Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

No. 2.}

BETHANY, BROOKE CO. VA.

MONDAY, SEPT. 7, 1829. { Vol. VII. }

Style no man on earth your Father; for he alone is your father who is in heaven; and all ye are brethren. Assume not the title of Rabbi; "for you have only one teacher. Neither assume the title of Leader; for "you have only one leader-the MESSIAH."

Matt. xxiii. 8-10.

"Prove all things: hold fast that which is good."

JAMES MADISON, D. D.

Paul the Apostle.

SOME men by their high standing in society, give great emphasis to all that they say or do. The same things said by persons in more obscure stations, would not have half the weight which they sometimes accidentally acquire from official dignity. The following expose of many sentiments for which I have been called a heretic, coming from a man who was in his days, and died in the office, of Bishop of the whole state of Virginia, will, to the ninds of many, afford much more evidence of truth than if I had said them. Truth, however, is truth, whether a child or a philosopher affirms it.

I have not met in any one extract so many of the sentiments advanced in this work; nor have I seen so unexceptionable an exposition of my "peculiar views" from any pen; nor did I know, till yesterday, that any man in the United States had spoken so much good sense on these subjects, in the year 1786, as appears in the following extract. I wish Bishop Semple, Mr. Brantly of the Star, Dr. Noel, and some few others of the leaders of the day, to read the extract with more than ordinary attention. ED. C. B.

EXTRACT OF A SERMON

Delivered by James Madison, D. D. President of the University of William and Mary, and Professor of Moral and Natural Philosophy, before the Protestant Episcopal Church, in the state of Virgi nia, May 26th, 1786. The text is, "God is a spirit, and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." John iv. 24.

The object of this sermon is to urge the necessity of christian union, and the injurious tendency of creeds, &c. in originating and promoting dissentions and feuds among christians.

Permit me, then, to make some observations upon the means most likely to forward such an event. This I attempt with readi ness, however imperfect the observations may appear, not only because it is, in my mind, of great importance that we should particularly attend to those means at this period, but also because the Vol. VII.

3

same means which would most effectually promote the ends just spoken of, will be the best guides to us at a time when we are forming, as it were, anew our own religious society; for without attention to them, we shall deprive ourselves of the inestimable privilege of worshipping God in spirit and in truth.

Fortunately for christians, those means are altogether of the negative kind. They depend upon the rejection, not the adoption of those human systems of belief, or rules of faith, which have often usurped the place of christianity itself They only require christians to revert to the gospel, and to abandon every other directory of conscience. I will then venture earnestly to recommend to all christians to reject every system as the fallible production of human contrivance, which shall dictate articles of faith, and adopt the gospel alone as their guide. Am I not sufficiently warranted, my brethren, in this recommendation? I trust there is scarce any one amongst us who will object to a recommendation of this nature, whether we attend to the fallibility, the ignorance, the prejudice of men, or to the truth, wisdom, and perfection of the Author of our divine religion.

I will take the liberty to advance a general proposition, the evidence of which, I persuade myself, may be established by the most incontestible proofs. The proposition is, indeed, simple and plain: it is, "that those christian societies will ever be found to have formed their union upon principles the wisest and the best, which impose the fewest restraints upon the minds of their members, making the scriptures alone, and not human articles or confessions of belief, the sole rule of faith and conduct."

It is much to be lamented that the venerable reformers, when they burst asunder the cords of popish tyranny, ever departed from the simplicity of this scripture plan; and that, instead of adhering to it, they thought theological systems the only means of preserving uniformity of opinion, or of evincing the purity of their faith. The experience of more than two centuries has proved how far they are capable of producing either effect. On the other hand, the consequence which such institutions have been productive of, have been more or less severely felt in every part of the Protestant world, from the Diet of Augsburg to the present time.

