LETTER XI.
Dear Charles,—You ask, if I do not believe the blessed
founder of our religion would have countenanced the societies
that you name.
This, dear friend, is a grave and solemn question; and
merits a grave and solemn answer: and in that way and yet
with all honesty will I give an opinion which you may use
as is deemed best.
Let me say, then, first and without offence, that I have
been sometimes disgusted and even shocked, in hearing the
confident asseverations of certain public speakers and their
admirers, as to what would have been proper for the Saviour
to have done in given circumstances, and as to what he would
now do if he were upon the earth. For, evidently, it can
be but presumption in us to lay down any plan for the conduct
of the divine Redeemer. It is his province to act, and
ours to imitate; and if our wisdom cannot extricate us where
moralities are complicated, it is great irreverence to say, or
even think, His wisdom would be at fault, unless it took lessons
of ours.
We may safely say, indeed, that Jesus Christ would have
always countenanced all that is morally good, whether found
in societies or individuals: but we are by no means competent
to prescribe the manner in which that encouragement
and approbation would have been bestowed. That we do it,
in a certain favorite mode, is no safe reason for saying that
would have been or ought to be the divine mode: that mode
must be inferred from what is plainly revealed or done in the
Scriptures.
Thousands of evils and abuses, incidental and inseparable,
are inwrought with our best schemes; and he that is pledged
to a moral society, or a moral principle, or mode of doing
good, appears to the world pledged with what is accidentally
or unavoidably wrong in that system. He is, unless he protests,
held responsible for the error as well as for the truth.
Do we err, then, Charles, in believing that our blessed Master
would have stood aloof, even from many moral organizations,
in which was much that we do know he would have approved?
Jesus Christ, dear friend, loves all his true-hearted
followers, and that wherever found. But who, except
Romanists in principle, do not believe that such followers
are in churches and communities and countries differing by
many varieties? Wide apart too are the modes of thinking
and acting produced by education, rank, and a hundred
other circumstances. Can we think, then, that the Redeemer,
always so distinguished for his tenderness, would
have hurt the feelings of some among his disciples by seeming
to pass unqualified approbation of a part only, and thus
censuring the others? If he, indeed, should say what was
truth, all would cheerfully acquiesce: but his word is in
the Scriptures, and that word admits unity and variety.
To a careful reader of the Scriptures it will become
more and more clear, that Christ intended to lay down general
principles only; inference and the use and application
are left to his followers, who have, indeed, the promise of
the Holy Spirit for their guidance into all truth. Hence the
Saviour, on one occasion, refused to be “a divider of an estate;”
and on another refused to pass sentence on the woman
taken in adultery, leaving the condemnation to the
existing law, if the accuser saw fit to lay the case before
the proper tribunal. Hence also the apostles never intermeddled
with politics or government, wishing to show, in
all things, that their master's kingdom was not of earth, but
that it was a spiritual kingdom, and would, if admitted into
men's hearts, in due time regulate all external actions according
to the law of love.
If, therefore, Charles, this be true, and it appears so to me,
surely we cannot think, if Jesus Christ were now on the
earth, or had made his appearance for the first time, that he
would in any degree depart from a line of conduct which he
manifestly has been pleased to prescribe for himself. The
inference, then, does not seem improper, when we say our
master would not now attach himself to any one society or
party in morals, or even any one creed in religion. Infallibilists
will reject this inference, especially so far as religion
is concerned, but we fallibles must adopt it.
The present state is not the one for the divine adjudication
of the comparative amounts of truth and excellency in
systems and societies: that is reserved for the day when
every man's work shall be tested by principles already fixed
in the Word, and when, if a man's work be good, he shall
receive a reward; if less good, or faulty, or wrong, he shall
suffer loss; while himself, if a true believer, and having done
works in faith, shall be saved.
Indeed, Charles, all exertion of mind must be destroyed;
all trouble of thinking, all exercise of forbearance and charity
must cease, if one could at a word know from his divine
Master when he was right or wrong. This very exercise of
the mind, and of all Christian graces, is necessary to the perfection
of the good man's character; and all this would be
wholly impossible if Christ's living voice did settle every
question. Nay, my friend, the Bible would not be so read,
and examined, and weighed line by line, word by word, and
letter by letter, if the truth could be had with less, or rather
no trouble and pains. It does seem to me that our expectation
of unity so perfect as to admit no variety, is preposterous.
The unity of the spirit and the bonds of peace have
always obtained among believers; but that unity is not inconsistent
with many differences and varieties in the modes
of exhibiting truth, teaching the disciples, and governing the
church. And, to me, the very fact that the true church has
always had these differences and varieties is proof, not only
that they are allowed, but actually designed, by the Head of
the Church. And hence, I do not think that blessed Head,
if now upon the earth, would decide which form of government
or mode of worship was the true one; because, in the
first place, several modes may be equally true ones; and
secondly, because he has given us all the directions deemed
important; and it would be irreverence in us to ask for any
clearer ones than Infinite Wisdom has given.
