Be not righteous overmuch, neither make thyself overwise. - SolomonLetter 1, Sectarianism
Preface
It is with unaffected diffidence that I present the following pages to the public. From my youth and consequent inexperience, one may conclude that nothing short of presumption could prompt me to offer my sentiments upon the important subjects attempted to be discussed in the following LETTERS. But I have not acted unadvisedly. A fear that I might do something to injure the cause of religion, induced me to show the manuscript to my brethren of prominent standing and great usefulness in the churches, determined to abide by their decision. - They urged its publication, and thought it might be useful, or, at the worst, could do no injury. This overcame my scruples. If those who had lived long within the walls of Zion - ministers whose preaching had been abundantly blessed, and who could have no other motive than the prosperity of the cause of the Redeemer - if they were of opinion that the letters could do no harm, and might do some good, why should I withhold them?I have counted the cost, and I am aware what awaits me, I know from the experience of others, that I am preparing a tempest that must burst upon my head. But let it come. I am prepared for the worst. I care not for the ravings of malice, nor for the venom of slander's tongue.* Conscious of the rectitude of my intentions, and of the goodness of the cause 1 advocate, I feel protected by a shield impenetrable by the shafts of calumny or malignity. My style may not suit the fastidious taste of some, but that I neither covet or regard. Regardless of what might tickle the refined ears of the critic, I have tried to be correct in my views, caring but little as to the manner of expressing them.
I stand individually responsible for whatever is contained in the following pages. They were written without consulting any, and have been altered or amended by none. Towards the Reformers, or Campbellites I entertain no unkind feelings. - Among them are many of my best friends. Those of them who are acquainted with me, will, I am persuaded, do justice to my motives, and however we may differ in our sentiments, will accord to me that honesty of opinion which they claim, and no doubt possess themselves. Earnestly hoping that the following passages may be of some advantage, that they may contribute, if but a mite, to the good cause which they attempt feebly to defend, I submit them to the candid consideration of an indulgent public.
J. L. W.
Woodford County, Ky., December 18, 1834.
MY DEAR FRIEND. - Discussion of religious subjects, if conducted in a spirit of candor, is productive of good. So long as truth and error are in the world, controversy must exist. The religion of the Saviour has ever met with opposition, and has, in every age, called on its professors to step forth to its defense. It is the right - is the duty of every individual professing this holy religion, however humble his station in life may be, to contribute his mite in this great battle of truth and error. The spirit of inquiry is abroad on the earth. The religious and political world is [sic] in commotion, and preparing for a revolution. The great battle is about to be fought. The powers of darkness are marshalling against the powers of light. The tocsin [bell] has sounded, and skirmishing has commenced. The contest may be dreadful, but its result cannot be doubtful. "Truth is omnipotent and will prevail." Blind, indeed, must he be that does not perceive, by the signs of the times, a great moral revolution just at the door. What mighty changes for the last half century have been effected, and who does not behold in these, but the precursors of yet greater, now in [blurred - 3 letters]bryn, and ready to burst upon the world! Can a Christian be an idle spectator of these great events? Shall he be assailed, and not contend earnestly for the faith, once delivered to the saints? No, the example of his master, and the blood of martyrs - urge him on and nerve his arm for the contest.
The scriptures assure us that there is a period to arrive when the kingdoms of this world are to become the kingdoms of the Lord and his Christ; and until that time, the true church will have to battle with the powers of darkness. The Lord has ever had faithful witnesses of the truth. The stone cut out of the mountain without hands, has never been put back, but yet continues and, is gradually swelling to that mountain which [2 words blurred] the world. - The true gospel, then, has not been lost since the days of the apostles, and been reserved for a modern adventurer to hunt out, and re-produce in its purity to the world. Though persecution in all its diabolical terrors has pursued it, yet it exists - the bush, though in flames, has not been consumed.
For several years past, Baptists have heard the cry of REFORM! REFORM!! And for what? They have never worshipped the beast, nor acknowledged the authority of mystical Babylon. They were never identified with any of the great ecclesiastical tyrannies that have scourged mankind. But on the contrary, they have suffered much for them, and it is presumable, that they, therefore, inherited no great partiality to them. They had been a poor, persecuted people in every age, and in every country, until they found shelter under the government of independent America. But the cry of reform was heard. A crusade against almost every sentiment the Baptist[s] cherished, and for which, many of them, in other times, had suffered martyrdom, was commenced. Great has been the confusion, and serious the divisions that have been made among them. They have been charged with almost every corruption that ever disgraced the name of religion. Many, it is true, have left their ranks; but a far greater number has been added to them. They have come unscarred from the contest. Like pure metal, they are burnished and made pure by the crucible.
