Mr. Giddings in reference to the third instance of the use of means, quotes several texts of scripture, to show that trust ought not to be reposed in man, but in God, and says, “thus it is with the friends of missions, who after they have done all that they were able to do, say we are unprofitable servants.”
In reference to the fact of making false charges, it so happens that elder George Waller, himself a mission supporter, and state convention advocate, has, in the same paper that contains Mr. Giddings's peace, some remarks that completely fix the crime of charging falsely, not on the opposers of missions, but on Mr. Giddings himself. Elder Waller's language is, “There is another extreme of Bible religion, equally destructive of the union of effort, which is a grasp and A use of means without due regard to the throne of God, and its sovereign determinations respecting the final results of all instrumentalities. Hence many unsavory expressions, both from the present pulpit, indicate that many perish for want of the Bible, for want of the gospel ministry, who, as it would seem, might have been saved if men had been sufficiently active; Intimating clearly that the salvation of sinners depends upon human effort.” He goes on to speak of this extreme as he calls it, introducing among the Baptists, other errors, such as the sentiments of Fuller, Arminius, and Campbell. Thus Mr. Giddings's own brother Waller, (who indeed was once recognized by me as brother) has saved me the trouble of looking over the missionary publications for proofs, of which there are abundant, to sustain the charge that they trust in human effort to accomplish a great work of saving the world. However, as aNo. Of the “cross and journal,” of September 1st, which has just fallen into my hands, I will give an extract from a letter of Mr. Mason, one of the Baptist missionaries in Burma, published Erin, showing that according to his view that there is no need of any other dependence than that upon what he calls the church, to accomplish their conversion of the heathen. His language is, “There is moral power enough in the church to shake the pillars of pandemonium to their foundation, and put all its counsels to confusion, where that power brought to bear on the legitimate object of attack. It is too late for skepticism now. The experiment has been tried, and has been fully proved that heathenism shrinks before the sword of the Lord. She has long ago ceased to come to the attack, and her defenses are moldering walls, and IV battlements, destined, inevitably destined to fall, whenever the church musters the host of the battle.” He had just before said, “We see that the church has only to come in the name of God of hosts, and her report will be, Veni, vidi, vici,” I came, I saw, I conquered; thus borrowing the expressions of Julius Caesar, in describing his rapid conquests in Gaul. Thus moral power is all that is necessary, and at the church has, completely to overturn heathenism, if she would only muster the host of the battle; that is, let alone the divisions and contentions about sentiments which he had been Speaking of, as existing among the religious society here, in America, and be engaged for the conversion of the heathen. No need, of course, for any spiritual power to be put forth. The divine energies or the Holy Ghost would be superfluous. All they want of God is to go in his name and to employ the written word, which they call the sword of the Lord. This is the missionary doctrine of the cross, which is carried to Burma.
In reference to the question from elder Waller, it seems he does not consider these delusive and God-dishonoring sentiments, as contrary to, but only extremes of Bible religion; hence he can go hand in hand with those who hold them, and help to devise means for propagating them. If such is a happy view of Bible religion, he is welcome to the happiness of entertaining it. It is a popular view, and let him enjoy the popularity of it, whilst I would cheerfully exchange it, together with his society, whilst he purposes the phantom, for the reproach of believing in a Bible religion which came from God, is perfect, and peculiar in its nature, and which therefore can admit of no extremes.
But to return to Mr. Giddings, he affirms, as proof that they do not trust in an arm of flesh, that “if there are any men on earth that pray, they are the missionaries,” whom he calls the missionaries of the cross of Christ. What intelligible idea he intended to convey by this expression, I know not, unless it is, that like the papists, they are said to carry, figuratively, a semblance of the cross, instead of the doctrine of Christ crucified. But as to Mr. Giddings's proof that they trust in God, that they pray, it cannot amount to much unless we could know that they pray in faith. I have no doubt that the missionaries are often engaged in what they call the duty of prayer. This trait has always belonged to that class of professors. The Pharisees, who made long prayers, and who prayed at the corners of the streets, nor the Catholics who are so zealous to say daily, or oftener, the whole collection of prayers on their rosaries, do not more trust in the efficacy of their prayers, than do the great body of the missionaries, judging from the power they frequently ascribe to prayer. We need but look to their zealous attention to their monthly concerts, to be satisfied that they expect, by their prayers, to control the decisions of heaven. On what ground can they justify the notion that all, in every part of the world, must unite at the same time in each month, in praying for a specified object, but that so many persons, at the same moment offering their prayers for the same object will have the effect, if not to overall the God of heaven, at least to constrain him to grant their request, because so many asked for it; just as the abolitionists at this time, think to sway Congress, by the number of petitions they send in? If the mission prayers thus offered, are in evidence of a humble trust and reliance on the government of God, then the exertions of the abolitionists, shows that they rely principally upon the number of signers they obtain, to carry their point with congress, then the monthly concert system, shows equally an expectation of controlling the throne of God, by the number and suddenness of the prayers coming before him.
But again, the missionaries, in common with others, have a consciousness of the existence of a God, and for several reasons which might be named, they would wish that God to sanction their plans and crowned their schemes with success; for probably during anxiety on this point, is not greater than then was that of the priests of Baal, that he should answer them by fire, (first kings 18.26) the anxiety, therefore, of the one, is no more evidence that they do not trust to their own exertions, than that of the other was that they did not. So much for Mr. Giddings decisive proof.
