[This is again a never-before-published article of Elder Trott. Tell me brethren have things changed that much among us and our opponents? - ed]
Brother Beebe: Brother R. Burritt’s letter, in the second number of the present volume of the Signs, contains so grave and severe a charge against you, in your editorial capacity, that I think the friends of the Signs are called upon to step forward and vindicate that paper from those charges, in self-justification, if nothing else, for patronizing it. if no other communication comes forward in its defense you may, if you please, publish the following. Although I feel ashamed of occupying so great a portion of the Signs as I shall do if all my communications recently sent out on our published.
Brother Burritt, I cannot think, would on reflection admit the correctness of the charge which his letter conveys against your editorial matter. The new school party, or rather, I believe more generally, the middle grounders, or as our southern brethren called them go-betweens, in order to prevent people from reading the Signs, as well As for an excuse for their not countenance seeing them, have charged them with being written and conducted in a bad spirit; and to avert the effect of the exposures therein made of the corruptions of new schoolism, they denounced such exposures as blackguardisms. Brother Burritt picks up these charges as he finds them bandied about among the enemies of truth, and brings him forward as being established by matters of fact, that his mouth is stopped from saying anything in the defense of the Signs.
As to the charge of blackguardism, anything published in the Signs meeting such a charge is certainly indefensible as a religious paper. But Brother Burritt requires examination. I do not suppose that Brother Burritt intended to convey by this expression what Brother Beebe seems to understand by it, and what some have not hesitated to affirm; That the communications are written and published by the instigation of the devil. His meaning probably is that the Signs, or some of the communications they're in, betray a spiteful, angry, or revengeful temper; that they reflect more of the fruits of the flesh than the fruits of the Spirit. That the corruptions of nature tincture all human compositions is readily admitted. I cannot consider even Brother Burritt’s letter except from such a tincture, though he may not have been aware of being in bad humor. Neither will I deny that some communications in the Signs may have betrayed, or seemed to betray a bad humor. But the general charge coming from brother Burritt, is, I think, founded on the wrong view of the case. The occasion for an object of this publication is to be considered. The Signs were not governed as a business for making a living, nor even a vehicle for communicating merely general religious instruction. The Baptists had for some years before, as a denomination, been rapidly conforming to the views and practices of the popular denominations around. Scarcely a denominational barrier, by which the Baptist had as a people been so separated as to dwell alone and not be reckoned among the nations, remained, with the exception of the ordinance of baptism, which had not been, directly or indirectly, broken up in upon, if not demolished; More in some sections than in others, but all within the general correspondence. Even the independence of the churches in reference to government was being fast destroyed, except in name, by the associations assuming powers not originally claimed, and by which associations were becoming like the higher ecclesiastical courts of their denominations. In addition to this change, the associations were bringing in all the new societies, in the very forms with their priestly powers in which they were devised by other denominations, and binding upon the churches and denomination the burdens thereof. Some few Baptists had borne with these things until they could go no further in fellowship and correspondence with those who were becoming anything but Baptists, excepting in the baptismal ordinance. Others were groaning under these burdens and knew not how to rid themselves of them. It was also believed that there were many scattered among the churches that were, as some were known to be, dissatisfied, unable from their experience to approve of this new order of things, and yet afraid to condemn it, because so many did approve, and such great things were said would be accomplished by these societies, and knowing perhaps of none but themselves that objected. It was to meet the exigency of this state of things that brother Beebe, which some few others in his vicinity, thought of the plan of publishing the “Signs of the Times” and that he, almost single-handed, step forward to incur the expense, and meet the reproach of throwing the gauntlet before the host of publications arrived to bring the churches and the world under tribute and quiet subjection to the image of the beast, which they were rearing. The object aimed at, and professed in the first start, and in continuation of the Signs, has been to hold forth the plain undisguised truth on both sides of the question. That is, on the one side to point out the simplicity of gospel truth and order as delivered by Christ and his apostles, and to advocate and to urge upon the Baptist the importance of a strict conformity in all things to the pattern shown in the mount. On the other hand to point out plainly the anti-scriptural nature and tendency of all these innovations which had been or still should be introduced among the Baptists. Hence the item in the prospectus for the Signs, “Waging war with the mother Arminianism and her entire brood of institutions.” This has been thought by many to indicate a bad spirit perhaps Brother Burritt may think so. However it may be to him, to me it is manifest that Arminianism is the concubine, and the institutions of which she is the mother, or the children, of no better spirit than the Prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now works in the children of disobedience, or, if you wish to take another scriptural description of the personage, the great dragon, that old serpent, called the devil and Satan. Confident I am that no good spirit would lead us to form an alliance with this father of the children of disobedience and his family, nor even proclaim neutrality while Michael and his angels are fighting them. Consequently, a good spirit would lead us to enlist and fight at once in the ranks of Michael the Archangel. The idea of war is abundantly held forth in the New Testament.
