CE-10-Chapter X.

ChapterX.

THREE MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS.

Section I. Our "Arianism."

UPON this subject of course Mr. Jeter is all himself, and so extremely orthodox that he is well-nigh a heretic. That some traits of his character singularly fit him for writing on it, we at least shall not deny. It is peculiar to small minds that they would always appear to be great by seeming perfectly to comprehend those subjects which even the greatest minds are unable to grasp. Nor is it a less frequent case that those whose soundness in the faith there is the best reason to suspect are most clamorous about the heresies of others. But the following is the manner in which Mr. Jeter discourses of our heresy on this subject:—

"Unitarianism, in all its phases, from high Arianism to low Socinianism, is, in the judgment of the Christian world, a far more serious error than Universalism. It divests the gospel of its distinctive glory, and converts it into a lifeless, cold, and inefficient code of ethics. The atonement of Christ, deriving its efficacy from the essential and infinite dignity of his person, is the only foundation of a sinner’s hope and consolation. The reformers received Unitarians into their fellowship, and sanctioned their ministrations with a full knowledge of their errors. In the early part of the present century, a party of New Lights, headed by the Rev. Barton W. Stone, in the State of Kentucky, became Arians. In a letter to the Christian Baptist, published in the year 1827, he used this language:—’If these observations be true, will it not follow, undeniably, that the word (di’ hou) by whom all things were made, was not the only true God, but a person that existed with the only true God before creation began,—not from eternity, (else he must be the only true God,) but long before the reign of Augustus Caesar?’

"Of the extent to which the Arian notions of Mr. Stone did formerly, or do now, prevail among the reformers, I have no means of ascertaining. In the year 1844, I made a tour in the West, of which notes were published, on my return, in the Religious Herald. From the notes I extract substantially the following paragraph, the statements in which, so far as I have seen, have never been called in question, and which, I presume, cannot be successfully contradicted.

"In the town of Columbia, Missouri, and its vicinity, the Disciples, better known as Campbellite, are somewhat numerous. They were formerly professedly Arians, but some years since they united with the followers of Mr. Alexander Campbell. I took much pains to learn. whether their views of the divinity of Christ had undergone a satisfactory change. All with whom I conversed on the subject concurred in testifying that they reject the doctrine of Christ’s divinity, and of his substitutional and piacular sufferings. One of the professor? of the University of Missouri (situated at this place) informed me that in a conversation which he held with Mr. A., a distinguished preacher of the denomination in this State, he most distinctly repudiated these vital principles of the evangelic system. One thing is certain:—the Disciples are not ignorant of the fact that they are generally believed to be Arians; and under this imputation they patiently lie. Unless there is a strange and prevalent misconception in the community, these Disciples stand in most urgent need of a thorough doctrinal reformation."

Several things in these extracts we believe it necessary to notice.

It is true that Mr. Stone and his brethren did, in the State of Kentucky, in the early part of the present effort at reformation, unite with Mr. Campbell and his brethren, neither party claiming superiority over the other in union: but it is not true that Mr. Stone and his brethren were united with as Arians; nor is it true that we, as a people, have ever sanctioned the ministrations of any man or set of men as Arians, or the preaching of Arian sentiments. The charge is an errant slander. In the union between Mr. Stone and Mr. Campbell, the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible, in the full and proper sense of its terms, upon all matters both of faith and practice, was the sole basis of the union. Upon no other basis, nor in any other sense, did Mr. Campbell ever consent to the union; and it is due the memory of Mr. Stone to say, that on no other basis nor in any other sense did he ever demand the union. But we owe it to ourselves as a people to say, that, on more subsequent occasions than one, Mr. Stone did hold language which we do not indorse, and gave utterance to sentiments (as, for example, that in the extract cited by Mr. Jeter) which we distinctly disavow and repudiate. But in saying this we are merely to be understood as giving utterance to our own real convictions in the case, and not as intending a compliment to the captious spirit of sectarianism, nor yet an unkind reflection on the memory of Mr. Stone. We have long since, we trust, learned to distinguish between the error, though even a grave one, of a good man’s head when speculating, and those traits of his heart which mark him as a man of lofty faith and genuine piety. While trying to comprehend those incomprehensible and mysterious relations which subsist between the Father and the Son, to which his finite powers did not fit him, (and of whom can less be said?) Mr. Stone did at times, as we conceive, fall below the merits of the subject; but he never forgot to honor that Son with a veneration and service which should put to the blush the thousand bigots who are still willing to cavil at his error. He never breathed a prayer to the Father of mercies nor uttered the name of the Savior that he poured not forth a depth and warmth of devotion which finds no place in the lip-service of those who can still enact their revels over his grave, and who, while they affect to honor the Savior by words and names, are yet far from him. in their hearts and in their practice.

