Newspapers / The Biblical Recorder (Raleigh, … / Aug. 9, 1855, edition 1 / Page 1
Part of The Biblical Recorder (Raleigh, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
I? 0) D) T TfP A J. J. J A 'ICS, Editor. 3tD0leb to Itcligi0n, noraiita, ' literature, Sigr Culture anb (Sctural, Sfuielligmce. 4r VOLUME XL HO. 32. .7 - t . RALEIGH, N. C, THURSDAY; AUGUST 0, 1855.' I.WHOLE m. 1172 Stt . THE BIBLICAL RECORDER, A Religious and Literary Paper: Published weekly at Raleigh, N. C, at $2 00 per annam, payable in all cases is advance. , ! S?" All letters oa business should be directed to G. Meredith & Co., Raleigh, .N. C. s v ? All letters containing communications, or in ... any way relating to the editorial department, should be addressed to Her. J. J. Jaxes, or "Editor of the Biblical Recorder. : '- . ' " ' : . jaf All communications, to insure attention, must be directed to Raleigh, N. C post-paid. ; : ;; ' For further particulars see last page., r THE LAW OF NEWSPAPERS.' I Subscribers who do not give express notice to ; the contrary are considered wishing to continue their , subscription. . ' ' ". " " 2. If. the subscribers order the discontinuance of their papers,' the publishers may continue to send them till all cash charges are paid. 3. If subscribers neglect or refuse to take their pa pers from the office to which they are directed, they are held responsible until they have settled their bill, and order their paper discontinued. ; i - : 4. If subscribers remove to other, places without niprming the publisher, and the paper is sent to the lormer direction, they are held responsible. : ' 5. The courts have decided that refusing to take a paper or periodical from the office, or removing and leaving it uncalled for, is "prima facie" evidence of intentional fraud. . . , , . ". , "' '- ' ; J Tbe Comparative Influence. ' r & Baptist and Pedobaptist .Principles in the. Christian nutitre of Children, by Rev. F. Wilson Editor ef The True Union. The christian nature of children ! What subject can be more important or interesting to parents, to teachers, and to the whole com-, inanity ? Children are the hope of the world. Aroand them cluster .the tenderest affections!, the warmest desires, the brighiesF anticipations while, by their comparative innocence,' their confiding trustfulness, their susceptibility, to good and evil impressions, and the momentous consequences which must result from their ear ly training, they plead for such a nurture as will best secure ? their earthly happiness and their immortal bliss. The claims of society, ; and the promptings of affection,-unite with the . divine command to make it a sacred duty to 'bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." That religious system, therefore, which pre sents ihe strongest motives, and the most effec tual means for discharging : this duty, must ne cessarily offer the greatest attractions to parents and teachers. This honor has been earnestly claimed for the doctrine which introduces in " fints to baptism and membership in Christ's " church. It has laid its firmest foundations in this appeal to parental love. Poetry has in vested the hallowed scenes of infant dedication with the sweetest fascinations. Eloquence has lent its charms to increase the beauty of tho rite, and to cast odium upon those who have boenjfalsely charged with forbidding children to come to Christ by forbidding, their baptism,' Says one writer: The baptism ot children, sealing their covenant relation to God, as mem bers of his visible church, is a most sacred rite, which all; christian" parents should gratefully appreciate; not merely as a religious ceremony, but I as a - most precious privilege, and one fraught, if duly improved, with blessings as im perishable at the sou, and as lasting as eterni ty. Dr.' Pay son has a sermon on the ' Children of the Covenavt, the Saviour's 'first care;' and Dr. Rushnell speaks of Christ as, in baptism, "bringing children tenderly into bis fold;' and then asks, "Is it worthy of your tender ness, as a christian parent, to leave them out side of the fold when the gate is open, only taking cars to go in yourself?" These and similar sentiment? are constantly echoed by Pedobaptist preachers. Baptists, on the contrary, are stigmatized as "leaving children unrecognized and unprovided for," abandoning them to "tho uneovenanted mercies of God," ; or - as "telling (the church: - that after she has given existence, and the egg -of immortality is produced, her motherly duty is to copy the instinct of the Nubian Ostrich,! and leave it" hidden in the sand:".. a. libel, of which its author, Dr. Bushncll, ought to be a shamed. Were this" true, we should not com plain of the prejudice which it kindles against, us; nor could we blame the multitude who re- - ject with horror a system which so rudely con fiigned their children to neglect and ruin. A doctrine cannot be scriptural which brings forth such evil fruits. But false and unjust as it is, we cannot remain . silent. We believe that this dangerous weapon can be wrested from Ihe hands of our opponents, and employed against their own principles; and it will be our present design to show that Baptist principles appeal more strongly Jo the Christian heart, and offer to the child more powerful motives to win him early to Christ, than those of Pedobaptists. 