EDITORIAL. NEW-VERNON, N. Y., FEBRUARY 15, 1841.

EDITORIAL.

NEW-VERNON, N. Y., FEBRUARY 15, 1841.

ONESIMUS.—A New-Hampshire correspondent has sent us two numbers of a New School paper published in that state, called, “New-Hampshire Baptist Register,” in which we find a communication signed “Onesimus,” the substance of which (if indeed there be any substance in it) is an anathema maranatha pronounced upon the Signs of the Times and its editor. As the article fills about four columns of that paper, we cannot conveniently copy it into ours. But we shall give it a brief examination.

After a few preliminary remarks in which the writer professes to deprecate the evil of infidelity and the danger of false religion, he says that several numbers of the Signs of the Times have fallen in his way; but he has never felt much inclination very minutely to examine them. We are not surprised that the contents of our paper should be considered in the way of this Yankee priest, and therefore offensive to him; but that he should proceed to condemn in such extravagant terms as he has, a paper that he has not felt inclined to examine very minutely, is somewhat remarkable.—Onesimus says,

“The conductors and patrons of said paper very significantly and modestly call themselves ‘Baptists of the Old School.’ We are sorry that there is any sense in which they can be called Baptists. As a Baptist myself, I disclaim all relationship to them except that of human beings. I detest alike their principles and temper.”

One might suppose that Onesimus had caught a glimpse of some frightful objects, that he starts back with so much agitation and horror—New Zealanders perhaps, that eat up their missionaries!—but no: he is speaking of the conductors and patrons of the Signs of the Times! These have excited his fears; and the sight only of our paper, without minute examination, has filled his mind with frightful images, so that his unnerved knees seem to smite together like Belshazzar’s, and his agitation is like that of Nebuchadnezzar when he saw the Hebrew children walking uninjured in the midst of his heated furnace. Onesimus professes to be a Baptist, and desires that himself and his fellows may monopolize the name; and yet he seems perfectly petrified with horror at the sight of a people devoted to the old-fashioned Baptist cause, contending for the doctrine of the New Testament, and refusing to be swayed in doctrine or practice by any authority short of the precept or example of our Lord Jesus Christ.

He detests alike our principles and our temper. We rejoice that Onesimus is compelled to make this confession: for if he had denounced only our temper, we might still be in doubt whether we were persecuted for righteousness’ sake or not, as we know that our temper is not always as we could wish: but when he assures us that he detests alike our temper and our principles, we are led to the rational conclusion that he has discovered a conformity in our temper and practice to the doctrine we maintain; so that he is not more hostile to our temper than to the doctrine of God our Saviour, that we profess. This is truly encouraging.

Onesimus is sorry that we are Baptists. We hope he need not blame us, for we never should have been what we now profess to be, if it were not for the sovereign grace of God. Had we been left to our own free will, we should surely now be (as Onesimus is) poor, conceited Arminians.

Onesimus next compares us to Jannes and Jambres, who withstood Moses; and so, he asserts, do we also resist the truth. This is a round assertion, and much easier to make than to prove. Infallibility we have never pretended to: if left to ourselves we are as liable to err—as sure to err—as any others of the fallen sons of Adam;—but why has Onesimus not pointed out what truth we have resisted? Or does he take it for granted that, because he and his pharisaic brethren assume to sit in Moses’ seat, to oppose them in their arrogant pretensions is to resist Moses! Whether this be his conclusion or not, he appears to gather a little warmth, and says, “But they shall proceed no farther!” By what authority he presumes to call the Old School Baptists to a halt, he has not told us. Perhaps he has yet to be informed that neither earth nor hell can arrest the progress of the church of God; and that against her the gates of hell shall not prevail.

He further asserts unequivocally that one of our correspondents says that the editor of this paper has the reputation of being the keenest black-guard in America! And we as unequivocally pronounce this assertion a base and malicious falsehood. Let Onesimus extricate himself from this charge if he can. Let him tell us what correspondent has said any such thing. We challenge him; we defy him to do so. This lie was originally coined by John L. Waller of Kentucky, and has been bandied about so much by the New School that they may possibly begin to believe it true.—He continues, “Baptists of the Old School, they choose to call themselves, Antinomians of the Old School, &c., is their proper designation.—Their illiterate, malignant vulgarity, their imprudence, all tell beyond the possibility of mistake, who and what they are.” If by the epithet, Antinomians, Onesimus means to convey the impression that we indulge in licentious practices, or that we consider it unimportant that the children of God should deny themselves of all ungodliness, and live soberly, righteously and godly in this present world, his assertion is a base slander upon us; but if he means only to say what the term more properly implies that we are delivered from the bondage of the law, and stand in the glorious liberty of the sons of God, we will not object.—Indeed the high importance that we attach to a life and conversation corresponding with the spirit of the doctrine of the gospel that we profess, is what forms the ground of difference between us and the new order of Baptists whose cause Onesimus pleads.

