Communications. For the Signs of the Times. 1840

Communications.

For the Signs of the Times.

BROTHER BEEBE:—Brother R. Burritt’s letter, in the 2d number of the present vol. of 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 defence, 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 on are 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 call them, Go-betweens, in order to prevent people from reading the Signs, as well as for an excuse for their not countenancing 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 denounce such exposures as blackguardism. Brother Burritt picks up these charges as he finds them bandied about among the enemies of truth, and brings them forward as being established by matters of fact, that his mouth is stopped from saying anything in defence of the Signs.

As to the charge of blackguardism, if there is anything published in the Signs meriting such a charge, it is certainly indefensible as a religious paper. But Brother Burritt certainly cannot seriously think that Brother Beebe’s editorial remarks, or the communications he admits, any of them, deserve that appellation in its proper import.—Hence it must be evident that he has done injustice to the Signs in giving countenance to such a charge.

The charge of their being of a bad spirit, coming sanctioned by Brother Burritt, requires examination. I do not suppose that Brother B. intended to convey by this expression what Br. 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 therein, betray a spiteful, angry, or revengeful temper; that they reflect more of the fruits of the flesh than of the fruits of the Spirit. That the corruptions of nature tincture all human compositions, is readily admitted. I cannot consider even Br. Burritt’s letter exempt from such a tincture,—though he may not have been aware of being in a 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 as coming from Brother Burritt, is, I think, founded on a wrong view of the case.—

The occasion for and object of this publication is to be considered. The Signs were not got up as a business for making a living, nor even as 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 Baptists 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 in upon, if not demolished; more in some sections than in others, but all within the general correspondence. Even the independency of the churches in reference to government was being fast destroyed, excepting in name, by the Associations’ assuming powers not originally claimed, and by which the associations were becoming like the higher ecclesiastical courts of other 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 the denomination the burdens thereof. Some few Baptists had borne with these things until they could go no farther 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 therefrom. It was also believed 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 to 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, with some few others in his vicinity, thought of the plan of publishing the “Signs of the Times,” and that he almost single handed, stepped forward to incur the expense, and meet the reproach of throwing the gauntlet before the host of publications got up 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 the 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 Baptists 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 those 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, are the children, of no better spirit than The prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience, or if you wish to take another scriptural description of this 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 to proclaim neutrality whilst 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 Burritt will admit that “Arminianism and her whole brood of institutions,” called New Schoolism, against whom Brother Beebe and his correspondents war through the Signs, are either supported by scriptural authority or they are not. If they are sustained as authorised 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 Br. 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 the two great religious interests in the world, Christ’s, and anti-christ’s; the host of Michael, and that of the dragon. In speaking of those who are getting up and supporting those 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 anti-christ, would Brother Burritt suppose that a good spirit would lead Brother Beebe to speak of them, as “sheep in disguise,” when the Master declares that 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 concision; 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 privily shall bring in damnable heresies;” and another, even Jude, calls them “Ungodly men, spots in your feasts, clouds without water, trees whose fruit withereth, raging waves of the sea, wandering stars to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever,” &c.? Certainly if the scriptures are indited by a good spirit, it is not a bad spirit which leads us to speak of persons and things as therein described; and it is not a good spirit that leads any to represent them as being better characters than the scriptures declare 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 toward weak brethren, &c.; but says, “We find no such language among their remarks as we often find in Gilbert Beebe’s,” whereby, I presume, he meant 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 any thing 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 believe them to be, viz: 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 and their works as being what we have 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 saints of God, and to the liberties of our country. But Brother Burritt complains that Brother Beebe uses too much sarcasm; and instances a case in the last volume somewhere about the 17th No. Brother Beebe, in conducting his paper on the principles avowed, has of course, drawn upon his paper repeated attacks from New School Editors. In frequent 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. To obey the direction again is to answer him according to his folly, lest he be like unto him.—See Pro. xxvi. 4, 5. In such cases 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 other 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 of 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 sarcasms, than in Brother Burritt’s strong expressions. His sarcasms 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 No. of the last Vol. noticing an attack of Mr. Peck of the Banner, upon the Old School Baptists, 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 two hundred years ago, in some things departed from that simplicity of practice which we claim as marked out in the New Testament; and that the same was the case with the Philadelphia Association sixty or seventy years ago. When we take into consideration the following known facts, we must be convinced that Mr. Peck had no confidence himself in the justness of his charge; that it was a piece of sheer imposition which he was attempting to pass upon his readers. The facts I refer to are these. 1st. The appellations New School and Old School, were in the first instance of the New School’s own adopting and application.—They applied the term Old School to the old class of Predestinarian Baptists, and boastingly claimed for themselves to be of the New School, in 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. That we took the name Old School not only because they had given it to those holding the doctrine for which we contend, but also because we, upon good grounds, claim 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 two hundred 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 argument. Besides all this, the ground of Mr. P.’s argument involved a complete overthrow of the ancient order of the Baptists as founded by Christ and his Apostles, for if they are of the old school of the Baptists, and date the first start of their order not quite two hundred years back, they give the Baptists not so great an antiquity as the Pædo 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 Burritt, that the course of a sarcastic exposure of the absurdities and deception of Mr. P. was the best Brother Beebe could have adopted. 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. P. to heap so lavishly upon the Old School Baptists. He next exposes Mr. P.’s claim to antiquity for 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 concise statement of the antiquity of New Schoolism, Baron Stowe rocked its infantile cradle whilst Staughton, Davis and others I suppose administered pap to it, and did the other offices of the nursery. I think it was with a good deal of propriety that Brother Beebe took hold of this sentence, as it 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 be 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’ 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 Burritt may reconsider his letter, because of the censures therein contained for “wicked men,” to adopt Fuller’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 enlist themselves as good soldiers of Jesus Christ, in manfully exposing the corruptions of the times among the Baptists.

