As I was taking a peep at a short time since at the paper entitled the “World as it is,” I discovered some things worthy of being noticed in the Signs of the Times. In the World of Oct. 6th, there is an article taken from the Pioneer, of which I will give you a part as it stands:
“ANTI-MISSION BAPTISTS.”
“Persecution.—That anti-mission Baptists are resolved to persecute,
and do persecute, those who are active in works of charity, is becoming every
day more evident. The sooner the line of distinction is drawn, the better it will be for religion and the interests of the denomination.
“Proof.—In a church in Alabama, at Loun Creek, a member, by name
Baker, was excluded on the two following charges: 1st, For persisting in
keeping a Sabbath School when the church said not: 2d, For going into the
mission system contrary to the orders of the church.
“Remarks.—The church said not! Does a church have any right to make such
laws over its members? The spirit that dictated the orders of this church is
precisely the same as that which formerly tortured and burnt its victims
because they would not do as the church said.”
Two other instances are also given
as proofs of this position; one of a church in Indiana, the other of a church
in Ohio, excluding persons from joining Temperance Societies. As the writer has
been careful to speak in such general terms concerning the location of these
churches as to prevent an inquiry into the correctness of his statement, I will
let this part of his proof pass, and call the attention of your readers to the
quotation made above.
1st. This mission Baptist says, “The sooner the line of distinction is drawn,
the better will it be for religion,” &c. But who is to draw this line? The
mission Baptists, it seems, only. It is an act of vile persecution in
anti-mission Baptists to attempt to draw the line and to seek a separation
from those who adhere to the mission system. It is not persecution, I suppose, to
deny the anti-mission Baptists the right of withholding fellowship from such as
walk not according to the word of God!
2d. The editor remarks,—“The
church says not! Has a church any right to make such laws over its members?” I
remark, that all the wickedness with which the anti-mission Baptists, as such,
are charged by these mission editors, may be traced to these two heinous
crimes; 1st, They will not submit to laws enacted by churches, associations, or
any other ecclesiastical bodies: 2d, They will not suffer those laws to be
loosed from them which He whom they delight to honor as their only proper
Lawgiver, has given them. But, whoever may reproach them, they do claim the
right, as given to them of God, both as churches and as individuals, to judge
for themselves what doctrines and what institutions are of God and what are of
men; to adhere to the one and reject the other; to fellowship those who, as
they judge, walk orderly according to the divine rule, and to withdraw their
fellowship from such as walk not according to the traditions of the Apostles.
From the exercise of this right they will not easily be driven by the cry of
persecution, or by persecution itself.
I will notice one instance in
which they have uniformly exercised this right, as a parallel one to that for
which they are reproached by these editors, viz, in relation to baptism. They
have judged that immersion upon a profession of faith was of God, and that
infant sprinkling was of men. The latter they have rejected, and withheld
church fellowship from those who practice it; yea, have even dared to exclude
such as have persisted in extending fellowship to it by communing with
sprinklers, although they have been uniformly saluted for it, by the
Pædo-baptists, with the same cry of persecution that has been reiterated by
these mission Baptist editors.
It is possible these gentlemen may
doubt this being a parallel case to the one they have denounced as persecution.
I will therefore say to them that if they will allow it to be correct in a
church to exclude any of its members for persisting in open communion, that by
the same arguments they would prove the correctness of this, I will prove the
correctness of the transaction of the Loun Creek Church, which they have so
heavily denounced. Would they say that baptism is an institution positively
appointed by the King of Zion? I shall have occasion before I am done with the
“World,” to show that the ministration of the gospel is equally so. Should they
say that sprinkling is a manifest departure from the ordinance as appointed by
Christ, I will say and prove too, that Sabbath schools and the Missionary
system are as palpable a departure from the command as given by Christ to his
disciples to go teach all nations, and as exemplified in the Acts of the
Apostles. And proving this, I shall, of course, prove these two editors to have
been guilty of the awful wickedness of placing that discipline which the Lord
has given for the government of his church, on a footing with that spirit which
tortured and burned its victims.