1. It will be necessary first to state distinct ly the difference between tho two opposing the-t - ones, as we have been grossly misrepresented bv men whose piety and learning nught to have . saved them from bearing false witness " Dr. Bushnell says: "The Baptist tells -, the child that nothing but sin can be expected of him;" ."presumes that he will not grow up a believer;", that he is to "row up in sin, to be converted when he comes to the age of maturity;" and ho intimates that ours is "a type of religion which approaches strict, individualism, 'which practi cally hangs all power and progress on 'adult . conversions.' " " V ' --.; ' V " " This is altogether a mistake. -The Baptists limit the work"of the Holy Spirit to no age. 'They believe that all - who die' in infancy are regenerated by grace, and saved through Christ, and that those who live may, in the very dawn of their moral being yield their - tender hearts to Jesus. Numerous instances of this charac ter are fouud in Baptist families; and as a min- , ister once said, when baptizing one of these lambs of Christ, "there is a kind of infant bap tism we practise, the baptism of infant believ I ers." ':-::f. ': ,y Bat we dare not "presume" either thata child is or '-'will be a Christian, without eyi- - dence; and therefore, we dare not apply to him a rite "by which," S3 the Methodist Discipline teaches, "Christians are distiEguished from others who are net bajlized.11 The rllZeresce is si :;1y this: TL3li3pt:t3 jre-rc ; ;. " ; ' ,-- A - - - IT! Izi'.J.z r. I...!; 1.. : :? t3 llh vl change cf hur l. TLa tapti' regeneration by the Holy Spirit alone can fit any human being for a place in God's kingdom on earth or in heaven: Without this, outward forms are a useless mockery; with it, a delight ful privilege. Tley requiting first the conver sion of the heart to God; after that, obedience to external ordinances. "Wherever good evi dences of such conversion; appear, whether in the little child or x tbe 'grey-haired sinner, they gladly administer baptism, but not until then.. The Pedobaptist theory is (he reverse of this. Whatever variations there may be among them they all agree, thai the children of believers are either f 'born members -of the church, or are "made members by baptism,"; without faith,' without conversion, without any evidence; of regeneration. : With us, personal tkaracter is the only good title to baptism and church-mem-' bership; with them, the accident of their birth in the fieh is the title. ; With us, living piety, real consecration if their hearts to God, if the first thing we seek for our children; with them, baptism, a dead form an outward consecration of the body, is the first thing. ' . ' II. We will proceed now ta exhibit tho prac tical tendency of their opposite theories. And first, we remark that the Pedobaptist has no advantage' 'oyt the Baptist, in training his 'children. C'V ' Notwithstanding all the boasted privileges of the baptized child, of which we hear so much, they vanish into air on examination: V We ar gue not now with those who believe that a few drops of water on the forehead of an uncon scious babe, regenerates its soul, and who, very consistently, like the Banner of the new birth :as an experience to be known ; by certain agns! , and impressions, and; style it "a. perfectly . efcocking system of delusions !" Most Protes tants agree with tis larejectmg this absurd no tion of the Papists and Puseyite,rwLioh'n2kes baptism 'a rite of christian magio. But if it does not regenerate the child, of what advantage' is u? ;r ,vt;;i;- ' Both parties must admit, that so far as hu man instrumentallity is concerned, tbe char acter of the child must depend entirely upon its training, including in this not only instruc tion, but parental example and guidance. .The beauty of holiness exhibited in the daily life of the family, is the most efficient teacher. Much ; also depends upon the religious doctrines in stilled into the mind in the tender hours of childhood. They will never be forgotten, but will spring up in after years, either as the tree of life, shedding health and fragrance upon -ihe soul, or as the poisonous upas, distilling death. Truth only. can bene6t tbe child, but error will inflict irreparaple injury. - Now,' tbe great doctrines of the Bible held by evangelical Pedobaptists, are the same with those of the Baptists; and, if their respective I systems interpose no barrier to the purity, faith, fulness with which those c doctrines are taught, then it is plain that they ware at least