It is further due the memory of Mr. Stone to say, that he did not himself consider his views to be Arian; that he held the Son to be divine as the Father, but not, like the Father, eternal; and that only in his polemic discussions, or in an occasional fugitive piece, did he ever trouble the public with his sentiments on the subject. In all his other public and private teachings he preached Christ Jesus and him crucified as an all­-sufficient Savior of sinners, free from all objectionable peculiarities. Nor is it less due to Mr. Campbell to state, that no sooner had Mr. Stone published his first illicit line or given utterance to his first vagrant thought on this subject, than he promptly opposed him; and that he continued to do so with a voice kind, but decided and ever dissentient, until the latter was summoned to that bar where all human disputes must receive their ultimate adjustment. While Mr. Campbell is not ashamed to avow his respect for the memory of Mr. Stone, nor his affection for him as a man while living, he is not now willing to be thought the apologist for his error, nor yet to be held responsible for it. He profoundly disapproves the Arian doctrine on the present subject, no matter in whom found.

We can inform Mr. Jeter that there is more than one thing certain in the premises. It is certain that we are not ignorant of the fact that we are charged with being Arians, certain that the truth was never uttered when the charge was made, and certain that it is wholly false that we have lain patiently under the imputation And there is another thing of which we think we are not quite ignorant. We are not quite ignorant of what kind of spirit and equity it is that can circulate a slanderous charge against a whole body of Christians without the shadow of evidence on which to base it, and then summon them to the bar of public opinion to prove their innocence, before their guilt can even be presumed, and, because they do not choose to obey the summons, no matter when nor by what petty bigot served, set them down as guilty. We think we know something of this spirit, and also of those in whom it resides. But we will once more, for the thousandth time, condescend to contradict the slander, and shall leave Mr. Jeter to acquit himself for its appearance where we saw it last.

Upon the divinity of the Savior, his rank and relations, though we deem them of infinite moment and transcendently sublime, we yet think it neither desirable nor necessary to speculate. We shall therefore be content for the present with the following concise and plain statements:—

We shall be at pains, then, to enlighten Mr. Jeter, if he will consent not to slander us for the future, respecting a point upon which, though he is not ashamed to write, he has still to confess his ignorance, by informing him that there is not one known Arian, or Arian sentiment, in all our ranks, from Maine to the shores of the Pacific.

Now, how extremely to be regretted it is that these brethren did not know that there was a reverend inquisitor among them, who, in the genuine secret spirit of a Jesuit, was inquiring into their faith with a view of pronouncing them all heretics, that they might, low-bowed to the earth, have presented him evidence that their "views had undergone a satisfactory change"! But we are curious to know who and how many constituted the "all" of whom Mr. Jeter was at so "much pains" to seek the information which was the object of his most Christian solicitude. Did he go to these brethren themselves to learn what their views were, or what they had been, or whether in reality their views had ever needed a change? Or did he go to their bigoted religious enemies? Of course a person of Mr. Jeter’s divine affection for the Truth would go to the only party from whom in such cases the Truth can be learned. But the church at Columbia was never Arian, professedly or otherwise, never denied the divinity of Christ, and never rejected his death as an expiation for the sins of the world. The charge cannot be sustained except by the testimony of lying lips.

If the professor here alluded to was at the time a member of the Baptist church, and subsequently president of William Jewell College in this State, we have only to say that we do not go about to contradict the fables of an old wife whose feeble mind and small bitter enmity eminently fit him to be the author of the truthless tale here attributed to Mm, and which has owed to him its currency wherever his slow nature has enabled him to circulate it. But if the professor was any person else, and if the Mr. A. alluded to was Mr. T. M. Allen, of this State, who then was, and still is, living near the University, we have then to state,—

While Mr. Jeter saw fit to confine himself to general issues, we thought it proper to join issue with him generally; but, since he has thought it necessary to descend to special cases and particular persons and to implicate honorable men in what he says, we also deem it necessary to descend to particular rejoinders. And we imagine he will find it something easier to quibble over general issues than to acquit himself before the public for making specific charges against good men and innocent churches which he cannot sustain.

Section II. Our "growing desire to be accounted orthodox."