But let us take another view of the subject. Brother Burt will admit that “Arminianism and her whole brood of institutions,” called new schoolism, against whom Brother Beebe and his correspondence war through the Signs, are either supported by scriptural authority or they are not. If they are sustained by authorized institutions of the Kingdom of Christ, it must be a wrong spirit, and therefore a bad spirit that would lead any to oppose, or countenance opposition to them. Upon the ground of that supposition, Brother Burritt himself stands convicted of a bad spirit in common with all old-school Baptists. But if there is no scriptural authority, as there is not, for admitting this mother and her brood to belong to the gospel Kingdom, then the whole concern must be anti-Christian; for there is no neutrality no middle ground between the seed of Christ and the seed of the serpent. There are but two great religious interests in the world, Christ’s and the antichrist’s; the host of Michael, and that of the dragon. In Speaking of those who are getting up and supporting these institutions, and that interest, which the scriptures do not recognize as belonging to Christ's Kingdom, and which therefore must belong to the Kingdom of Antichrist, would Brother Burritt suppose that a good spirit would lead brother Beebe to speak of them, as “sheep in disguise,” when the master declared set inwardly they are ravening wolves; Or lead him to speak of them as the circumcision, when Paul speaks of them as dogs as evil workers, as the concession; or again to speak of them as gospel preachers, or the ministers of Christ, when Paul calls them the ministers of Satan and another inspired apostle, pronounces them “false teachers who privately shall bring in damnable heresies;” and another, even Jude, calls them “ungodly men, spots in your feasts, clouds without water, trees whose fruit Withers, raging waves of the sea, wandering stars to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever,”? Certainly, the scriptures are indicted by a good spirit, it is not a bad spirit that leads us to speak of persons and things as Darren described, and it is not a good spirit that leads any to represent them as being better characters than the scriptures declared them to be, in order to shun opposition from the world.
Brother Burritt admits that Christ and his apostles used a different language towards false teachers and hypocrites from what they used towards weak brethren; But says, “we find no such language among their remarks as we often find in Gilbert Beebe’s,” whereby, I presume, he meant us to have us understand that Brother Beebe’s remarks are much more severe. But he made this charge probably in haste, without proper examination. He cannot support it by matters of fact, as being applicable to anything like a general view of Brother Beebe’s language. Brother Beebe Speaks of the new school leaders and party, as being what he and his correspondents generally believed them to be: as false teachers or the ministers of Satan “transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ,” that under this guise they may more effectually build up a powerful interest in opposition to the Church of Christ; And I cannot think it just ground to charge him with a bad spirit for faithfully, in the face of the frowns of the world, pointing out these characters in their works as being what we have an abundant reason, as well as scriptural authority for believing them to be; And in a case, where deception is so injurious to the church and the saints of God, and to the liberties of our country. But Brother Burritt complained that Brother Beebe used too much sarcasm, and instances a case in the last volume were about the 17th number. Brother Beebe in conducting his paper on the principles of vowed, has of course drawn upon his paper repeated attacks from New England editors. Infrequent instances not to have noticed those attacks, would by many, have been construed as an acknowledgment by him, of the correctness of their charges against him, and yet to have attempted a refutation of their slang by sober reasoning, would have been to answer a fool according to his folly in a way that would have led him to be wise in his own conceit. And yet the direction again is, to answer him according to his folly, lest you be like unto him, proverbs 26.4-5. In such a case a little sarcasm by which the foolishness or inconsistency of their charges is exposed is perhaps the best way of answering them. It is employed on such occasions both by sacred and profane writers. I admit that this mode of treating a subject is very natural to Brother Beebe, more so than to many others, and that he may probably have sometimes indulged in it, to parry off attacks, both from friends and foes, when a different mode of answering them might have been better. I do not claim for him perfection of prudence, any more than for the correspondents of the Signs. An admonition in the spirit of moderation in such cases, by which the error had been placed in a true light might have been advantageous to him. But most of the censures which I have seen from his brethren, have been upon the supposition that he was really conducting the Signs in a bad spirit, or an attaching a blame to him, for not laying aside his own natural method of treating attacks, and borrowing their manner. But truly I cannot think that any more of a bad spirit, that is of bitterness, is manifested in his sarcasm, than in Brother Burrit’s strong expressions. His sarcasm might be charged with having the appearance of too much levity, in treating religious subjects, rather than with bitterness.