In regard to the justice or injustice of his charging us with whipping the scriptures into a froth, and giving a literal definition of figurative portions, and figurative definitions to literal passages; we leave our readers, whose decisions are founded on a more critical examination of our publication, to judge; observing in the mean time, if it were possible to convert the scriptures into froth, there would be a prospect that the New School would willingly receive it in copious draughts. If there be any particle of the fear of God before the eyes of Onesimus, he can not rest with the lie in his right hand which he uttered when he accused the Old School Baptists with treating the bible as if it were a jest book, designed for their amusement.—How can he contemplate the ultimate wretchedness of all impenitent liars without horror?

Passing his rancor of this general nature, we come to his gross distortion and false representation of an article in the second number of the 8th Vol. of the Signs, on the subject of fallen angels. To follow Onesimus, in all his meandering course, would require some animal that could upon its belly crawl and feed upon the dust, as nothing short of a serpent can track a serpent; but we shall notice a few more of the numerous falsehoods with which his article abounds. First, he says we have intimated that Milton was the first who believed so, (the views of Milton on the subject of our former article). This we deny, as we have no idea that Milton himself believed what he wrote upon this subject, in his “Paradise Lost.” He probably wrote for his own amusement, and to display his poetic talents; but left his ridiculous nonsense for greater fools than himself to believe. If Onesimus, who seems to chide us for our ignorance of history, will produce from authentic history an instance of any person’s believing the views of Milton, prior to Milton’s day, he will show us history of which we will cheerfully confess our ignorance. He next represents us as intimating that six thousand years had not furnished a man that dared to tell the truth on this subject. Is this anything short of a palpable falsehood? Did we not quote the apostles, the prophets and our Lord himself, as having told the truth upon this very subject? We did. Again he says, “He informs us, the angels had no existence prior to the date, on which God created the heavens and the earth and all the hosts of them. And he does not believe in the creation, nor existence of any other angelic than human beings.” Let those who have the second number of our eighth volume turn to the article, and convince themselves of the glaring falsehoods of the above extract. Onesimus continues, in the same connexion, “Some readers might suppose that he (we) means to admit that angels were created then: no such thing: he (we) believes no such thing. Sadducee like he does not believe in the existence of angels or spirits.” In refutation of this falsehood, we will give the following extract from our former article, as some may not have that number of our paper at hand, and we assure them that the following is a true copy, verbatim, of what we said, and of all we said on that subject, viz: “We have not been able to see, with Milton and others, either beauty or scriptural authority for the notion that the angels here spoken of,” (to wit, those spoken of by Jude, 6th verse, and 2 Peter ii. 4th) “Were ever residents of that heaven above where the saints are ultimately to rest, nor that they had an existence prior to that date in which God created the heavens and the earth; and all the hosts of them—TO BELIEVE THAT THEY WERE ONCE ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE HOLY ANGELS THAT SANG THE JOYFUL ANTHEM ON THE SHEPHERDS IN JUDEA; not to believe that, in their creation they were created for or capacitated to enjoy the immediate presence of their Maker, or that he designed them for any other purpose than that which is and shall be fully accomplished in their case, to us seems to conflict seriously with divine revelation.” The very passage on which Onesimus predicates his unqualified assertion that we are a Sadducee, that we do not believe in the existence of other angels or spirits, fully proves him to be a liar, and the reverse of what he says to be the truth.

We have never disbelieved, much less have we ever denied the existence of angels and spirits; and if he had ever been skeptical on this subject before, this very Onesimus would have removed all our doubts of the existence of at least one spirit, that is capable of becoming incarnate, and of entering the mouths of the false prophets; but we have never wanted for conclusive testimony on the subject. If we had not expressly mentioned, in our former article, the existence of heavenly angels from the world of glory, such as sang on the occasion of the Savior’s advent, we would not be thus even with this Onesimus. But when a man, professing to be a disciple of Jesus, and calling himself a Baptist, will knowingly, and in the face of positive testimony to the contrary, utter such barefaced and malicious falsehoods, the example of our Lord, in his language to the Jews, requires that we should charge them with it.