equal in this respect. There is nothing b the Baptist theory to prevent the pious mother from teach ing her little ones the touching stories of the Bible, the wondrous urama of the Cross noth ing to keep her ft om leading them to bow the knee in prayer, and ; lisp the sweet name of Jesus, to go to the Sabbath School and house of God, and, in every way, to receive the best religious instruction. There is nothing in it to prevent, but everything (as we shall see presently) to encourage parents and teachers by kind words, holy tempers, and affectionate, gentle manners,' to win the. children into the path of peace. .What single means of religious training is the Baptist deprived of, which any other man possesses? We cannot even imagine one. r Where now are the vaunted privileges of the "baptized children?" In the words of Noel "In no respect do they differ ; from the unbap tized, except that the first bear a name which, by itself, is delusive and worse than worthless!" Calling children "Christians," will not make them so; introducing them into the church on earth, will not insure them entrance into ' hea ven. If it did, we could not hasten too eager ly to affix the wonder-working Vseal of the covenant,1 which would open the celestial gates for our dear offspring; but heaven is not so cheaply obtaiued ; i ; y pi r - 1' . -M. : : Having thus shown that the .Pedobaptist has no advantage over tbe Baptist, we now advance a step and remark that the ic verse is true; that the Baptist principles have decided advantages over those of their opponents.' The Teligious education of a child depends " principally upon two things the peculiar doctrines taught, and the tenderness, earnestness, and prayerful spirit with which they are taught. ' That system is undeniably the best which presents divine truth in its purest form, to the young mind and which tends to kindle in the parent's heart the most intense anxiety for the conversion of his children. In both these respects, we believe the Baptist theory superior to the other. In tbe instruction given to the child, all e vangelical christians agree in the following great truths. That man is a lost sinner; that "Christ crucified" is bisoniy Saviour." That to be saved, he must be born again" by tho Holy Ghost; he must believe in Jesus, and con sent to be saved by grace alone, and not byt works. These are the, simple yet grand doc--trines which must be felt and : embraced with , the heart by the little child, as well as by the adult, ere it can rejoice in the Redeemer's love. The lovliest children who have ever i gladdened the earth with, the sweet blossoms and rich fruit of their youthful piety, have been such as most deeply felt their sinfulness, and their need of a Saviour. ;V ' ' " The great point, then, to be aimed at, in the religious instruction of children, is to bring them in penitence and contrition to tbe Cross, j the blood of the Lamb may be applied by faith to wash away the pollution and guilt of sin. They must be taught , that they are sinners, that they are lost, and that no human efforts nothing but the atonement of Jesus Christ can save them. Now, we are far from intimating that many pious Pedobaptists' do not thus teach th'iir children. They undoubtedly holdthesa views, and in most cases, we trust, "inculcate them. But vre da maintain that tho tendency of infant baptis-n is ta trca tne force of the?3 solemn trulV.s urea tl.2 child's heart, to ::A it to re- c:? ...... :i 1.3 r: 1 i. r i ... .1 t r1 i J v. X It LmLcj ii Lui-.il.n. rc luire ments of the gospel, and snatches at every frail straw within, us reach, before it will seek safe ty in the ark opened by Divine grace. One such crumbling straw is j placed by the Pedo baptist theory in tbe hands of every baptized child. An opiate is administered by this cere mony to lull to sleep the awakened conscience,: and to make it feel that its condition is not, after all, so very dangerous that it is not altogether oi,but in a much safer state than the unbaptized. 1 . i This is no vaia assertion. It is proved by the Catechisms and Confessions of Faith used in tbe ' instruction of those children,! and by many lamentable facts.: I ' ; : ' . . ; , In the catechism of the Protestant Episco- pal Church, the second answer which the child is taught to repeat, contains the words: "bap tism,! to herein I to a made a member of Christ the child of God, and an inJieritor of the king' dom of heaven!" ; If any child believes this absurd statement it cannot possibly feel its need of faith in Christ.- j It is safe already, and and cannot ask "what shall Tdo to be saved?" It is effectually shielded against the -arrows of conviction, and made to cry peace peace, when there iano peace.' i.Tv-l-'--;.