrow, more poignant distress, than the clouds that seemed to hang over our sky at present. I have been in two wars, first with the Campbellites, and secondly with the New School Baptists, and I once believed I knew how to fight them; at least I have had some experience with it; but I do not know how to fight my brethren. It pains me sore to see them contend and strive, especially about words to no profit. And I would say to them, “Sirs, you are brethren; why do you wrong one to another?” Are we to be guilty of the folly of turning our arrows from Antichrist to shoot at each other? Shall it be that the people, against whom all the powers of earth and hell are combined, shall so far forget their high calling as to bite and devour one another, and therefore be consumed by one another? 

May the Lord deliver us from such a calamity! And my brother, I think I speak advisedly when I say, that if there is not an end to these things in the Signs, there will be an end to the Signs. 

I remain yours in tribulation.

John Clark
Bellfair Mills, Stafford County, Virginia, 

September 11, 1849

Vol, 17 No.9 Signs of the Times