EDITORIAL 1845

 

EDORIAL

NEW-VERNON, NEW-YORK, MARCH 15, 1845.

From the Baptist Record. BLACK ROCK BAPTISTS.

Charlottesville, Virginia, Jan. 23d, 1845.

DEAR BROTHER JEWEL:—The above beautiful title denotes, in Virginia, that class of our denomination called in your state “anti-nomian,” and in Kentucky “iron-jackets,” and “hard shells.” In Georgia, they are known by the term which they have arrogantly assumed, “Primitive Baptists,” and in North Carolina, are called “Primitive Baptists” and “Kehocrocks.” Perhaps all your readers are not aware of the distinguishing characteristic of these Baptists who are so variously named. They were first made prominent by their opposition to the benevolent organizations in which other christians have thought proper to engage, for the purpose of disseminating the gospel. They are anti-mission, anti-sabbath school, anti-tract society, and in short anti-all things but one, and that is personal election. As to these missionary societies, tract societies, sabbath schools, and similar organizations, they are the works of men, “new measures,” “modern inventions,” & ought to be frowned upon by every lover of the truth. Hence, they not only stand aloof from these societies, but declare non-fellowship with all the brethren who engage in them, or even approve of them. In this state, (and I presume it is the same in other states,) they are, both ministers and people, exceedingly ignorant. As a specimen of ignorance, take the following:

—A certain minister, having named his text, commenced his sermon with the following sentence, “As I am a man what’s got no larnin ’, I shall not divide my subject as the larned do.” A certain anti-mission minister has been seen to drive his ox-cart into a village on sabbath morning, take a barrel of liquor, and carry it to a tippling shop. Another is a distiller of brandy. Their ministers do not hesitate to assert from the pulpit that any man converted or unconverted may become a member of the churches which favour missions by paying a certain sum of money, and that no person, let him be ever so pious, can become a member if he cannot produce the money. They warn their churches against us, declaring publicly that we are no better then horse thieves, and robbers. Verily, these Black Rock Baptists are, to our denomination, what the biles were to good old Job. They were sore places, and tried his patience. I have been told by the agent of the General Association that there are three whole associations, of which the above is by no means an exaggerated account. There are also whole counties in which there are no other Baptists. Their statistics are included in those given in 12 associations, 48 ministers, and 6854 members; that is, they are about one twelfth of the whole number of our denomination. They are decreasing. Scarcely any additions are made to their churches. If any of your readers should see the minutes to which I have alluded, and should examine the statistical table at the end, they will see that most of the anti-mission associations have been formed since 1832. This, instead of being, as might be supposed, an indication of their increase, is a sign of their decrease. The simple fact is this:

—The bodies to which these churches formerly belonged, declared themselves by an overwhelming majority, favorable to the General Associations, and to missions, and to the several societies for the spread of the gospel. Small minorities drew off and constituted these new associations.

COMMON SCHOOLS.

There is in Virginia no system of common school education. The matter has been brought before the legislature a number of times, but nothing as yet has been done. This town and vicinity, however, have not been willing to wait the slow movement of the state councils, and have by voluntary subscriptions, supported two public schools in what is called the ragged mountain district, a place about five miles from us. An effort is about to be made to secure public schools throughout this county. A petition to the legislature and a bill for a school-system is to be submitted to the people in town tonight. The great object in view is to secure the favor of the people for a legal tax for the support of schools.

Yours truly, DALETH.

REMARKS.—What a dreadful set these “anti-nomian, iron-jacket, hard-shell, anti-mission Baptists” must be, that they will not be whipped into the traces, even by such slander and abuse as these missionary Baptists are able to manufacture, and if satan should himself claim the talent for bilingsgate, abuse, falsehood and calumny, to a greater extent, we might be led to question the justice of his pretentions.

In bringing out such charges as the above, why does not the writer give the name of the anti-mission minister? The slander carries its own refutation on the face of it, for if it were not false, the poor lying serpent would not conceal his name. And if a minister of our order had carried a barrel of liquor to a tippling shop on the Sabbath, had the writer been a man of truth, he would not have given such an instance as the general character of the anti-mission Baptists. Until the writer shall prove his assertion, we pronounce him a cowardly and contemptible slanderer. And the editor of the Baptist Record is also implicated in the falsehood. We demand of him, as a gentleman, the real name of the writer of the article copied above.