- ; In the Heidelberg Catechism, (of the Re . formed Dutch Church,) , the child U taught thus.f-Ques. 74: "Are infants also 'tobo bap tized?", Ans. " ITes For 6ince they as well as the adult; are included in the covenant and . Church of God, and since redemtion from sin by the blood of Christ and the Holy' Ghost, . the author of faith , is promised to them , no less than to the adult; they must, therefore, by baptism, as a - sign of the covenant j. be also admitted into I the; Christian Church, and be distinguished from the children of Infildes,t-c." In the same catechism, (Ques. 54,) the child js taught to say "that the Son of God from 'the fcegining to the end of the world, gathers, defends and piesrrc5 unto himself by bis Spi rit and word, out of tue wholamanl race, a church chosen to everlasting life, agrCc;! in true faith; and that lam, and evef shallrcmaih a living member thereof . It would require anj understanding much more acute than that of a child, to see how an individual, already "a living member of the church of God, chosen to everlasting life," can need repentance or faith, or any other spiritual change, to make its prospects for heaven more secure. How could that, child dream of flee ing from "the wrath to j come," or feel any concern whatever about its salvation? Could there.be a more effectual means devised, than such instruction, to make it feel perfectly satis, fied with its condition, although truly "without hope, and without God m the world?" The Augsburg Confession of the Lutheran church J teaches, that baptism ought to be ad ministered to children, who are ; thereby dedi cated to God, and received into his favor." Art ix. Concluded next Issue. i From the Chronicle and Sentinel. j Religious Liber ly Lord Baltimore To the Hon. A. II. Stephens : Dear Sir : In a' speech recently made by you in the city of Augusta, I perceive that you refer to Lord Baltimore, the ' Catholic founder of Maryland, as having been the first to es tablish a government on the principle of reli gious freedom, on thfe continent. "H I beg leave respectfully to join issue with you on this statement, and that for two reasons: First, because it gives credit to one who does not deserve it. Second, because it takes away that credit from" one who does deserve it. Lord Baltimoro was not the first to found a free government, but he never founded such an. one at ill; nor did any of his successors who inher ited his titles. ? The pioneer in the cause of religious liberty, was not a Catholic, but a Bap tist ; not Lord Baltimore, but Roger Williams, the founder of Rhode Island. - . . :, . Whatever might have been the intentions of Lord Baltimore or the favorable disposition of the King, there was no guarantee in the charter, nor indeed the least hint of any tolera tion in religion, not authorized by the law of I Kngland." H ildreth's U .1 vol. -1 , p. 208. ) Nor was the earliest legislation of Maryland at all more creditable. The!4 vaunted clause" for; liberty, extended only : to professed chris tians, end was introduced by the proviso, "that whatsoever person shall blaspheme God or shall cfcny or reproach the Holy2Vt7it7y, or any of tho three persons thereof, shall bo punished with death.1 -Bancroft's U. S., vol. , 1., p. 256. . From this we perceive that Jews, now a numerous and s respectable portion of our population, and Unitarians, who constitute per haps the . controlling element in Ijew England : Society, to say nothing of our Chinese citizens, 'of whom there are now some thousands, were all liableunder this boasted free government,' to the penalty of tho axe or of : the halter.--- Say 8 the histoiian first quoted : ".The firsts four sections of this celebrated act (the so-: called Toleration Act) exhibit but little of a tolerant spirit. Death, with forfeiture of land and goods, is denounced against all who shall J . - i deny our Saviour Jesus Christ to be the Son of God, or shall de-f ny the Trinity. Fine, whipping and ; banish- ment, , for the third offence ; are , denounced f against . all who ; shall utter any reproachful words or speeches concerning. the blessed Tlr gin Mary, or the. Holy Aposllt or Evange-l . isi.' Hildreth, voL 1., p. .347, ThU Jsl contained in an act " derived in substance" if not in ' very words from - Lord Baltimore's ; drafts, ditto supra. This act did indeed, but carry out a policy co eval with the settle ment of the colony" Hildretb, vol. l.,p. 343, and was confirmed by the oath administered to the first governor, which provided -for the reli gious protection of nom but those who believ ed in Jesus Christ. Bancroft, vol. 1., p. 247. This was in 1649. A few years later, their legislation was even more intolerant ; in 1663 those who refused to have their children bap tized, were subjected to a fine of 2000 pounds of tobacco. Hildreth, vol. 1., p. 519. And even as late as 1714 persons expressing certain religious "': opinions, were liable to have their tongues bored through, and be fined 20. Hildreth, vol. -II., p.. 224. True, tho exam ples last quote 1 are natters with whic'i t! i first Lord IJiI:;-:-?ra 111 nothsr. to do, I. ; - I very early in tie history