This lying Onesimus, having charged the falsehood upon us: (and with dastardly cowardice withheld from us a copy of his slander,) goes on to ridicule the man of straw that he had falsely represented us to be; representing our sentiments as involving the ludicrous absurdity of seven human beings, being cast out of Mary Magdalene! And Onesimus even says that we said those seven devils that our Lord cast out of Mary, were seven human beings!

In conclusion, if our readers will prepare themselves “For a feast of intellect and flow of soul,” we will give them a copy of the last paragraph in the article of Onesimus, and this we will do, because, in our judgement it contains more truth than its author intended. Here it is:

“‘Baptists of the Old School.’ How is this school supplied with scholars? From whence do they obtain stones to build this synagogue? Do they go to the quarry for themselves? Do they preach the gospel to every creature, and call upon sinners immediately to repent and turn to God.—They have no such ‘extravagant love for souls.’ This would be, to be legal and pharisaical. But if any are so tainted with antinomianism that they cannot be held in fellowship with the churches, those and excluded members are the objects of their most ‘extravagant’ solicitude, and to make one proselyte from such, they would as it were ‘compass sea and land.’ This we know applies to Conn., Mass., and N. H., and it is probable to other States. We are persuaded that a pretty accurate description both of the scholars, and teachers in this ‘school’ (understanding passage in a religious sense,) will be found in 1 Sam. xxii. 2. Of the leaders of this enterprise we entertain the most awful apprehensions, and would solemnly warn them to take heed to the spirit they are of; it is utterly impossible it should be the Spirit of Christ that leads them to pursue such a course. To deceive and ruin themselves is surely enough. To be chargeable with the guilt of deceiving and ruining others is indescribably awful. It is impossible for them essentially to injure the cause of Christ, but they may injure themselves by opposing it. ‘He that falleth on this stone shall be broken; but upon whomsoever it shall fall it will grind him to powder.’
ONESIMUS
Bow, March 5.”

On the part of the Old School Baptists, we frankly acknowledge that we do not manufacture our own converts; we do not dig them out of the quarry for ourselves; but, although we “Toil not, neither do we spin,” in these respects, yet the New School in all their glory are not arrayed like unto the Old School Baptists, God supplies our walls with watchmen, and, by his quickening grace, causes, “As many as were ordained to eternal life to believe,” and under his mighty hand, that passage which Onesimus, by way of ridicule has referred to, 1 Sam. xxii. 2, is made applicable to us; poor perishing sinners that are made to feel that we are lame, poor, indeed, and condemned, are brought to swell the ranks of our spiritual David; and thus we are supplied, without resorting to the devices of the present day.

With the foregoing extracts and remarks, we dismiss Onesimus. Would that we could dismiss him as Paul sent away Onesimus the servant of Philemon, with assurance of reformation on his part; but this is not our privilege: we can see in him no hopeful signs of conversion to the faith of the gospel. To his own master we leave him, however—we leave him to stand or to fall.—“Know ye not that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness.” Rom. vi. 16.

Mr. William C. Buck, successor of the famous John L. Waller as associate editor of the “Banner and Pioneer,” has stooped from the pinnacle of his recent elevation to bestow upon us, as in allegiance to his party bonds, a passing compliment; for such we consider that frothy, whimsical harangue in his number for January 21st, in which he has labored hard to abuse us, but failed. Nothing could tempt us to desire, from the same source, a different kind of treatment. He and his party are welcome to rail, ridicule and slander, if they will spare us the mortification of their flattery.—Mr. Buck has greatly amused himself with our name; garbling however from an article written by an abler pen, and published some time ago in the same paper, a very pithy disquisition upon the proper noun Beebe, which he says ought not to bee a bee, for he says that it should be a spider! We presume Mr. Buck must stand high among the literary and polite of the New School order, for the happy manner in which he has succeeded in uttering what his respectable brethren have so long labored to express, that we ought to be a spider.