Mr. Giddings 5th proposition is, that it is right to support a preached gospel. In support of this proposition, he brings a number of scriptural proofs from the New Testament, which I am not disposed to contravene; but his attempts to prove it from the law concerning ties, looks too much like his wishing a legal establishment, compelling, as in Catholic countries, the people to pay a 10th to the priests. For that law, and the letter of it, has nothing more to do with the gospel church, than has the law concerning the sanctifying the firstling of man and beast. His attempts to sustain the mission system, from the gospel direction concerning the support of those who preached the gospel, is mere sophistry.
Referring to the direction given by the apostle to their churches, concerning those who preached the gospel, living off the gospel; And to his directions concerning the collections for the poor Saints of Jerusalem, Mr. Gidding says, such are the arguments by which the friends of modern missions justify themselves in the course they are pursuing. In making this assertion, he must have considered the readers of the banner as complete dupes, as are the Catholic laity, to their priests; for what individualist or who depends on his own judgment for his conclusions, that does not at the first glance, see a material difference between the Apostolic directions concerning churches and ministry and carnal things, to those who administer to them in spiritual things; and the modern plan of forming mission societies, for raising money to hire missionaries to go and preach under their direction? As also a marked difference between a gospel preachers having a right to expect a support from the churches of Christ, whilst he is devoting himself to the work of feeding the sheep and lambs of Christ, and a person's engaging to preach to please the world, because he has been hired at a specified sum per diem to do it?
To crown the whole of his outrage upon the judgment and feelings of those who will not be duped by his Jesuit arguments, Mr. Giddings, in concluding his essay, addresses stem in the language of Gamaliel to the council, concerning the apostles, refrain from these men and let them alone; For if this counsel or this work be of men it will come to not; but if it be of God you cannot overthrow it; Lest happily you be found even to fight against God.
Before addressing us in this language, he ought to have shown that the same scriptural and divine testimony has been given to the missionary system, which had been given to the apostles doctrine, miracles, for such had been given to the apostles, in a way that the Jews could not deny it, Acts 4.16. To apply that text to the class of the missionaries, without either a direct scriptural command, or miracles being produced to evince that their new schemes are authorized of God, would go to set aside the scriptures as a gospel standard, and to establish a principle that we have no given criterion by which to judge whether a work or counsel to be of men, or of God.
As to letting the missionaries alone, if he intends by it, that we should let them go on with their anti Christian schemes, propagating their errors in all our borders, without bearing our decided testimony against him; we can assure him that we shall be brought under no such gag law while the liberty of conscience is continued to us.
If he means by letting them alone, that we are not to go among them to disturb and annoy them, the caution is altogether unnecessary; for we are far more anxious to depart from the tents of those men, than to associate with them, or go after them.
If he means by his application of that exhortation, that we must let the missionaries bring their pernicious schemes and false doctrines, into our churches, associations, without opposing their intrusions and attempts to force us to sanction their measures; we shall have to say that, in this thing, we did let them alone entirely too long for our own comfort, for the honor of Zion, and for the peace of the Baptist denomination. Had the Old Regular Baptists manfully resisted the first attempts to introduce new measures, new doctrines, and men made converts and preachers among them, and maintaining a firm stand on the platform of their confession of faith, had they discountenanced everything in religion, which had not a thus said the Lord for it, and rejected it from their communion, those who, after the 1st and 2nd admonition persisted in practicing or advocating what was thus unauthorized, the denomination of regular Baptists, would not have become such a mixed multitude as it was previous to our old school separation, we we should have been spared the pain of these recent divisions, and the world would not have had the occasion (which they have had at every meeting of an association) to say, behold how these Baptists dispute and quarrel. No, it is high time that those who adhere in principle, to the faith once delivered to the Saints; and as professed by the old persecuted Baptists, were done letting them alone in this sense, and were determinately pursuing measures to produce an entire and effectual separation between themselves and the entire new school brood.
If, again, by letting them alone, Mr. Gidding means that we should not persecute them, or make use of carnal weapons and worldly power to stop them, he addressed the exhortation altogether to the wrong company, were the sheep ever known to persecute the wolves? Or the wolves not to persecute the sheep when they had the opportunity? This may be thought begging the question as to which company are sheep; But stop a little. Will any person, on a moment's reflection, judged that animal to be a sheep, which is clothed with wool that was bought with money, to a respectable appearance, as the missionists by membership in their religious societies? As the master cautions us against no other animal but wolves that would come in sheep's clothing, we feel authorized to consider them to be wolves; and as the old school Baptists are an opposite company, and are the objects of the others pursuit, it is a pretty good evidence that they are sheep. Hence, as much as the idea has been ridiculed, it is not to be wondered at, that we should have expressed our fears that the missionists Are aiming to get an ascendancy in our country and government, and at getting it, they will, by worldly influence and power, put us down.
I have thus gone through with my examination of Mr. Giddings's attempt to reconcile the modern mission system with the scriptures of truth; and from the whole review, it does not appear that, in reality, he has made one attempt to show that the peculiar traits of that system, have any resemblance to the order laid down in a New Testament, but has only endeavored to cast a mist over the eyes and judgment of his readers, by quoting a number of passages of scripture, and resting them from their true meaning, to make a forced application of them To his system. I here leave him with the wish that before he attempts to write again, God would give him an honest regard to the truth and dignity of divine revelation.
S. Trott
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for commenting. If an answer is needed, we will respond.