cf tho co-;r, :ry ; I "I tbey serve to illustrata tla spirit of LlarjLJ 1 institutions and are not incompatible with the 3 quotation from the charter itself : "No person original charter,' : ' ' , ' ; . i within said colony shall be molested, punished, 'f?If is"1' worthy j ?of wmark-Yarihennej'that; .disquieted, or, called m quesUo for any differr whatever of right or wrong there maybe in thQ ences of, opinion in matters of religion, who does charter or legislation of Maryland, Catholics not, actually disturb the civil peace j but that in such are to be neither applauded rior cen- all and every, person and persons may at all; sured for tho same, for a vastmajority of the times 'freely and fully have and enjoy hisand, population were Protestants (Bancroft, 11.454, their own judgements and consciences in mat and Hilt. 1. 565,) and their charter was gran- ; ters of religious concernments, they behaving tea I rem a Protestant crown, ine catholics r, had the best of all possible reasons for being in favor of toleration, for in Maryland or in Eng land, they were alike liable to persecution from L.I the dominant pattyr Indeed, they; were once or twice disfranchised on the very soil whither they had fied to escape disfranchisemenc v ; I'U it.i itl-t.11 conception of soul liberty" had ever occurred 1 to the mind of either .the first Lord Baltimore J . lucre is nu nauuu vu iuuuuso luat lob iuu or any ox. an ure . Buccessorv. , iv was noi i toleration but supremacy, for which. Catholics arid Puritans alike sought, while the Church1 ofj England for the maintenance, of her own su premacy, struggled equally ; against both." " Hild 1, 104: u Policy, it is .evident had as much larger share in the enactment of this act. (the Toleration Act,) than any enlkhtened i view of the rights i of opbion, of which, indeed. $ it evinces but a very limited and confused idea.. Now, that the puritans were triumphant m , New nrland; an exclusive Catholic colonv ?: would not have been tolerated for a moment. . i l ne sole cnance oi securing to uatboacs tbe ( quiet enjoyment of their faith, consisted in be stowing a like liberty on the Protestants a policy indeed upon which Lord Baltimore had found it necessary to. act from ; the very first planting of ; tbe colony. Hild. I, 348. The I italics are not those of the historian,; V v Such, my dear sir, is the testimony Of histo- f rv. with - regard to the much boasted freedom t ,of; the government instituted by the.'Catholio founder of Maryland. I know that historians, j and even those from whom I have . quoted, catching tbe, popular breath, sometimes speak ! of him , as; the first to establish religious liber- ' tyVr but these very historians modify these ex- ! pressions, ah indeed cancel them, by narrating j the facts above set forth facts which invali date his claims and tnosspf all bis successors. Whatever laudations may txjiodulged ; in by those disposed to favor- Lord Baltimore, their own evidence when sifted,' will show tbattbere is but little harmony between their applausb-r and the, facts to which they testify. ; The following account of Roger Williams on the other hand, will show that he under stood the theory of religious liberty, in all its plenituda and glory p as well at that early peri od as the most enlightened of the present day. He protested that " magistrates are but the agents of the people, or its trustees, on whom no spiritual power in matters of. worship can ever be conferred ;', l that their power extends only to the bodies and goods and outward es tate of men. Ban. 1.371. ."In the capacious recesses of his mind, he had revolved the na ture of intolerance, and he and he alone, had arrived at the great principle, which is its sole effectual remedy. He announced hb discove . ry under the simple proposition of sanctity of conscience.;-: ihe civil magistrate should res train crime, but never control opinion, should punish guilt, but never violate the freedom of the soul. The doctrine contained within itself an entire reformation of theological jurispru dence ; it would blot from the statute book the felony of non-conformity ; would quench the fires that persecution had so long kept burn ing ; would repeal every law compelling atten dance on publicworship ; would abolish tithes and all forced contributions to tbe main tenance of religion ; would give an equal protection to every form of religious faiih ; would never suffer the authority, of the civil government to be enlisted against the mosquev of the Mussulman, or the altar of the fire-worshipper, against the, Jewish Synagogue or the Roman Cathedral. In the unwavering as sertion of these views, Roger Williams never changed bis position ; the sanctity of conscience was the great tenet which with all its conse- ' quehces he defended as he first trod the shores ot xx ew .ngiana, ana in nis extreme oia age it was the last pulsation of . his heart- Ban croft, 1, 367-8. . ; " - ljT tt " He