Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

with the Lutheran church, under the pastoral care of the Rev. J. Z. Senderling, on a profession of faith, and what I was then taught to regard as proper evidences of conversion. So you perceive, I commenced my career of apostatising twelve years ago; and what was worse, my first step was the abandonment of the church of my fathers, in which I drew my first breath, and received all my early religious impressions and education, and of which I was made a member, without my consent or knowledge, myriads of ages before the constitution of the mundane system, if the tenets of the old paternal church are to be accredited. I applied to the Lutheran church for admission, or rather was invited by some of her zealous sons, to become one of her members. What disposition should she have made of my case ? Judging from the spirit, tone, and temper of one of her leading men, as displayed in an effervescent article on the subject of what he is pleased to call my "apostacy from the Lutheran church," and published in the Lutheran Observer she should have frowned most indignantly on this proselyting conduct of some of her sons. She should have rebuked, in tones as solemn as the grave, this first indication of a vacillating disposition on the part of a wayward youth; and to have given convincing, substantial proof of her "holy abhorrence" of sectarian apostacy, she should have refused me admission to her communion most absolutely. But what did she do? Why, she flung wide her willing arms to embrace me and a few others at the same time. Nor was her pleasure any the less because we were apostates, nor yet because we preferred the Lutheran to the Methodist church; which, by the way had as good a claim upon us as the former, and better as far as our " getting through" was concerned. And by way of comment on her "holy abhorrence" of the unpardonable sin of sectarian apostacy, her pastor and leading members advised me to study for the ministry! At length, yielding to their advice, I commenced a course of studies, in order to qualify myself for that office. Having spent about eight years in the prosecution of my academical, collegiate, and theological studies, during which time I received many unasked for, yet gratifying evidences of their confidence and esteem, I received, according to the custom of the church, a letter of licence from the president of the Maryland synod, recommending me most cordially to the Lutheran commu

nity, and authorizing me to perform all ministerial acts, the same as an ordained minister. A similar letter was given me by the Synod of the West, convened at Knightstown, Ia., October, 1842, and renewed by the same synod, according to its custom, at its last meeting held at Hopeful church, Boon, county of Kentucky, October, 1843, a few weeks before my baptism. During my entire connexion with the Lutheran church, I was regarded and treated as worthy of the most implicit confidence of the brethren so far as I knew. I say this not boastingly, but because an effort has of late been made, to create the impression, that I have always been regarded as a "vacillating youth."

I preached under a synodical licence about one year and a half; and if my former friends are not satisfied with that labour as an offset to their favours and kindness, I now pledge myself to labour as much longer in any Lutheran congregation that may be selected, after my present engagements shall have been met; and if that is not enough I will double the time.

The brethren, and the world generally, have already been informed of my baptism during the progress of the late debate at Lexington. It should be remembered, however, that this did not take place, until several days after the first four propositions, embracing all that referred to baptism, had been disposed of.

It was the most deliberate, well advised, conscientious, and solemn act of my life. One, the reminiscence of which is the sweetest, and the feelings produced by it, the most delightful, that I have ever experienced. True, my motives were then, and have since been impugned, by persons whose knowledge of me was so limited as to render any expressions of opinion on the subject, highly immodest on their part, not to say entirely unauthorized and reckless. I nevertheless rejoice in the sweet consciousness of having acted promptly and fearlessly in obedience to the highest sense of Christian propriety and responsibility, and the clearest convictions of duty.

Nor is this consolation at all abated by the reflection that, after spending three months in the most ardent and untiring search after some charge that might be preferred against my private character, to tarnish my name and destroy my usefulness; or rather, to destroy my influence among the old

brotherhood, my enemies have been driven to the humiliating expedient of "infering" from their own fictitions premises, that my motives have been sinister, and that I am at all

events, a little " self-complaisant." This appears to be the

burden of the article referred to. Indeed, this is the common resort of all sectaries when placed in similar circumstances. Failing to find clear proof of what they would like to say, and not being able to adduce substantial evidence even, they dexterously fall back upon their well improved and almost magic powers of “ infering."

I have often been asked what my sentiments and feelings were, on my arrival at Lexington, before the debate commenced. To this inquiry I would reply, that I was not altogether a stranger to the subject at the time alluded to. I had read a great deal on the side of sprinkling and Paidobaptism, but not a dozen pages of any work on the opposite side, and I had not witnessed immersion more than three or four times. There was a time when it would have been difficult for me to admit the validity of immersion. For two or three years I had admitted its validity but gave sprinkling or pouring the preference, on the ground of convenience. I could have sprinkled, poured, or immersed, with a good conscience on the day of the debate. I then stood in sentiment, where thousands of the various sects now stand, equally poised between what is sometimes called the "three modes of baptism," as far as scriptural authority is concerned, but giving the preference to sprinkling and pouring; and if I was in advance of any of them in disposition to allow the applicant to choose his own mode, it must be attributed to my want of a gum-elastic conscience, which is so serviceable to them.

