EDITORIAL. Alexandria, D. C. March 1, 1840.

EDITORIAL.

Alexandria, D. C. March 1, 1840.

FROM THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST.—“It cannot be disguised, brethren, neither should an unceasing candor mean, that during this present past year opposition has broken out in a certain quarter against two prominent members of our profession, viz: Elder Joshua Lawrence, and the author of the following letters. They have been by those sustaining the character of Old School Baptists not only sharply censured, but utterly condemned as unworthy of confidence and unprepared to teach the way of life.

Brethren, these things not only sour on our minds, but they seem truly sickening to the child of God, who is earnestly praying for the peace and prosperity of Zion. May the Lord grant that our minds may be more stayed on him, who is able to save from the whirlpools of dissention and strife, and enable us to see eye to eye and speak one and the same things in Christ, to the glory of God the Father.

I close by remarking, that if Lawrence and Osbourn know nothing of salvation by grace, I think myself entirely destitute of that knowledge. If they are aliens and strangers to the commonwealth of Israel, I think myself equally so; and if their names are to be read out of the church, and they themselves thrown overboard, mine had as well be, for I shall certainly go along with them. C. B. HASSELL.”

The above extract is made from an article under the editorial head of the above-named paper, written by one of its numerous editors, introductory to the insertion of certain letters from the pen of Elder James Osbourn. We are surprised to hear that an opposition, of the character described, has broken out in a certain quarter, and those engaged in the conspiracy too, sustaining the character of Old School Baptists, against two prominent members of the Old School Baptist profession. Brother Hassell seems to claim for himself the distinction of a candid man; but had he been more plain, perhaps we would have believed us from all doubt in regard to the certain quarter to which he has thus darkly alluded. Having ourself had occasion to mention the names of the two individuals whom he thinks have been persecuted, and that in connection with remarks showing our dissent from some views of the one, and the conduct of the other, we should feel half inclined to think Brother H. alluded to us, were it not that he says of the opposition to which he alludes, that the individuals have been not only sharply censured, but utterly condemned as unworthy of confidence, and unprepared to teach the way of life. He also intimates farther that there is some prospect from a certain quarter of the persecuted party being read out of church and thrown overboard. This somewhat relieves us, as we know of none in our quarter who contemplate any such things as he has mentioned. Besides, as a candid man, and more especially as a Christian brother, had he been grieved with us, we had a right to expect of him to point out wherein we had erred. For Brother Joshua Lawrence we entertain sentiments of high esteem and fellowship: we have been edified in the perusal of much of his writings; and although as occupying our responsible post, we felt called on to publicly dissent from his views in relation to certain parables and things, we have ever esteemed him as an old soldier of the cross and a beloved fellow laborer. Had Brother L. felt aggrieved with us, our columns, as well as (we presume) those of the Primitive Baptist, were open for his defence. He has not, to our knowledge, sued for any redress. If we have done him wrong, or if we have inadvertently grieved him, we will most cheerfully give him any satisfaction in our power, consistently with truth and righteousness.

As to Elder Osbourn, the past volumes of the Signs will show where we have defended him from the attacks of the enemies of the Old School Baptists: and although we cannot do old father Lawrence the injustice to say that we have been as well pleased with any thing which ever came from Elder Osbourn’s pen as we have been with his generally; it is because we have never found in the writings of Brother L. any thing which looked to us so much like egotism, self importance or pharisaic pride as we have thought we could discover in every production from the pen of the latter we have ever read, by no means excepting the choice cluster which Brother H. has inserted in connection with his remarks from which the above extract is taken. We have recently opened our columns to our misrepresented brethren at the west, and we have also entered our protest against the course of Eld. O. in denouncing our western brethren as heretics; and we believe the gentle, meek and peace making spirit which Br. Hassell has evinced in candidly giving a hint of the existence of opposition, breaking out in a certain quarter, against few individuals, would with equal candor have blown a trumpet in Zion and sounded an alarm, had he discovered an unjust opposition, misrepresentation and falsehood breaking out in any certain quarter against whole Associations, and large bodies of as sound and upright brethren, ministers, deacons and others, as those scattered throughout the Mississippi Valley, including of course the Miami Association. Nor have we ever been informed of Brother Lawrence’s sending his communications a thousand miles circuit in order to have his allusions to the superior excellence of his own productions come before the public, puffed off by a third person, and at the same time appear not to have been written for publication; and all with evident design to eulogise his own publications for the market: nor has any brother signified to us that henceforth he would no more be used for such a purpose by Brother Lawrence; for we are very much mistaken in him if he is capable of such a fulsome course. But we will forbear. We did not design writing the one half we have written.

Brother Hassell can, and as a candid man perhaps will explain himself, and let us know all about the certain quarter to which he so obscurely refers. The whole Old School profession now are implicated; justice therefore demands explanation.

MORE OF THE FRUITS.—In primitive times of the Baptist Church, the criterion by which the genuineness of a religious revival was demonstrated was, according to Acts ii. 42. The converts continued steadfastly in the Apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread and in prayers; but the revivalists of the New School have now hit upon a criterion much better suited to their purpose. Mr. Jacob Knapp, in reporting, through the Baptist Adv. of New York, the result of his efforts at Albany, holds the following language:

“As one evidence of the genuineness of this work, it may be duty to say, that one of the converts, a member of the Green street congregation, handed Brother Hodge fifteen hundred dollars; five hundred for foreign missions, and five hundred for domestic missions, five hundred for the American and Foreign Bible Society, and on Saturday before I left, I went out among the converts and members of Dr. Welch’s Church and congregation, and obtained five thousand dollars for the Literary and Theological Institutions of the State of New York. I am quite certain that, in these times of great oppression in money matters, nothing but the grace of God could have opened these earthly fountains, withered and killed the root of all evil, and caused the golden stream to flow so freely.