was the first person in moderiTchris tendom, to assert in its plenitude the doctrine of freedom of conscicnco, the. equality of opin-. vions before the law ; and in its defence, he Was the harbinger of Milton, the precursor and superior ot jeremy Aayior. uancrois, j, no., The voice of Williams in favor of liberty was heard in New 'England in 1631 : which was before Lord: Baltimore's patent was granted ; when Milton was but 28 years of age, and 1 ay lor but 18. i Williams great idea of what he called " soul liberty was ' at that time, saya Hildreth, wholly novel" vol. I, p. 223.; Nov el indeed it may have been, outsiae of the little Baptist world . but there were many "of that. ; faith and order besides Williams, . who ; were imbued with1 the spirit of liberty. . Indeed, it was not Williams who produced the Baptists ; the Baptists produced him. They were not the exponent of his views, but be of theirs.- Said tbe poeple of Rhode Island, in their . in structions to him, when be rent to England to1 apply to Charles II. for a charter, plead our case in such sort as we may not be compelled to exercise any civil power over men's con sciences ; we do not judge it no less than a point of absolute cruelty."- These instructions "are printed in Mass. Hist-y Colh xvii. 85. " The document,", says Bancroft, is of the highest interest ; no learning nor skill in rhetoric could have mended it." 11. 61. , 44 Freedom of con science, unlimited freedom of mind, was from the first the trophy of the Baptists'? ditto II, 66 They applied tbe doctrine of tbe Ref ormation to the social relations of life and threatened an end to King-craft, spiritual do miuion, tithes and vassalage. ' The party was trodden under foot with reproaches and most arrogant scorn ; and its history is written in the blood of myriads of the German peasantry ; but its prirciples, safe in their immortality, escaped with Roger Williams to Providence ; and bis colony is the witness that naturally the paths of the Baptists were paths of freedom, pleasant ness and peace." Ban. II. 459. In the gov ernment cf Rhode Island, Freedom of faith cud worship was assured to all, the first for- r I r 1 :- -tat!;2-!;acr.t cf rcl'-iocs liberty rvrr ttociu! 1. whether ia Austrica cr L.U- rc . HUJrcta 1. ZZ3. lit f T1 .w 1 using this libertjjto licentiousness and profane ness, nor to the civil injury and outward distur-; bance of others.? - " The charter did not limit freedom to Christian sects alone; it granted equal rights to the paynira and Uie worshipper ot Fo."X-Ban. II. 63. In discussing this question, many seem- to take it for granted that the government, both f Maryland and Rhode Island,'- were really "ut uc puiut io do ueciaeu, relates only to priority of time. This is not the trae issue. It is not n question of time, fas between i these two claimants) put a question of fact. I I have shown that the government of Lord Bal- timore was not free , and that of Villiams was.' Allow; me, Mr. Stephens to sav in concln- 8l0D that if the casual allusion referred to, you have erred, 1 believe you have not done bo in- tentionally. ; I know enough of y opt character . to eei sure tnat you would in no case wilfully misrepresent, and that if vou have inadvertent- ly done so, no one will be more ready to rectify the matter than yourself. Your, speech .will. probabjy be read by tens of thousands, and the wrong impression made by your remark must be very general. " People confiding in. your habitual-accuracy; will be the' more disposed, to rely on your statements, and will thus be more easily misled. Nor is it a trifling 'matter. There are in the State of Georgia some seven- iy or eigpry loousana mptiscs, actual comma nicants, to say nothing of their friends and ad- herents,all of whom are, more or less interes- ted in the point at issue. I know that you do not w!SQito do the denomination injusticel by denying its lawful claims to honorable distino- tion, and to the gratitude of the world I con- ndently believe, therefore, that you will second ; the effort that I have made, so to place this maimer uciore iue puDiic, as mat all may be able to " give honor to whom bouor is due. I will only say further, that I express nei ther approval nor disapproval of any sentiment or statement in your speech other than the one vabove discussed. Being a Minister of the trcJgpel, I deem it incompatible with my pro fession take any active part in politics, and hereby utterly disclaim any public connection with the same in any way whatever. . . The point in questiorx-being purely historical, and one of great interest to the denomicution" of Christians to i which I belogy.comeaquite le- t gitimately within my sphere With great respect, I am, sir. f V" Your obedient servant, . . H.H.TUCKER. r LaG range, Ga., June 14th, 1855 Lord Baltimore Roger. Williams. Cbawfordviixe, Ga., June 25th, 55. To Rev. H. H. TucJker, La Grange :. j ' . Dear Sir: I have seen your letter .address