But if Daleth and the editor of the Baptist Record wish to compare notes with the Old School Baptists, in regard to moral character, we are ready for him, or them. And we will deal in no dark and cowardly innuendoes; we will name chapter and verse; times, circumstances, and names, to their heart’s content. One would suppose that the remembrance of vulnerable points would lead them to hang their heads; or have they no Cornelius’ Covels, Randolphs, Waddies, Winters, and such like characters among them? It is, for the credit of human nature, to be hoped that but few such cases may remain in the ranks of any kind of society, as have figured largely with the New School Baptists within the last few years.

Very possible the lying writer of the above letter has been told by the Virginia General Association, that the instances which he has fabricated are no exaggeration of the character of the members of three Associations, but the assertion is no more likely to be true from that testimony.—His assertion that the Old School are decreasing, is not new; this has been the cry ever since we excluded the New School missionists from our fellowship—but let them have all the comfort that reflection can afford them—they may feel less sore on our account, or have more patience to bear their sufferings, if they can flatter themselves that truth and righteousness are soon to be exterminated from the earth.

It seems by the closing paragraph of Daleth’s letter, that there are efforts being made by the missionists to establish the Prussian school system in that state; and similar efforts are being made to spread the contagion into all the states of our republic. Through this plausible pretext they evidently hope to realize the fulfilment of the predictions of Messrs. Ely, Barton & Co.

“Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce wrath, that we perish not? And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.” Jonah

iii. 9 & 10.

Our correspondent, R. L. Edwards, in his letter on the 45th page, desires of us an explanation of the above text; and such light (if any) as we have, we will cheerfully give. It appears from the record of this prophet, that Nineveh was a heathen city of great magnitude, and in a most deplorable state of ignorance and depravity; and that the Lord, instead of calling for the organization of a Foreign Missionary Board, to collect funds, manufacture, commission, and send missionaries to warn Nineveh of impending wrath, commanded Jonah, one of his own prophets, to go to that great city, and deliver a certain message; and notwithstanding Jonah’s indisposition, he was compelled to go, and preach the preaching which God had bidden him. Every thing necessary for the accomplishment of the sovereign will of God, in relation to Nineveh, was provided, without human aid, even to the great fish, to ferry the runaway prophet to the field of his labor, and the gourd under which he should rest, after having obeyed the word of the Lord. And can it be doubted that God, who has declared the end from the beginning, and said, “My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure,” was deficient in his knowledge of the result of Jonah’s mission to Nineveh? Certainly not. Every circumstance in this divine record, when duly understood, goes to confirm the doctrine of the sovereignty, immutability, and omniscience of God; but yet in such a manner of demonstration as to confound the wisdom of this world.

Jonah was commanded to say to the people of Nineveh, “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown;” it was therefore his duty to go, and to leave the execution of the prediction to the Lord. And it is as certain that God was as able to have prevented the disobedience of Jonah, as it was for him to overrule his disobedience to his own glory, and the direct accomplishment of his designs. In the disobedience of the prophet, occasion was afforded not only for Jonah to become a sign or type of a crucified and risen Saviour, but also for the use which God designed for a certain fish which he had before prepared for a certain agency in regard to Jonah’s mission to Nineveh. The restraining power of God was also as potent to prevent the wickedness of Nineveh, if it had been his pleasure to have employed it for that purpose; as it was in preventing Jonah from making his contemplated visit to Tarshish; but God designed to make use of that wicked city, in testimony against Corazen, Bethsaida, Capernaum and Jerusalem, and therefore every circumstance was wisely ordered and overruled to answer the counsel of his own will, in accordance with which he worketh all things.

But we presume the difficulty in the mind of our correspondent is, that God had authorized Jonah to say, that Nineveh should be destroyed in forty days, and then, that he repented of the evil that he had said he would do, and did it not.—By reference to Jeremiah

xviii. 7—10, our correspondent will find the following law, or principle of administration, in regard to national judgement, &c., recorded, viz: “At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and pull down, and to destroy it; if that nation against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; if it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.” The judgment of Nineveh was then in precise harmony with the rule by which he administers his judgments in a national point of view; and consequently, there was nothing in the case of Nineveh indicating, on the part of God, the least variableness or shadow of turning; the words repent and turn being used in such cases, not to indicate mutability or change of purpose in the mind of God, but a different administration from that anticipated by the language of the law under which nations and cities, as such, stand amenable to God. Thus, in relation to the sentence of the law of God against transgressors, individually, or collectively, the law denounces judgments without mercy. The sentence is in the most plain and emphatic language possible, “The soul that sins shall die.” Thus, the law contemplates wrath and damnation, and that too, by what God has said, speaking in the law; nevertheless, in the riches of his grace, he has provided deliverance from that wrath for his

redeemed people; and their deliverance, so far from reflecting upon his prescience and immutability, goes fully to establish both, inasmuch as their salvation and calling are “according to his own purpose and grace which was given them in Christ Jesus, before the world began. Repentance, in scripture parlance, usually, if not universally, signifies a change, or turning from. Such a change is sometimes in reference to purpose, and sometimes in regard to action.