There is an editorial article in the 16th number of the last volume noticing an attack of Mr. Peck of the banner, upon the old school Baptist, which is I presume the one brother Burritt wished to find. Let us therefore examine it a little. Mr. Peck came out in the banner in a lengthy article, charging the old school Baptists with forgery in taking that name to themselves, and claiming it for the new school folks, on the ground that some of the English and other Baptists something like 200 years ago, and some things departed from that simplicity of practice which we claim is marked out in the New Testament; and that the same was the case with the Philadelphia association 60 or 70 years ago. When we take into consideration the following known facts, we must be convinced that Mister Peck had no confidence himself in the justness of his charge; that it was a piece of sheer imposition that he was attempting to pass upon his readers. The facts I refer to are these. 1st the appellations new school and old school, we're in the first instance of the new school’s own adapting and application. They applied the term old school to the old class of predestinarian Baptists, and boasting Ely claimed for themselves to be of the new school, and that they were not like the others, sticking to the old, antiquated, and stiff Baptist doctrine, but had adopted the new and more liberal views of Fuller and his class. 2nd we took the name old school not only because they had given it to those holding their doctrine from which we contend, but also because we, upon good grounds, claimed to be of the oldest school of Baptists, professing to be disciples of the school of Christ and his apostles, and disclaiming any acknowledgment of the authority of any other school, or subjection to the systems or practice of any later Baptists. Now as this ground had been so repeatedly taken and arguments adduced in support of it, through the Signs, Mr. Peck must himself have known, that arguments drawn from the practice of Baptists 200 years ago, would have no weight with us. Hence, after all that had been published through the Signs on that point, it must have been futile in the extreme to again meet that writer with sober judgment. Besides all of this, the ground of Mr. Peck's argument involved the complete overthrow of the ancient order of the Baptists as founded by Christ and his apostles, for they are of the old school of the Baptists, and date the first start of their order not quite 200 years back, they give the Baptists not so great an antiquity as the pedo Baptists do, when they ascribe their origin to the Mad Men of Munster. Taking all these circumstances into consideration, must it not be manifest even to Brother Burrtt, that the course of a sarcastic exposure of the absurdities and deception of Mr. Peck was the best brother Beebe could have adopted it. In pursuing this course he first exposes the inconsistency of the charges made by the new school, against the old, of vulgarity and a bad spirit, by selecting and repeating a number of those epithets which the new school Polish led Mr. Peck to heap so lavishly upon the old school Baptists. He next exposes Mr. Peck's claim to the antiquity of his order. To do this, he takes a remark, furnished to his hand, by one of the leading new school advocates, Baron Stowe, who speaking of the tract society, one of the oldest of the new school institutions, remarked that he had assisted in rocking the cradle of that society. Here then was a counter-statement of the antiquity of the new schoolism, Baron Stowe rocked its infantile cradle, while Staughton and Davis and others I suppose administered pap to it, and did the others offices of the nursery. I think it was with a good deal of propriety that Brother Beebe took hold of this sentence, as if both exposed the absurdity of their claims to antiquity, and also the true origin of their institutions, as being brought into existence, and sustained by human effort. Brother Beebe’s Remarks were sarcastic, but however disposed Brother Burritt may to call it blackguardism, the new school could not so call it, for the leading idea of his remarks, that of rocking the cradle, was one which had been advanced in one of their public shows, by one of their speakers of boasted Polish.
In reference to Brother Saunders's letter; if Brother Burritt had waited to see his more recent communications in the Signs and in the doctrinal advocate, I think he would have felt that his censures on that head might have been spared.
In conclusion, I do hope that brother berrett may consider his letter, because of the answers therein contained for wicked men, to adopt Elihu’s expressions. By wicked men here, I mean that class of Baptists who wish to keep up the appearance of not sanctioning a departure from the scriptures, and who yet would avoid the cross, and justify themselves in standing aloof from the exposure to reproach incident to opposing new schoolism, by misrepresenting the motives and acts of those who would endure hardness as good soldiers of Jesus Christ, in manfully exposing the corruptions of the times among the Baptists.
Samuel Trott
Centerville, Fairfax Co., Va., February 7, 1840
Please send me an email at gsantamaria685@gmail.com. We will accept payment in Zelle, Cash App, Venmo personal check, or postal money order. Please make sure you give your mailing address. I will not post my Zelle, CashApp, or Venmo information until you write me due to privacy concerns. For those mailing a check or money order, you may mail me at:
Guillermo Santamaria
45 Westons Mill Road
East Brunswick, NJ 08816 USA
Until Welsh Tract Publications is reorganized as an LLC, I will handle the financial transactions. Understand that Welsh Tract Church does NOT have any affiliation with Welsh Tract Publications. Like the website and the YouTube channel, these websites were created by the friends of Welsh Tract Church. We do not believe in any extra-church organizations or "ministries". Flash Drives are now available.
The Lord Bless you!
DIGITAL (POCKET) THOMPSON NOW AVAILABLE FROM WELSH TRACT PUBLICATIONS
This flashcard contains all of the known articles written by Elder Wilson Thompson from 1832 until he died in 1866. It also contains Simple Truths, His Autobiography in a PDF file, an audiobook, and his work Triumphs of Truth. Also, these works will be fully searchable and will fit on your smartphone. It will also be suitable for printing. The cost will be $60 for the flash drive containing all this information. We accept Zelle, CashApp, Venmo, or personal checks. For more information write to gsantamaria685@gmail.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for commenting. If an answer is needed, we will respond.