ed to me in the Chronicle & Sentinel of the 22d inst., which seems to look for an answer, and in sending itl j shall resort to the same medium of communication adopted, by yourself. The issue you joiti with me about Lord Baltimore amounts to nothing. What I said in my speech in Augusta is strictly true, as I understand the history of the country.!. The Catholic colony of Maryland, , organised under the auspices of Lord Baltimore was the first ' to establish -the principle I of free: toleration in religious worship" on I this continent. What you say; of Roger; Williams is equally true. : He was the - first champion of , the principle. . He proclaimed the principle as early as 1631 perhaps earlier ; . and for his. own religious opinions was driven from Massachusetts ; in 65' or '66. He may be considered the founder of tho colonv of Rhode Island, which . j contained in its charter granted some years af ter a guaranty that " none were to be molest ed for any difference of opinion ' in religious matters.' But the colony of Maryland, where this principle was established "and protection . afforded to all persecuted sects elsewhere,- was founded in 1 634, before Williams r left Massa chusetts. Williams is entitled to the honor of being the first to advocate and proclaim the principle a$ an individual. For this lhave re peatedly given him full credit in my speeches. '. - But the ? colony was the first to establish and give practical effect to the principle in her civil polity.; In making this statement, it was not' my purpose to do the least injustice to Wil liams, whose same should ; be held in ; sacred; remembrance, nor was, it my purpose thereby! to become the . defender; of Romanism', as some (not ybusir,) are pleased to stile -me, but to defend that same principle; whichRo- gar Williams deserves so" much honor for -being the first to proclaim that " soul Lttcr-1 - ly," as he called it, which he was the first great -apostle of in modern times, which now lies at the foundation of our happy institutions, and - which the Catholic: on this continent, so far? from being opposed to, (aa far as I have knowl-1 edge touching their views,) , were tha first to i adopt. My object was not to defend or assail any aect or any faith, but to defend in its puri ty real Americanism against bogus American ism. ... Yours most respectfully, ? . ' , ' 4 Alkxander H. Stephens. , Lord Baltimore Afjaia., Eton. A. H. Stephens ; . : , ; . Dear' Sir : You were right in supposing : that any former ' communication, controverting . jour statement in reference to Lord Baltimore, looked for an answer." ; 1 did look for an answer I still look for onei You tell me that the issue between us " amounts to nothing."--What it 14 amounts to," is just this : Did Lord Baltimore establish religious toleration on this continent ! You tfUrm that he did, and: that be was the first to do it. I deny that he ever did it at all. ; Whether this issue amounts to ncthin," an intelligent publio : will decide, or probably has already decided. The same trib unal will also decido whether this summary way cf ci.'pcsicg cf an i::u sr'tir.si cither &b II I ity or willingness tor.:ct it fairly. ' In my former letter, assaying tbe 3 CNCS pr.o- dandi, wbich properly belcrei to you, end not to me, (thus giving you ca a iva-i: -3 ia wem seives peaceaDiy-ana quietly, ; ana - not showed that the , colony of Marjhzl, V - a,) I Lord i Baltimore, did not establish nl!;':3 freedom. ' I quoted from the so called " Tcb ration Act" itself, and showed ia "the "very words of the Act, that death wa3 the penalty of expressing certain religious opinions. - How have you met me on this point ? Simply by asserting that the Catholic colony of Mary land under Lord Baltimore, was the first to es tablish the principle of free toleration ia reli gious worship." : - What does this " amount to ?" Is your assertion to bo balanced dast the Legislative records of the" country ? The, readers of the Chronicle St Sentinel" will de-: cide. 4 In order that they may the better esti ' mate the value of the two, I will place them in parallel columns: ... . I "--, A. H. Stimhim.; The Catholic colony of Maryland, organized ; Laws .oLunriAJTO. Denying the Holy Trinity is to be punished under the auspices of with death, and confisca tion of land and goods to , Lord Baltimore, was the first to , establish the the Liord Proprietary (Lord "principle or fre tolera-' Baltimore himself!) Per tion - in religioas 'wor ship on hi .continent., sons using any reproach- tul words concerning the Blessed Virgin Mary or the ' Holy Apostles or Evange lists, to be fined 5, or in default of payment to te ;; " The colony of Ma ryland afforded prfttec tion '. to all persecuted Sects." -W-z-i':: " What I aid .in Au- publicly whipped and im- frn erf st vii atrintlw nta B w N . J HUVl uprisoned at the pleasure of - his Lordship, Lord . Ealti- -mere- himself f or of his -Lien tenant General,' See Laws of Maryland at large, by Tt Bacon, A. D. 1765. 