« PrécédentContinuer »
of each are beneficial to the Redeemer's cause. The one dissemiL! nates science. The other removes an evil, under the bane of which,
learning and science and religion perish. But you insist that an s institution, to be “auxiliary," must, in some form, be connected 3 with, or be dependent upon that to which it is auxiliary; they must,
as organizations, be part or parcels of each other. That if the Sons of Temperance or Bethany College be "auxiliary” to the church, they must be so connected with the church as to be a part of her organization. In what I have written I mean no such thing. I do
not, however, put Bethany College or the Sons of Temperance in so e: low a place, in their relation to the church, as I do “the earth, the
ocean, the corn and wine and oil.” These are inanimate; they contribute but the means to sustain life, Those are life-giving and life itself. Surely the College, where the Bible and its divine doctrines form a daily theme, and whose most important chair is occupied in teaching the great truths of God's mercy through a crucified, buried and risen Redeemer; where all the elements of science are taught, and where the mind of ingenuous youth is opened to the light of true learning, stands on a scale, as auxiliary to the church, greatly above the bread we consume, or the clothes we wear. Surely the Sons of Temperance, who form a brotherhood pledged to wage an eternal warfare against the greatest curse which has befallen humanity, the curse of drunkenness, and that which produces it, may presume to stand on a platform higher than "corn or wine,” the use of which, when perverted, is the thing against which they fight! Do not misunderstand me. No College, no Temperance Society, nor any other association, for a scientific or moral purpose merely, can or does form any part of the church; nor can they be connected with the church as a part of her organization. The church is infinitely above and beyond such connexion. She is of divine origin. Her laws are divine. Her members are living stones-temples for the Holy Ghost. She is the salt of the earth; but these are human institutions and not divine, and they are, under the blessings of Providence, salient points, from which the lost of earth may spring into the embrace of the church, and upon which the savor of that salt, which is of the church, falls with most of its salutary power. They are, in a higher sense, "advantageous," "auxiliary" to the church, than are the mere means which sustains the physical life of her members. You place colleges and eleemosynary institutions upon lower ground; with "the earth and corn and oil;” and the only difference with us on this point now seems to be, that you arrange all things, animate and inanimate, orders, societies, earth and ocean, institutions, governments, and associations, which are outside the church, but which are “advantageous" to the church, in the same category; while I classify them, and give to some more honorable positions than others. But whatever institution is advantageous to the church I claim to be auxiliary to it, and I do not, therefore, "equally repudiate the auxiliary character as I do the substitute character of any merely human or worldly institution as it respects the chorch of Jesus Christ."
But if colleges, temperance societies and literary societies, as auxiliaries to the church, are only "advantageous” and cannot form
a part of her, or be connected with her, in her organization, as organized bodies, by what authority can a Christian go beyond the church and become a member of either to do “any good which he could not do as a practical Christian in a truly Christian church?” You answer as to a college, that “it is one of those literary instituttions which the exigencies of human society require," and which, without any biblical sanction in the form of precept or precedent, is impliedly admitted in the general benevolence and philanthropy of the letter and spirit of original Christianity.” The same would be your reply if asked why you became a Washingtonian. And does not the same principle afford to me a good reason for having joined the Sons of Temperance? It certainly does. Of this there is no question, unless you can show, or have shown, that there is something pertaining to the institution of the Sons, which makes it an exception. Whether or not you have, or can, will appear hereafter.
When I draw a parallel betwixt a college and the institution of the Sons of Temperance, it is not enough for you to say, that the comparison is “illogical,” is a “sophism," and that there is no more resemblance between the two than there is betwixt a “wasp and bee,” or “a horse and ass, a goose and swan.”. Had the comparison been made to draw an argument from their resemblance to each other, and by it to prove their identity, the “sophism” would exist; but as it was drawn from their resemblance in two particulars only, in which the resemblance was perfect-the one, that they are organized bodies—the other, that they are outside the church, -to show not their identity, but that a member of the church may as well join the one as the other, there is no want of logic, and you will be constrained to answer. More especially so, since you have taken the ground that a college is “not auxiliary to the church,” and that it is not known whether the instruction afforded may redound to the church or the devil.” With all due deference, I assert again that the “parallel is complete."