The hope of all arminians or workmongers, that depend for salvation on their free will, agency and works, for their own and for the salvation of the world, is compared, by the prophet Isaiah to the spider’s web: “They weave the spider’s web, and they hatch the cockatrice’s egg; he that eateth of their eggs dieth, and that which is crushed breaketh out into a viper! Their webs shall not become garments, neither shall they clothe themselves with their works; their works are works of iniquity,” &c. Mr. Buck does not charge us with those characteristics: but he says we ought to be thus, or as he might more clearly have stated that it was the desire of himself and party, that we should leave the ground we now occupy, and fall into the ranks of his party, by assuming the character described in the figure, whose hope is produced from depraved nature, even as the filthy web is produced from the bowels of the poison insect. But happy for us, God’s ways are not like man’s ways; and although roared upon by the big bulls of Bashan, who think we ought to be a spider, like arminians, it is, as we trust, the good pleasure of the Lord to teach us, that their webs, or self-produced hopes, shall not become garments; and to ordain that we should not clothe ourself with our works. We enjoy a hope through grace that we will be found of God in Christ, not having our righteousness which is of the law; but rather, that Christ is made unto us, WISDOM, RIGHTEOUSNESS, SANCTIFICATION and REDEMPTION.

Mr. Buck says he feels himself disgraced by noticing our paper. We freely admit that if Mr. Buck had any character to suffer, if he were a christian or a gentleman, his reputation would suffer, by the manner of his noticing us, for his language concerning us is unbecoming a man of common respectability, and can never flow from any fountain less corrupt than himself.

What has exasperated Mr. Buck, is the letter published a few weeks since, with our remarks concerning the Sulphur Fork Association, and although he has failed to produce an item of testimony to disprove the facts stated in that communication, he has amply supplied in the measure of his declamation, what he has failed to produce in argument or fact.

Such are the boasted charity, good feelings and benevolence of the New School Baptists: they can fellowship their brethren of nearly all the various denominations in our land; they can greet with the kiss of charity the Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, &c.; and even explore the most remote heathen nations of the earth to find pagans on whom to lavish their charity; let the Old School, or Bible Baptists,—Take care!! Their covenant with death, and their agreement with hell, on which they rely to screen them from impending wrath, extends not to them. POETRY.

IN THE WORLD TRIBULATION, BUT IN JESUS PEACE:
THE TWO DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERS.
VIEW OF THE CHRISTIAN LIFE.

“—In the world ye shall have tribulation; but be of good cheer: I have overcome the world.”—John xvi. 33.

Through the changing scenes of life,
Fill’d with crosses and with strife,
Wounded with the serpent’s sting,
How can saints deliv’rance sing?

How, indeed? the saint replies,
With sad heart and downcast eyes:
I have struggled hard with pain,
But my efforts all prove vain!

Restless sin and raging hell,
Do with grief my bosom swell;
Do within so vile unite,
That my breath is spent in sighs!

Why on self, (poor sinner!) pore?
Look to mercy’s boundless store;
Look to God’s redeeming love,—
Jesus pleads thy cause above.

Would he his dear presence send,
As thy God, thy guide, thy friend;
Scatter wide thy doubts and fears,
Melt in love thy heart to tears:

Then thou wouldst his ways approve,
Nor dispute his sovereign love:
Cov’nant love no change e’er knows;
Tempted soul on this repose.

But methinks I hear thee say,
“I’m so tempted ev’ry day;
Am so full of nature’s dross,
Do so feel at ev’ry cross—

“Am so full of slavish fear,
All my steps so dark appear:
Am so straiten’d in my soul;
Am so plagu’d by spirits foul;

“Feel nothing else but sin;
Am so overwhelm’d within;
That I cannot, though I try,
From his fulness get supply.

“I am all-but stung to death,
At corruption’s poisonous breath:
O what bliss my soul must prove,
To be perfected in love!

“But I am as far from this,
As the west is from the east:
And desponding, almost say,
I shall never know that day.

“What a sight it is to see,
Such rebellion surge in me!
And like-fretful Rachel cry,
Give me children or I die.

“When I read the truth of God,
’Tis to me a sealed word:
For I can no sweetness find,
To relieve a harrass’d mind.

“If I go to God in prayer,
My confusion makes me there;
Ev’ry trifle near at hand,
My attention can command.

“Thus I rise from off my knees,
Loathing e’en my services:
Since they prove so vain and wild,
So polluted—so defil’d.

“Worse than trifles sometimes rise,
When I’d make to God my cries:
Thoughts unholy and unclean,
Are injected too within.

(TO BE CONCLUDED.)