They can now pause and look around them upon that which was attempted to be forced upon them. What before they only knew in theory, they can now see and contemplate as developed in practice. The beauties of that golden scheme are now in successful operation. We can now behold them unadorned by any of those gaudy habilaments, that your declamation once threw around them. - Let us then pause and consider the Baptists and their reformers, and see in what respects the principles of the latter are preferable to those of the former; and whether, indeed, the Baptists are very culpable for rejecting the boon that was, with such zeal and pertinacity urged upon them.
At the commencement of your career, you lectured much upon the pernicious effects of sectarianism. Your object, you said, was to destroy it. It was a noble design, a laudable pursuit. Long have pious persons prayed for the time when Christians should see eye to eye. But have you succeeded? - Has the munster fallen? Are there fewer sects? Nay, is there not a new sect, COMPOSED OF YOURSELVES? Startle not, my friend. I hope to show you that you are as much characterized by sectarian principles as others.
What then do we understand by the word sect? - It literally imports separated, and means in the acceptation applied to religious persons, a body of people distinct, by some peculiarities, from others, so that they may be distinguished and known by an appropriate name. Are you not a separate body? - Are you not united and distinct from others? - Have you not characteristic traits? No peculiarities, by which you may be distinguished from others? Yes, verily, let me fall in company with one of you upon the highway - he may be a stranger - let the subject of religion be introduced; and ere he utters five sentences I will know who he is. His phraseology is peculiar. He talks of reformation - the ancient order of things of entering the kingdom by immersion, &c. Le me enter a meeting house. A man is speaking from the pulpit. He is describing scrap preachers, ridiculing a call to the ministry, and the operations of the Spirit; he sports with the idea of being pardoned or regenerated before immersion he tells us that God has done all that he intends to do in giving us the scriptures, that in order to the remission of sins a person must believe, reform, and be immersed INTO the name of the Lord. Need I hear any more to ascertain to what sect he belongs? Can you not recognize him by the description? Is he not a brother?
I go to another place; a regular Baptist is preaching. I look around the congregation. I see persons here and there with their books open - others with paper and pencil, taking notes. I perceive them occasionally wink and smile at each other. I overhear them say, how he perverts the scriptures by taking a scrap - he should say reform instead of repent; I think the New Translation best, in saying a Son of God, instead of the Son, &c. &c. It is enough. I know who they are.
Yes, as I recognize a foreigner by his brogue; as there are peculiarities of speech by which I am enabled to know an Irishman, a Scotchman, or a Dutchman, when I meet him, so it is with you reformers. Your speech betrays you. Your language is clannish - none use it but yourselves; and its uniformity among you is surprising. No matter from where you come; from the east or from the west, from the north or from the south, you are studious in avoiding any expressions not strictly in accordance with the Bethany Vocabulary. Rarely, very rarely, do I hear one of you say, Sunday or Sabbath, but the first day of the week; or Lord's day. Nor do I ever hear one of you speak of communion, or sacrament, but the breaking of the loaf. Such ungracious expressions, as Gospel of St. Matthew, St. Mark, &c. never escape you; but the testimony of Matthew Levi, of John Mark, &c. - You are shocked at the sound of the word church, and tell us we should say congregation. You have slipped your metaphysical scissors between the kingdom of heaven and the reign of heaven, and with great gravity, assure us that in some place of the scriptures we should use the former, and in others, the latter expression. Now, my dear sir, admitting most of these expressions to be correct, are not the others equally so? What difference is there but in the sound? Do they not, when rightly construed, mean the same thing? Why then, use different words, but to be distinct? You smile at the simplicity of the [2 words blurred] for saying yea and nay, instead of yes and no; but can you give better reasons for many of your new terms than they? I should like to hear you try.
I am not conscious of a trait, by which others may be called sectarian, but will apply equally to yourselves. Do you profess to be guided solely by the scriptures? The Baptists, that you stigmatize as a sect, say that they are the only infallible rule of faith and practice. Do you esteem yourselves based on the ancient order of things? So do the Baptists. Are you sure that you are right? Many a Baptist has died at the stake, rather than surrender his principles.
I pronounce you, then a sect. Your conversation, your teaching, your behaviour, all are chartcteristic. They are obvious to the most common capacity, All that hear you, know you. All that see you, and observe your actions, know where to class you. No one can mistake you. The individual seen walking demurely through our towns, with his frock coat, and broad rimmed hat, and who answers you with a yea or a nay, is not sooner recognized than one of you, when ever you enter into conversation. If these things (were there no other) are not sufficient to show that you are a sect, then, indeed, have you accomplished more than you expected; - you have not only destroyed sectarianism, but proven that such a thing never existed. Why, then, stigmatize others as sectarian, and you yourselves are obnoxious to the same censure? Why "pull motes out of your brother's eye, and behold, a beam in your own eye?"
========= [From the Tennessee Baptist, June 2, 1855, p. 2. From CD of microfilm copy. Transcribed and formatted by Jim Duvall.]
More on John L. Waller
Baptist History Homepage