How intolerant and intolerable would be the overbearing
insolence of many professedly moral and religious people,
could they boast a name on their books, or to their pledges,
such as the sacred one in question, and in the partizan sense
contemplated in this inquiry! A miracle of grace might
prevent, but most would act more tyrannically than ever.
Many things in moral and religious schemes are worthy of
the divine approbation; but the name of the Saviour would
be used for intolerance and persecution in general, and for
pushing forward such parts of a scheme as are actually
anti-scriptural.
There is a very important sense in which the Supreme
Being is the God, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles.
Poor, fallen human nature, however even partially
renovated, tends ever to making God the head of a party,
and not of the good and pious, wherever found. We ever
want to take and make Jesus Christ a king, not of the heart
and conscience, but of our sect and our society; and while
ready thus to do him honor, it is only as we would honor
some great, and rich, and influential persons who had headed
our paper with their names.
Woe! not to the wicked, or the ignorant, or the obstinate
only; but woe to the cautious and prudent inquirer after
truth! aye, woe to the scrupulous and conscientious, if
Christ were politically of our party, and we had the power!
Many are Romans who are not of Rome; and he is a Roman
who is one inwardly, if not outwardly! Charles, even
good and worthy disciples would not know their spirits; and
although kept meek and kind by existing circumstances now,
would then flame out with strange zeal, and “call down fire
from heaven,” to destroy all not apparently of their party!
and all the Garrisons, and Burleighs, and Folsoms, with all
other infidels of their stamp, would, in the name of Christ,
literally trample under their feet the real followers of the
Redeemer; and, like fiends, even bathe their hands in
blood. Such men want but the sanction of Christ's name to
destroy Christ himself.
No, my friend, our blessed Redeemer is the head over
all in too godlike a sense to admit the idea that he ever could
become a head in the low, and partial, and oftentimes pitiful
sense intended by some who, directly or indirectly, propose
the query you have asked.
For my part, I am well satisfied that great irreverence is
ever manifested in affirming what a divine lawgiver would
do, further than as a matter of clear inference from his own
laws and rules; and I feel that the confident and arrogant
speeches of certain pseudo-reformers and philanthropists are
shocking to taste and religion. I fear that many mere partisan
philanthropists, if Christ were on earth, and would not
attend their meetings, and sign their papers, and second their
resolutions, would drive him out with hisses and execrations.
Nay, I have with my own ears heard one such affirm that
“there are on earth now many men as good as Jesus Christ;
and that if no more Bible had been written than the Sermon
on the Mount, it had been better for the world!” and that
man was a self-styled minister of the gospel, and led off in a
great
moral reform!!
It seems to the superficial and self-righteous very plausible,
to debar all slaveholders and all dealers in ardent spirits
from church communion. But if that be the sole disqualification,
and the person be, otherwise, externally a pious man
and honest citizen, such prohibition is contrary to the Bible
and to common sense. Suppose, now, our Saviour were on
earth, and were enrolled as a member of some Anti-Slavery
and some Total Abstinence Society, what a rod and sceptre
of iron would such societies wield over us! And yet we do
know that an inspired pen has recorded for our use, an exhortation
to pious and believing masters of slaves and owners
of pious slaves—both members of one communion. True,
we do not regard such exhortation as either allowing or disallowing
any species of slavery: but it is a plain admission
that both master and slaves may, at the same time, be genuine
Christians and going together to the same heaven. Some
may hate the apostle for penning such words and epistles;
but pseudo and ferocious philanthropists and moralists will
ever be found opposed to the Bible.
I honestly say, it is my belief, that our Saviour would
ever smile on whatever is really humane (and there is much
of that character) in an Anti-Slavery Society, and also in a
Colonization Society; but were he on earth, it is evident to
me, that judging from the past, Christ would attach himself
to neither society. And whilst he would ever reiterate—
“no drunkard can inherit the kingdom of heaven”—he
would not sit only and specially in churches where men are
debarred from communion solely and simply for making, or
temperately using, certain drinks, and when nothing else
could be laid to their charge.
Sentiments like these, I am aware, would make ultra
men call me “a winebibber and a gluttonous man;” but
that is a slander every conservative must willingly bear.
The fury, and malice, and billingsgate of partisan moralists
will soon become proverbial—and dictionaries of hard names
may easily be complied from their speeches. The nineteenth
century is remarkable for many changes, but not the
least remarkable change is the transfer of blackguardism
from the illiterate wicked, to the lectures, and essays, and
sermons of the learned (?) good (??) men! But with some
saints, pious frauds are holy artifices; and their ends justify
all means, there being usually, however, a decided preference
for bad means, and a bad use of good means.
Doubtless your neighbors out there will excommunicate
me for such opinions, even as they have one of their
number who ventured a book on slavery: but they could not
be more willing to get rid of me, than I of them.