Upon this subject Mr. Jeter delivers himself thus:— "He has been a careless observer of Campbellism who has not perceived its effort to get rid of the odium theologicum by conforming its teachings more and more to the popular views." And again:—"There is manifestly a growing desire among the reformers to be accounted evangelical, orthodox, and regular. A striking proof of this remark was furnished, not long since, in the city of St. Louis, Missouri. There was a Christian association formed in that city. The members of the association were required to be members of some ’evangelical church.’ Applicants for admission’ from the Christian or Reformed church were rejected, on the ground that they furnished no evidence of being ’evangelical.’ To obviate the difficulty, a prominent member of the church, with, it is stated, the concurrence of the pastor and other leading members, drew up and presented a statement of the doctrines held by the church. Here follows the creed." To be able to appreciate the cool impudence with which the author of these excerpts can falsify our position in a given case, any one must carefully read his book. There is no assertion which he is not ready to make, provided only it can have the effect, in his judgment, to depreciate us in the eyes of the public and to make it appear that we are inconsistent and contradictory. He is not ignorant of the just indifference with which Mr. Campbell has hitherto borne himself towards every doctrine which had no higher claims on his confidence than its being merely orthodox; and yet he now has the hardihood to accuse Mr. Campbell of a desire to be the thing he hates. Had Mr. Campbell ever written a line against polytheism, Mr. Jeter could with as much truth have called him a polytheist as he now accuses him of a desire to be accounted orthodox, and for precisely the same reason. If there is any one thing on account of which Mr. Campbell has reason to feel a just and an honorable pride, and for which he deserves to be crowned with the plaudits of his brethren and the gratitude of the present and future ages, it is the noble independence of mind and firmness with which he has dissented from that dogmatic and tyrannical thing called orthodoxy, and the confidence and success with which he has taken his appeal to the God of truth, the Bible, and to a free and enlightened people. And to accuse him now of a desire to kiss again the fetters which bound him once is to falsify every feeling of his heart and the best acts of his life But not only is Mr. Campbell "desirous," it seems, "of being accounted orthodox," but in one of his recent debates "nothing so much annoyed him as the quotation of heterodox sentiments from his early writings." Perhaps so. True, Mr. Campbell has not, at times, hesitated to state that his views (where such was the case) were in unison with those held by the self-styled orthodox parties. But why? Was it because he desired to be "accounted orthodox"? or because he conceived that these parties added aught of weight to his views? or that his views were either the better or the nearer right because held by these parties? He knows not Mr. Campbell who so reasons. No. There are certain very weak- minded men who are ready to be Mussulman, Jew, or Christian, just as it happens to be the vogue to dub Mussulman, Jew, or Christian orthodox: for their sake Mr. Campbell has at times consented to sound the magic note that on certain points he is orthodox. But who is it (we have a desire to know) who has constituted Mr. Jeter, and the "Christian sects" with whom he agrees on one thing and dissents on three, the only orthodox people in the world? Or when and where, since Christ ascended, has it been determined what orthodoxy is? In what Council of Nice, Constantinople, or Trent, have these questions been decided? But in what does orthodoxy consist? Doxa means an opinion; and ortho means correct. Hence orthodoxy must mean a correct opinion. But whose business is it to determine whose opinions are correct? Has Mr. Jeter the right to pronounce on the opinions of the Catholic? If so, who invested him with it? Has not the Catholic an equal right to pronounce on the opinions of Mr. Jeter? Or are the opinions of Mr. Jeter correct merely because he himself pronounces them so? Must we not by the same rule admit the opinions of the Catholic to be correct likewise? Shall the voice of the majority settle the question? Then, alas for "Christian sects"! But Mr. Jeter will doubtless say orthodoxy consists in correct views of the fundamental principles of Christianity. Granted. But whose business is it to determine whose views of these principles are correct and whose not? Who has constituted the Baptist church judge to determine the correctness of our views? or who has been constituted judge to determine the correctness of the views of the Baptist church? The truth is, this whole question of orthodoxy among "Christian sects" resolves itself into the following ridiculous position:—that the Baptists agree to call the Methodists orthodox, and the Methodists consent to return the compliment; they two agree to call the Presbyterians orthodox, and the Presbyterians consent to return the compliment; and what they three agree to call orthodox, that is orthodox. In other words, I will agree to glorify you if you will consent to glorify me; and we two will agree to glorify someone else if someone else will consent to glorify us; and what we three agree to glorify that let all men glorify, for that is glorious! It can hardly be wondered at that Mr. Campbell should have felt more of contempt than veneration for a coalition for such self-exalting and anti- Christian ends. But of the fact that "there is manifestly a growing desire among the reformers to be accounted evangelical, orthodox, and regular, a striking proof was furnished, not long since, in the city of St. Louis, Missouri." The transaction here alluded to was purely a local matter, the work of a few individuals on their own responsibility, and, as such, passed at the time with little notice, and without exciting the slightest interest in our ranks. We confess we never suspected it as being wrong until we saw it smutted with the approbation of Mr. Jeter. Certainly these brethren are far too honorable and high-minded not to feel mortified at the circum­stance. Neither would they have pressed their claim to be admitted into the association referred to in the manner in which they did, had they not witnessed efforts to exclude them from it in order to expose to public contempt the cause which lay near their hearts, headed by a man whose passionless nature, Jesuitism, and sour heart, strangely fit him to act the chief part in all transactions where trickery and perfidy are to be enacted. We honor these brethren, but, most of all, the lamented one now dead, for not suffering themselves to be disgraced when the object was that their disgrace should terminate on their holy religion. But he knows them not who cites this act to prove that either they, or we as a people, have a growing desire to be accounted orthodox; and, as for the whim that their doctrinal summary is a creed, it excites not even our smile.