They have in former, as well as in later ages, caused a religion, designed to unite men as brethren in the sacred bonds of charity and benevolence, too often to disseminate amongst them jealousies, animosities, and rancorous hatred. They have nursed the demon of intolerance; nay, aided by the civil power, they have led martyrs to the stake, and have offered up, as holy sacrifices to the God of mercy, christians who had the guilt to prefer what they esteemed the doctrine of Christ to the commandments of men. Even in America, the effects which they have produced on the minds of christians, have been seen written in blood. But thanks be to God, those days are past! May such never revisit the earth! So long, however, as we can trace within those human systems of belief, principles oppressive to christians and injurious to the cause of our holy religion, it matters not in how small a degree, I shall

d

esteem it my duty to raise a warning, though, perhaps, a feeble voice against them.

It is a maxim, self-evident to every one, and which was held sacred by the fathers of Protestantism, "that the scriptures contain all things necessary to salvation, and are the sole ground of the faith of a christian." This maxim, the basis of reformation, and which is acceded to by all Protestants, is alone sufficient, independent of what experience has taught, to induce every Protestant church to reject all systems of belief, unless conceived in the terms of scripture, not only as unwarrantable, and in the highest degree oppressive to the rights of private judgment, but as presumptuous, and as casting an unworthy reflection on the scriptures themselves. Yet many pious and worthy christians are apt to suppose that such systems of faith are necessary for the maintenance of true religion, or, for preventing that disorder which arises from a diversity of opinions. But do such christians reflect sufficiently upon the example which our Lord himself and his Apostles have placed before us? Did they, for this or any other purpose, prescribe or recommend summaries of faith? On the contrary, did not our Saviour constantly enjoin upon his followers to search the scriptures themselves? Do we not find that the Bereans were commended for their conduct in not receiving even the doctrine of the inspired Apostles, until they had first searched the scriptures to see whether these things were so or not? Doth not St. Paul expressly say, that "other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ?" Doth he not every where recommend to christians the duty of examining the grounds of their faith, "to prove all things, and to hold fast that which is good?" And St. John, doth he not exhort us to "believe not every spirit, but to try the spirits whether they be of God?" Now, if summaries of faith had been necessary for the prosperity of our religion, can we suppose that Christ and his Apostles would have neglected, not only to leave such as must have been most proper to maintain the true faith; but that, by their precepts as well as conduct, they would rather have taught us the duty of avoiding them? No, my brethren, we may be assured that Christ and his Apostles did not esteem any other summary necessary than the gospel itself; and that whatever is essential either as to faith or practice, is there expressed with that clearness which a revelation from Heaven required. We are directed there to search and to judge for ourselves; for religion, to be profitable to the individual and acceptable to God, must be the result of free inquiry and the determination of reason. This right of free inquiry, and of judging for ourselves, is a right natural and unalienable. It is the glory of our nature, 'he truest source of joy and triumph to an American, and constantly to recur to it, the indispensable duty of a christian. For should we neglect this duty, where then would be all manly rational belief, where the sincere practice of piety and vir tue, where the surest guide to moral and religious conduct? In their stead, a mean credulity would prevail; hypocrisy would usurp the place of true devotion; religion and morality would degenerate into superstition and sanguinary zeal. To suppose then, that the gos

pel would authorise a deprivation of this right, or that such deprivation is necessary to its support and progress, is to cast an unworthy reflection upon the gospel itself, it is to suppose, that a religion which utterly disclaims all dominion over the faith and consciences of men, which is the most friendly to the essential rights of mankind, and which indeed, cannot exist where they are invaded, still requires to be supported by their destruction.

Besides, the very attempt, in matters dark and disputable, to prevent diversity of opinion, is vain and fruitless. It hath existed and must ever exist among all christians, even those of the same society, so long as human nature continues the same. The God of nature hath for wise purposes bestowed upon different men, different degrees of reason and understanding; so that, if they think at all, they must necessarily think differently upon those dark, mysterious subjects, which, however, are often reduced into the form of articles of faith. Nor can such difference cease, until the same precise portion of intellect he imparted to every individual of the human race. To attempt then to prevent diversity of opinions upon such subjects, is to oppose the very laws of nature, and consequently vain and fruitless.