You have undertaken, however, to show that the Sons of Temperance, as an institution, forms an exception to the general rule. Your position is, that a college may be an institution which "the exigencies of society require," and "in which a Christian may sustain
an official relation as well as membership;" but that the Sons of Temperance “profane the name and desecrate the worship of our glorious Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ;" and that, therefore, a Christian may not join them. Your college comes within the rule, at least on my principles, although it might be questioned on yours. But have you proved that the Sons do not? or can you?
Before I examine your proofs, suffer me to give no force to what any Sons of Temperance may have been heard to say, who assert that "they desire no better church than their own meetings.". God help such! The sinner who places his hopes for eternity upon what he learns in the Division Room, and looks not to a throne of grace through the mediation of the cross, is certainly lost; for "a reformed drunkard, as such, is just as far from the kingdom of heaven as were Horace or Virgil with all their poetry," or as is the Hall of the Sons of Temperance the proper place to learn the way of salvation. Such speeches, if made, only indicate that their authors are as igno
Tant of the object of the Sons of Temperance, as they are o! the design of the church. But let this pass. You assert that the Sons “adopt a form of religion;" "have social worship, and prayers;" and that in this, they “profane the name of the Saviour." Now, I ask you in candor, have you produced any thing, in what you have written, to sustain these allegations? except in so far as they are susteined by the quotation from the Coristitution of the Division at Wellsburg; "openings of meetings and rules of order," section 1st. “after the Division has been opened by singing an ode, reading the scriptures, or by prayer, the business proceeds, &c.” And does this quotation sustain them? Is the singing of their odes, their scriptural readings or prayers, a "form of religion,” a “social worship”? Are they such as “profane the name of our glorious Saviour”? I think I can assert, without the fear of successful contradiction, that they are net? But grant that they are, then cannot I prove as much as to a college? See the last Harbinger, page 534, where "the order of exercises” at a commencement at Bethany is given. First, -music-prayer-music;"' next, speeches; then, “music-intermission—wusic;" followed by “report of examinations,” valedictory oration and address by the President, and the “solemn pageant" concluded by “music and a benediction.” Now here is "music, prayer, and a benediction" by a Christian brother! Was the music sacred or profane? “Inspired by the gleeful spirit of John Barleycorn," or by the Spirit of all grace? If odes were sung, were they odes “in memory of Robert Burns,” or did they contain the sublime sentiments of religion? Is this "social worship”? Is it “a form of religion”? Does it “desecrate the worship of the Saviour”? Let those who were there to see and hear, decide; I do not. I only assert that the singing of the odes of the Sons of Temperance, their prayers, and their reading of the scriptures do not.
The whole of your last number, in so far as it contains an account of "the ceremony of laying the corner stone of a new Masonic Hall,” &c. and the odes, and music, and prayer, and benediction, and "John Barleycorn,” and “Robert Burns," and the “Sons of Light," as therein given, although they may go to sustain your position as it regards Masonry, does no more do so as it regards the Sons of Temperance, than is an “ass” like a "horse," "a wasp, a bee,” or a "goose, a swan." You acknowledge, however, that all this is somewhat “in advance” of the Sons; yet you think you have proved by it that the Sons are now budding and will soon bloom and bear fruit. As you have failed to prove your charge, you deem it necessary to foretell what will be, in order that the probata may at least fit the allegata prophetically! It was my wish, and I have already so expressed myself, that you would not endeavor to prejudice the Sons of Temperance by pressing upon them the “sins” of Free Masonry and of Odd Fellowship. Yet you persist in it, and for what purpose? You presume upon an analogy, in the three institutions, they are “the mystic three” of which the Sons is "the younger sister,” and without showing that the presumption is founded in fact, you make capital against the Sons, out of what you conceive to be a legitimate charge against Masonry! But I am not SERIES 111.-VOL. V.
satisfied with such logic. I will not say that it is a “sophism of illogical comparison;" but it looks to me as much like one, if not more so, than does the one made by me, and which you think comes within the scope of such phraseology.
I ask for proof. I ask it of you. If the Sons of Temperance have “such a form of religion, such "a regular temperance worship" as “profanes the name and desecrates the worship of our glorious Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ,” “it is high time” not only “for it to be discussed,” but for it to be proved, and Christians should avoid their “weekly meetings” as they would a den of gamblers.