Yours with much affection,
JACOB KNAPP.”

It is a fact too obvious to be passed without notice, that the evidences required by those of the New School party, that a revival is genuine, does not embrace a single vestige of what was by the Apostles and primitive church considered indispensable; and what they receive as conclusive testimony on this point is, as we will presently show, what the Apostles and apostolic church attached no kind of importance to whatever. In the course of his letter, Mr. Knapp says: “More than one hundred have been baptized into the fellowship of the church of which Mr. Welch is pastor, and some thirty or more into the fellowship of the church under pastoral care of Brother Hodge. Many have united with churches of other denominations, and many more are without the pale of any church.” Now if these revived sinners had been quickened by the Holy Spirit, instead of being revived by Mr. Knapp, they would have been undoubtedly converted from the error of their ways and into the Apostles’ doctrine; such a conversion would, in our opinion, never have inclined them to a connexion with Mr. Welch’s church, or that of Mr. Hodge; they would rather have sought for the Zion of God, with their faces thitherward. But allowing (what we in conscience cannot do) that these two churches, were standing in the Apostles’ doctrine; the fact that many of the converts made joined other denominations, shows that their conversions did not bring them into any thing like a unity of faith. The same efforts that made converts for Doct. Welch’s church and for the other nominally Baptist Church in Albany, also furnished materials which could be as conveniently worked into Presbyterians and Methodists as into that sort of Baptists. It would be an outrageous misrepresentation of the Apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, to say that the former was held and the latter enjoyed by all those denominations among whom Mr. Knapp’s converts are scattered. But Mr. Knapp, counts them all, the ring, streaked and the speckled together with all the balance for Jacob’s cattle; whether they united with the Baptists or other denominations seemed to be a matter of no importance. It should never be forgotten by the saints, that all such as are not in the Apostle’s doctrine, are out of the Apostle’s fellowship. Hence John says: “If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive them not into your houses,” and Paul says: “Though we, or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” And again: “Mark them which cause divisions and offences among you, contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid them.” But these are antiquated landmarks with New School Baptists, quite obsolete. Mr. Knapp has tested his converts by a new standard, and triumphantly reports them genuine, viz: “They are excessively liberal in their donations. Well, liberality, if properly directed, is good in itself; but even then it is of itself no evidence of a change of heart. According to Mr. Knapp’s criterion, it would not be difficult to prove that Simon Magus was a true convert to the faith, he was flush with his cash, perhaps, as the Baltimore and Albany converts were; and some where in the writings of an old Israelitish prophet we read of men who under very similar revival spirits were wont to lavish gold out of the bag for religious purposes, and yet the anti-benevolent Isaiah denounced these liberal souls as idolaters!!

Another remarkable instance of liberality is recorded of a pious old matron who wholly dedicated eleven hundred shekels of silver unto the Lord, from the hand of her son who had stolen it; to make a molten image and a graven image. See Judges xvii. 2, 3.

Many other examples are mentioned in the scriptures, such as the women divesting themselves of jewels, to make the golden calf; and we are told in the temporary triumph of Antichrist in the later days, they should be quite profuse in liberalities, sending gifts to one another. But, as we promised to notice, such evidences of the genuineness of revivals and conversions, would not answer in the apostolic age of the Baptist Church, and this pledge we redeem by referring the reader to the treatment which Simon Magus received from one Simon whose surname was Peter, who very impolitely bid his money perish with him.

We have said liberality properly directed is in itself good; but we do not mean what the worshippers of Mammon call liberality, for the day draws near when the vile person shall no more be called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful. Isa. xxxii. 5. Money lavished out of the bag, wholly consecrated to the Lord; to accomplish what he has forbidden, to make such molten or graven images as shall divert the heart and eye from a dependance on God for all that the New School contemplate doing with this money, viz: sustaining the Foreign and Domestic Mission Societies, to supersede the necessity of God’s sending forth and sustaining a ministry of the gospel among the nations of the earth; the appropriation of five thousand dollars, for the Hamilton Abomination, &c.; is all idolatry and utterly unworthy the appellation of liberality. That liberality which the spirit of the gospel approves, is to give bread to the hungry, and raiment to the naked, to visit and relieve the sick, distressed and wretched of our race, whether friends or foes.—But, is this description of liberality popular with the New School? Let their own statements tell. It was announced by one of their agents in Philadelphia, a few years ago, that he had accepted from a poor man, in the interior of Pennsylvania, who had a large family; his last cow which was his chief dependence, for the support of his helpless family the avails of which he had thrown into the “Lord’s Treasury,” as they profanely call their Mammon Bank. Instances are, by no means few, where, instead of relieving the wants of suffering humanity, they have, like their ancient brethren, robbed the widow and the fatherless, subverted whole houses, led captive silly women (ah! and men too) for filthy lucre’s sake.

☞ We had prepared some remarks for this number in reference to the first three communications, viz: those of Brethren Trott, Hanna and Burritt, which, for want of room, must be deferred until our next.