But, in truth, that diversity of opinion, which most churches have been so sedulous to prevent, is neither any disgrace to a christian society, nor incompatible with its peace and good government; unless it be disgraceful to men that they are men, and unless the christian dispensation is incompatible with the nature of man. On the contrary, such diversity may be considered as most favorable to the progress of christian knowledge, and should also be equally favorable to christian peace, by teaching us, that dark and disputable points instead of beng made articles of faith, and standards of orthodoxy, should rather be considered as trials of our christian temper, and occasions to exercise mutual charity; or, that those things alone should he held as essentials; which our Lord and Master, hath fully and clearly expres sed, and which, therefore, cannot require the supposed improvéments and additions of men. So long as men agree in these essentials, or fundamental articles of our religion, in those great and important truths and duties, which are so clearly expressed, that every sincere inquirer must readily apprehend them, where is the necessity, or reasonableness of compelling men to be of one mind, as to other matters of infinitely inferior moment, and which we may suppose, were designedly less clearly expressed. That christian unity, so strongly recommended to us, as the bond of perfection, does not consist in uniformity of opinion upon abstruse, metaphysical subjects, but upon the great fundamentals of our religion, and in the unanimity of affections, love, peace and charity, which is enjoined on the brethren in Christ Jesus, who all walk by the same rule, and acknowledge one and the same Lord.

But still it may be thought, that theological systems, or seminaries of faith are necessary to exclude from the bosom of a church, men whose principles might endanger its very existence. But doth experience, or do just observations upon human conduct justify such a belief? He will not be retarded in the accomplishment of his designs, or in the gratification of an avaricious appetite, though 19, 20, or 30,000 articles were presented to him. Trust me articles will never prove a barrier to the advances of a secret enemy, or exclude from

any church men of vicious principles, or no principles. Whom then will they be most likely to exclude? I answer with regret-Men of stubborn virtue, men of principle and conscience, men of that rigid tough integrity, which cannot be shaped and twisted to suit the system of the day, men who will not prefer the dictates and decisions of fallible mortals, to the infallible word of God.

I conceive, moreover, that no Christian church hath a right to impose upon its members, human systems of belief, as necessary terms of communion. For what, i beseech you, do we understand by a christian church? According to the most general acceptation "every christian church is a voluntary society of men agreeing to profess the faith of Christ and stipulating to live according to the rules of the gospel". From this definition, we find the distinctive terms of union, or the fundamental laws of such a society, is to embrace the scriptures alone, as the rule of worship, faith, and conduct. Consequently every act of church government, which contravenes this fundamental law, is from its very nature void.

How then shall it be pretended, that other terms of communion may be prescribed to the members of a christian church? But all hu man systems, imposed as articles of belief, must be held as introductory of other terms. It follows then that every christian church, so · far as it introduces such terms, is to be considered as having departed from its essential characteristic, and consequently to have exceeded its right as a church. This conclusion is the more incontrovertible, as it coincides with the maxim before mentioned, I should say with that christian axiom, "That the scriptures contain all things necessary to salvation, and are the sole ground of the faith of a Christian.”— What then, it may be asked, shall not a church prescribe to itself, terms of communion, shall it not have its particular confessions or articles of belief, provided they be agreeahle to the word of God? How many Protestant churches have been built on this foundation of sand, unable to resist the winds and the tempests which beat against them! The condition is inadmissable. For who shall determine with certainfy, that those terms are agreeable to the word of God? How is it pos sible, that all the members of a church should be sufficiently assured of this important point? Or is private judgment to be entirely annihilated; if so, to what end, did the benign Author of our being grant reason to man? Is the conscientious Christian to forget, that it is his duty to search the scriptures themselves, or are those human expositions to usurp the place of the word of God? But let us in the spirit of charity admit; that every church supposes, or firmly believes its articles or rules of faith to be agreeable to the word of God. What then is the consequence? The difference between them is surely a proof, that infallibility is not the attribute of all of them. Truth, like the Ete nal, is one. In which church then shall we find it? I will presume to say in none of them. He who would search for the truth must search for it in the scriptures alone.

Let us then abandon all those systems, which to say the least can only involve us in error. Our venerable forefather; erred, or why a reformation? Their descendants will err. Nor shall the resurrection of true christianity be seen amongst men, until it shall appear in the white garment of the gospel alone. Herald.

Vol. VII

3*

« ForrigeFortsæt »