18 and 17 Cecill ia Lord. Baltimore. if :. .v. This act dated 21st April, 1 849. whea Lord Baltimore was on the xenith of his power, and was copied in substance, if not in very words, from drafts written by nis Lordship's own hand. (Hild. I, 847.) Now sir, I know that your ingenuity is truly remarkable, but if you will reconcile the statements in. these parallel col-, umns, and thus show that 4 what you said in Augusta 'was strictly true," I think you will achieve for yourself a new reputation, which will be to what you already enjoy, as " another morn, risen on midnoon." But if you fail to : reconcile them, you must not think that your reputation for accuracy, on which alone you seem to rely, will sustain you. An intelligent people will take the mere soy so of no man, when it flatly denies such a record as is above adduced! y If religious toleration was,41 establiihed" in"'' ' Maryland, it must have been done by law. I call on you to point me, to that law. The tnere ipse dixit of those who professing to write his tory, interlard their statements of facts with . inferences and notions , falsely deduced from . themjwilljiojt doi-i.heijjbest jvidaifi. tba t -the 'nature of the icase admits of, is tho , only evidence " tht the court of , public opin 1 ion will receive. Nothing but the document , i which established religious freedom in Maryland nnder. Lord Baltimore, will, meet the demand i rightfully made upon you. - . .. i nen a statesman occupying a position as 'prominent as your own, makes assertions im j portant in their bearings, which are openly con- i tro verted, it is but due to himself, (allow me ' respectfully to suggest,) as well as to his con stituents and the public generally, that he should either retract those statements, or prove them ,to be true. ; Jn this case, you have not done the former, nor bavo you eveu made an attenipt to attempt it. ' I hope the , issue now, amounts "something.' I perceive that in your communication to me, .; you make a mistake of some 80 years in your chronology ; but as the error may have been typographical, I ; gave you the benefit of the ; doubt though as the; error occurs twice, tho probabilities would seem t be against you. 1 I must repeat what j I said in my former let- tor, that the issue id not one of dates. If you " will show that 'Maryland, under Lord Balti- " ; more, ,wasrr a free government, either before - Rhode Island or after,' you will meet the issua satisfactory. ' Youmay show th& invitation of Lord Baltimore to Puritans and Episcopa lians But this invitation "established" noth ing. , And even if it did, yet, as the parties in vited were both in power one in New Eng land and tbe other in Old England the in vita tion can avail you nothing, unless you show ' that it extended also to parties not in power ' to Quakers, Baptists, Jews, and in your own language to uaU persecuted sects. " Allow me to sayin conclusion, that if I have spoken to you plain things in a plain way, and -defied your statements especially, it has not been my intention in so doing to be nncourteous. Nothing could be further from my .wish. Year irotracted experience at the Bar, has doabtbss ong since taught you, that parties on opposite sides of a question, do. not necessarily lose their respect and esteem for each other. I make these ' apologetic remarks, therefore, not for your sake, for i know you would not reOjUire them ; but for the sake of tho non-professional reader and ... those uninitiated in the customs of debate, who -might do me the injustice to suppose, tkit wbit ; 1 intended only for emphasis, is done ia f3rr,:t- fulness of. the law of kindness, and cf tb 2 cci- c aideration due to the- character r - "it 2 -tny distinguished opponent. I fear no -ach injustice from you. y . As ever, sir, respectfully yours, ; , . :; . H. H. TUCKER. LaGrange, Ga., Jnly 6, 1855. ' Verdict Against Mr. Booth. The t -It of Mr. Garland of St. Louis, vs. S. M. Ecci'j, of Milwaukie for tho value cf the a!lc:l fu gitive slave' Glover, who escaped from tL3 U. S. DistrictCourt at Lladison, Juds T r presiding, during three days last wee!:. 1. case was given to the jury ca Saturday c t and without leaving their seat3 tbej f verdict for the plaintiff of l, CCO ai c ; The circumstances cf h;3 csss . j well known- Garland arrested LI 3 r . (l'y- Ter, at Milwaukie, and trc . TJ. S. Commisaoner tor t: formal delivery. Bootb, lb .3 I c 1'.: ; and an abobticnui cf t:. ; the nero to c: f : : bv tbe v- -r-rcu.il r:'.!. : ty C: t,:'S.:t cf cL::---j 1-c- -' . r- n-:: i. x . z 1 - ..3 i. . . t-i but tbs j.:ry, v ? J :'!?t "l : '.: lc-7 tba c::3 h czl-J, tzll It. I . ed to 1'- vp 01CC0 as tb3p;i:3 cf :z:3 b jbiliuihrcpy. . . the discussion which you could net
The Biblical Recorder (Raleigh, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Aug. 9, 1855, edition 1
1
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75