Section III. The effect Mr. Jeter’s book has had.

Whatever may be the intentions of an author, or the merits of his book in other respects, if its effects have been bad the book itself cannot be good. Tried by this rule, and too severe a judgment cannot be pronounced on Mr. Jeter’s book. Its effects have been bad,—bad to the full extent of its influence, bad without one compensating trait. If such was the result intended by its author, we shall certainly admit that he has, with a skill nothing less than matchless, adapted his work to its end; but, if such was not the result intended, then surely he is the most unfortunate of blun­derers. When we say we are mortified at the appearance of this book at this particular crisis and grieved at the effect it has had, we but feebly express our feelings. In repelling the attacks of the Baptists in time past, our brethren may not always have been either as wise as serpents or as harmless as doves. But, if for this there is not a justification to be pleaded, there is at least this apology,—that they were feeble and felt it; and the attacks made on them came from a party which was strong, and were made in a manner so unjust and so unkind as almost of necessity to provoke the spirit in which they were met. But what most of all made these attacks painful to us, was the fact that, in making them, the Baptists sought and accepted abetment from their old hereditary foes,—the infant-sprinkling sects,— from whom, in time gone, they had suffered the grossest injuries, and from whom they were still receiving daily insults and contemptuous jeers. We thought it mean in the Baptists to join these half Roman Catholic sects —who had filled the church (so called) with flesh and blood, and, indeed, had well- nigh completed its corruption—in a crusade against a body of people who were conscientiously contending for the supremacy of the Holy Scriptures and the purity of the ordinances of Jesus Christ as defined by him and delivered to the world. But it happened that these sects and the Baptists agreed in three things:—1st, in the use of a cabalistic Trinity, — something of which the Bible knows nothing; 2d, in a supernatural agency in conversion,— another thing about which the Bible is silent; and 3d, in relating an experience (except in the case of infants) before baptism or sprinkling,—a third thing of which the Bible says nothing. And, agreeing in these three things, they agreed also in a fourth; to wit, in persecuting us,—a matter about which the Bible is not silent; for it is still, as it was in time past, peculiar to those who are born after the flesh to persecute those who are born after the Spirit. But as our brethren grew stronger they became more patient of injuries; and as they grew more able to repel attacks the Baptists grew less inclined to repeat them. Consequently, the parties had, to a very great extent at least, both ceased to attack and to be attacked. Both were tranquil; and, clearly, a more friendly spirit was beginning to prevail among them. At this juncture the noble purpose to give to the world a corrected version of the Holy Scriptures began to find emphatic utterance at many a lip and to meet with a grand response in many a heart. The Baptists and our brethren, in the providence of God, were called together to consider of and do the work. The most amiable feelings swayed them both. They had met, not now for war, but for counsel, and, if not in the spirit of brethren, at least in that of friends. The work of conciliation went finely on. We were not willing to affirm that we were so good that we might not grow better, nor the Baptists that they were so wise that they might not grow wiser, by the intercourse. Indeed, many went so far (we confess we were not of the number) as to contemplate a prospect, distant though and dim they deemed it, when an understanding might be come to on the points of difference between the parties, and when the gospel should be pleaded by the united strength and wisdom of both. The view was enchanting. But at this crisis Mr. Jeter’s book appears,—one of the meanest of all the attacks that have been made on us. It was at once indorsed by the great men and the small, the upstarts and doctors, of the denomination, and its merits heralded all over the land. Their spirits rose high, their old bigotry revived, their subsiding ill feelings flowed back, they again chuckled at their imaginary superiority, and thanked God, in true Pharisaic style, that they were not as other men. These are a few of the effects the work has had. It is due, however, to many a noble man in the Baptist ranks, (for there are many there,) to express the belief that the contents of this book do not enjoy the sanction of all who are even Baptists, nor its appearance at this particular time their approbation. On the other side, the insulting spirit of the book, its paltry contents, but especially the endorsement of the denomination it has received, have only served to excite in our ranks feelings of mingled pity and deep disgust at the whole thing, and to make us wish that in all time to come we may grow less like the Baptists, who have sanctioned the work, than we now are; and to pray that the disastrous event may never happen when we shall be one people, provided its spirit and contents shall be made the basis of the union. These are a few of the effects to be ascribed to Mr. Jeter’s book; and with the simple statement of them we now take leave of both him and it, feeling that in the one we part from a misguided man, in the other from a graceless thing. THE END.