S. TROTT.
Centreville, Fairfax Co., Va., Feb. 7, 1840.

For the Signs of the Times.
Rock Spring, Cecil Co., Md., Feb. 16, 1840.

DEAR BROTHER BEEBE:—I was not a little surprised on the perusal of the last (2d.) number of the Signs, which has come to hand, in finding you so very severely handled by Brother Burritt, on account of your editorial. I have been a constant reader of the Signs for the last two years, and an occasional one, for a much longer period; and with the exception of a few of the letters of your correspondents (and this one of Brother Burritt’s among the number,) I have felt myself edified, comforted and much delighted with the Signs. As to your editorial, I have no recollection of having seen anything objectionable therein on any occasion. True, your remarks at times, perhaps always, grate hard in the ears of the formalist, the hypocrite, and men of the world in general, but I have no knowledge of the truth’s ever having been received in any other manner by such characters; in fact, we find them frequently gnashing their teeth on our blessed Lord and Saviour himself while sojourning on earth. Besides, we hear him enquiring of his disciples what their treatment could be, seeing the world had thus treated him; under the figure of the green tree and the dry. Now I am almost persuaded that it must have been such characters that Brother Burritt heard applying the term blackguard to you, as I am persuaded no Christian brother would apply such a term to a brother, even if his course had been blameworthy, which I am satisfied is not the case with regard to you.

Dear brother, we should be very glad to have a visit from yourself or any of our Old School Baptist brethren who love the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity and truth. We have been left very desolate in regard to having the gospel preached to us since the removal of Br. Barton to Welsh Tract. Nevertheless, it has pleased the great Head of the Church to manifest his presence amongst us, by adding a few to the number of his despised followers at Rock Spring, and the awakening of a number more to an enquiry for the way to Zion, with their faces apparently thitherward. May the great Shepherd bring forth judgment unto victory, and lead his poor despised little flock in the way of truth and righteousness, enabling them to bear reproach for his name’s sake, knowing that tribulation worketh patience, experience, hope, &c.

No more, but remain your sincere though very unworthy friend and brother, in hope of eternal life through the blood and righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ.

JAMES HANNA.

For the Signs of the Times.
Burdett, N. Y., Feb. 1, 1840.