In the World of Oct. 13, the
editor, Mr. Dennison, upon his own responsibility, offers some remarks relative
to certain anti-mission brethren, whom it seems he has found in the
Philadelphia Association. After giving a very flattering sketch of the proceedings
of that Association at its late sitting, and of the state of religion in the
churches comprising it, he adds, “There are some things in a few of our
churches which are not altogether as they should be. It is a source of regret
to us and to a majority of our venerable Association, that a few of our
ministering brethren should have arrayed their influence and efforts against
some of the charitable institutions of the age. The present occasion is seized
by us to present to these good members of Zion a few queries, for their
prayerful consideration.
“Brethren: You declare your
sincere belief that Missionary, Bible, Tract, Temperance, and Sunday School
Societies, with their legitimate kindred associations, are contrary to the
spirit of the word of God.—Now allow us to ask you, under the influence of the
most sincere emotions of brotherly regard, have you any Scripture warrant, as
Particular Baptists, for formularies of faith—for plans of decorum—for a medium
of record attached to each church?—Nay, more; we ask, where is your Bible
authority for choosing moderators and clerks? where that for singing and
praying before preaching? where that of partaking of the Lord’s Supper in a
sitting instead of a reclining posture? where that for omitting to administer
that holy ordinance always in an
Mr. Dennison has avoided in these
remarks that opprobrious language which appears to be so familiar with his
brethren of the Repository and Pioneer, and which he can quote, it seems,
notwithstanding his “sincere emotions of brotherly regard.” He appears to be
sincere, and therefore ought to receive a candid answer. It is, however, I
confess, past my powers of mind to reconcile his manner of treating the
subject, with a sincere and intelligent regard for the word of God. Those
brethren whom he addresses, according to his own statement, “Declare their
sincere belief that Missionary, Tract, and the like Societies, are contrary to
the spirit of the word of God.” What is the course he takes with them to
prevail upon them to engage in these plans? Does he attempt to bring to their
view any scripture authority for them? No, he tacitly acknowledges there is
none. What is the amount of his argument, if there is any argument in his
queries? It is this: “You, brethren, have already departed in so many instances
from the word of God, that it is now in vain to seek a conformity to it; you
may therefore as well give yourselves up to be led altogether by the impulse of
popular opinion.” From what spirit, Mr. Dennison, did this reasoning spring?
Not from the Spirit of God, but there is another spirit that frequently takes a
similar course with awakened sinners, to prevail with them to go on in sin.
Consider this if you please. But what crowns Mr. Dennison’s course of contempt
for the word of God as a perfect rule of practice is his prefacing his
enquiries with a request that they would consider
them prayerfully. What kind of prayer does he wish them to offer while
reflecting on the many things they have done, for which, according to his
insinuations, they have no authority in the scriptures? Would he wish them to
pray thus: “Lord, we confess with shame that in these things we have treated thy
blessed word with contempt, in presuming to take our own vain imaginations as
our guide in what pertains to thy service. Pardon our sin in this thing, and
enable us by thy grace to be henceforth more observant of those directions
which thou hast been pleased to give us in the Scriptures, which are sufficient thoroughly to furnish us unto
every good work?” No, this prayer would not suit Mr. Dennison’s views. The
following is the kind of prayer he would approve: “Lord, as we have been doing
so many things which thou hast not commanded in thy word, now give us boldness
to neglect thy word as a rule of practice just to suit the times, and to substitute
for it the plans of men.” Mr. Dennison must pardon me, but I do not know how
otherwise to understand him.
But even admitting that keeping a church record, and the like, enumerated by Mr. Dennison, are things for which we have no scripture
authority, is there any comparison between them and the institutions which are
objected to by the “Old School” or Anti-mission
Baptists, on the ground of their being inventions of men substituted for
plain directions given in God’s word? And is it a fact that there is no
scripture authority for those circumstances which are the subject of his
enquiries? These are two important queries which must be examined before we can
be convinced by Mr. Dennison’s argument, as unanswerable as he appears to
consider it. However, as this communication has already become lengthy, I must
defer any further remarks till another opportunity, and subscribe myself,
A. WALDENSIS.
Valley of Achor, Oct. 24th, 1832.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for commenting. If an answer is needed, we will respond.