On the subject of infant baptism, I never thought much before the winter of 1842-3. At the meeting of the Synod of the West (1842), before alluded to, the subject of baptism was made the special business for a certain evening. It was then debated by every member of synod in his turn. All seemed to be agreed in their opposition to immersion; but on the subject of infant baptism, scarcely any two were agreed. One would require faith of the parents who offered the child; another would not be particular about the faith of the parents, provided their morals were good; another would overlook a little immorality if they were not entirely

sceptical; a fourth would baptize the child if the parents were Atheists; and a fifth said he would baptize a child if the Devil himself should offer it. If he had faith, that was sufficient. You may judge of my surprise when, for the first time I heard these matters thus treated, and ascertained that so many different views were held by the members of the same synod; and such contrary views too! I then resolved to examine the subject for myself. I examined it a little during the following year; but as my reading was all on one side, I could not, in my conscience, give up infant baptism. That I met with difficulties, I am frank to avow; but then, thought I, what subject has no difficulties? I could have sprinkled a child the day before the debate commenced, with a good conscience. All my early education and associations were placed in the scale with Paido-baptism during the debate. I went there willing to ascertain the truth. I was a little prejudiced against brother Campbell, and more than a little against the Reformation. I listened with candour and attention. After the whole ground had been gone over, I was satisfied that nothing but immersion was scriptural, and that Paido-baptism could not be defended from the Scriptures. I felt deeply interested in the whole matter. If Mr. Rice could have net all of brother Campbell's arguments satifactorily to my mind and have sustained his own propositions, he should have received my warinest thanks. He failed, however, in my estimationcompletely failed in both. If I know my own heart, I have acted sincerely, conscientiously, and intelligently. I have not the least unkind feeling for any person living. My old friends may persecute me if they are so disposed; but I cannot retaliate: Christ is my pattern in that as well as everything else.

I cannot cease to love my Lutheran friends; still they have my warmest thanks for all the favours they ever be. stowed upon me. To do them good-to teach the Christian religion both by precept and example, is my ardent purpose. I can throw my arms of charity and sympathy around them all, and beg them to receive the truth in its simplicity. That we may be sanctified through the truth, and inherit eternal life, is the devout prayer of your brother, in the hope of a blissful immortality. WM. R. McCHESNEY. 2 1

VOL. VIII.

NATURE OF CHRISTIAN ORGANIZATION.

NO. XI.

Difficulties in ascertaining the completeness of the Christian Organization from extra-evangelical sources: are they real or imaginary?

It must, I think, be regarded as a first truth, that the Great Head of the church had present to his observing eye a complete and perfect model of his future kingdom upon earth. Did He unfold it fully in writing? No. Did He give plenary power and instructions to his apostles on this subject; or did he leave the scheme to be unfolded by the course of events and the seasonable teachings of the Holy Spirit? The facts alone can show; but the facts are fragmental and exceedingly scanty. In like manner, it arises in the mind with all the vividness and force of a first truth, that, before the departure of some of the last of the apostles, they must have had a very clear and complete model of this visible kingdom in their conception; either by oral instruction, providential intimation, or special illumination. But neither is the complete outline of this scheme reduced to writing. So far from it, that the notices of it in the apostolic writings are purely incidental and exceedingly incomplete. Where, then, is it to be sought? I answer, In the matter-of-fact impress of it, left upon the church institutions of that age.

1. But it is objected, first, that the documents from which this knowledge is to be obtained, are voluminous and not easily accessible. Not so much so as the documents, true and false, which claim to be inspired, and from which the knowledge of the plan of salvation itself is to be derived.

2. It is then further objected, that the common people are no judges in these matters, and that therefore the position is subversive of the protestant principle of private judgment. Not a whit more in this case than in any other. The unlearned must for ever be dependent upon the learned for sifting and settling the canon of Scripture, and for making, correcting, and criticising the vernacular versions from the original. A tithe of this learning would suffice for ascertaining the facts with regard to the Christian organization during the first and second centuries.

3. It is perfectly irrelevant and futile to object that the

« ZurückWeiter »