An offending brother may turn again repenting. Judas repented of his perfidy, and Esau also, that he had sold his birth-right; and there is also a repentance which is unto life, to give which unto Israel, & the remission of sins, Christ is exalted a Prince and a Saviour. But in none of these senses of the word, can the term be applicable unto God; for he is of one mind, and none can turn him. Because he is the Lord, and changes not, the sons of Jacob are not consumed. To interpret these terms, in their application to God, as we may in their application to men, would involve a contradiction in the scriptures. But allowing the words repent, and turn, in our text, to mean the same as in Jeremiah xviii. 7—10, and we find them relating to the outward, or providential dealings with nations, in their national characters.—As, when he saith, in his law, that the nations that will not serve him shall be destroyed, still reserving the power and right to turn these very nations from their wickedness, and preserve them in the enjoyment of their national prosperity. It must be conceded, that God knew before hand, what the effect of Jonah’s preaching should be upon Nineveh, and although Jonah preached to them the legitimate consequence of their course, God humbled that city, and caused it to repent at the preaching of Jonah. And when he had effected this design by Jonah’s preaching, he made known to them his further design to save them from the impending ruin which was threatened. Now compare all this with the first experience of the children of God, and we discover a striking analogy, when a soul is quickened by the Holy Ghost. Moses, or the law, like Jonah, comes preaching wrath; and this preaching, like that of Jonah, presents no alternative; “Thou hast sinned,” thou art the man! thou shalt surely die! At this startling ministry of the law, the soul, like the Ninevites, is humbled; the relish for sin is killed, and like the men and beasts of Nineveh, the soul is shrouded in sackcloth, a real sense of guilt and deserved wrath is brought home with terrific force; but when God, by the ministry of his law, has sufficiently humbled the soul, he reveals to it his great salvation. This does not lead the soul to conclude that God has changed his purpose or his nature—that he has sacrificed his veracity or his justice, but he is made to rejoice in the revelation of that system of grace, which is as ancient as eternity, and in full harmony with all the perfections of God.

Arminians and other cavellers, have frequently used this passage and others of a like kind, in opposing the doctrine of the sovereignty and immutability of the counsel of God, in the salvation of his people; and have generally confounded this national repentance and deliverance of Nineveh, with the work of grace, wrought by the Holy Ghost in the work of regeneration; and although men and beasts were alike the subjects of this repentance and deliverance, they can see no difference between it and that Godly sorrow for sin that worketh repentance unto life, which needeth not to be repented of. But those who have learned the difference between the sorrow of the world, that worketh death, and that repentance which God has given to his people, will not be likely to confound them.

“RELIGIOUS LIBERTY IN MASSACHUSETTS.

It was not until 1811 that true religious liberty began to be known in Massachusetts. Before that period, all were taxed to support the established order, and an association was formed among the Baptists to protect their members from illegal oppression. At that time, the law was so modified as to allow every man to pay his tax for the support of that worship which he chose to attend, provided that a certificate of his intention was duly filed with the town clerk. For that change, the efforts of Backus, Leland, Baldwin, and others had long been preparing the way. But it was not till 1834 that the last political link which united the church and the state was destroyed, and every man was left free to pay much or little, any

thing or nothing, for the support of religion. The bill to that effect was passed several times in the House of Representatives, but was lost in the Senate, till at last being referred directly to the people, it was carried at the ballot boxes by an immense majority. The legal support of religion was pleaded for on the same ground of state necessity as that of common education; but since that day religion has not declined, and no act has been more popular than the increase of tax or secular education. It has been lately said by one of her most gifted sons, ‘Massachusetts may blush, that the Catholic Colony of Lord Baltimore, and the Quaker, the blameless Quaker Colony of Penn, were originally founded on the principles of Christian right, long before she felt or acknowledged them.’a