As yet you have not given it, and I sincerely believe you cannot. I admit that they "sing odes” and when their Divisions are opened a part of "the scriptures are read,” or “a prayer is made;" but I aver that as to the odes sung, no sentiment contained in them can be tortured by the most conscientious and refined critic into any thing improper; and as to their scriptural readings, will you argue that it is wrong to read the scriptures on any occasion, or that an improper result may be produced by it! Nay, will you not strenuously contend that the reading of the scriptures constitutes one of the means through which Heaven pours its blessings upon man? But they pray!! Dreadful! A Christian brother may pray with his family; may preside over a Washingtonian Temperance Society, which "took in all sorts of persons, good character and bad," and pray with them and for them; he may fill an important chair in a college, and utter morning prayers daily, with and for his pupils, who I know will be as apt to form a “Noah's ark, with every thing clean and unclean," as a Division Room of the Sons of Temperance; a President of a college may on the day of commencement pray with his graduates, whether Christian or not; a Christian may be a member of a conVENTION to form a Constitution for a State, or of a Legislature to make laws for a State, and pray with and for his colleagues; he may do all this, and must not lift a thought to heaven in prayer with Sons of Temperance, if associated with them as a Son of Temperance! Strange! Passing strange! He must "pray always," "pray without ceasing," "do every thing in the name of the Lord,” “be fervent in prayer," "pray for all men,” and yet he may not pray with and for the Sons of Temperance!
Without undertaking to discuss the precise point made by you as to prayer, I may rest in the position that if it be right for a Christian to join the Sons of Temperance, it is right for him to pray for them. Every thing which it is lawful for a Christian to do, it is lawful for him to do with prayer. It is a good rule, that whatever he undertakes to do and cannot pray to God to bless him in it, is wrong to be done by him. But you tell me to show that it is right for a Christian to join the Sons of Temperance. This I can readily do, and if need be, will do so hereafter; but in this debate, it is right till the contrary appears, and that must appear upon your showing. That a prayer is to be made at the opening of a Divisron, does not show that it is wrong. First establish it to be wrong, and then it will follow that it is wrong for a Christian to pray with them. In this matter I am as far as you are from advocating a principle that will justify the conduct of "public Chaplains” who may be called
upon to officiate "to canonize a hero," or "legitimate a cockfight." We must discriminate justly. A Christian may pray on some occa. sions of a public nature where no church is assembled, and with and for those with whom he may be associated on the particular eciasion; and there are occasions and meetings where it would be the greatest profanity for him to be present, much less for him to “legitimatize” the proceedings by prayer. But on what occasions and when may he act? This is the point of inquiry. He may as the President of a College; he may as a member of a Bible Society, a Missionary Society; and why not as a member of a Temperance Society.
I do not assume that “a union with our enemies will qualify us to discharge our duties to our friends, and perhaps to our enemies also." I state that a Christian may avail himself, not only of “corn and oil and wine,” but of institutions outside the churchsuch as colleges, literary societies, temperance societies, &c., and through their means advance the interests of the Redeemer's kingdom, and give all the honor and glory to the Head of the church, especially may he do this, if there be no “truly Christian church” within whose bosom he can have ample scope for the exercise of his ability “to do good unto all as he has opportunity.”
You ask how does the Temperance cause and reform aid the church? Is it, say you, “in giving her aid and comfort or in swelling her numbers?" Although “I have not found an answer to the question which has been on file unanswered for two thousand years,” “If the salt have lost its saltness wherewith shall it be salted!" yet I can answer your inquiry by asking you the question, What would th: church lose were she to lose the entire mass of those who use “strong drink” as a beverage? or rather, What would she gain if that entire mass were to be so converted, on that subject, as to set its face like a flint against its use, except as a medicine?
That there were drunkards in Rome, Corinth, Ephesus,” &c. "while the apostolic churches yet stood there, even in the days of the Apostles," and that the “divinely inspired Apostles” did not set up or suggest any organization other than the church, or that the .church did not then fail to perform her duties, does not prove that in this day, when “the church does fail to perform her duties,” it is wrong to become a Son of Temperance, any more than does the prevalence of ignorance in those days, and that the Apostles gave no direction about colleges, prove colleges to be wrong. Then the churches were temperance societies in profession and practice.Now if they are in profession, they are not in practice. The Christian who joins the Sons of Temperance, takes no new
He makes no vow to man which he has not made to God. He but repeats a vow which he has made to God, nor does the repetition of it make it more obligatory on him. I contend, and I think I can show, that the man who professes allegiance to Jesus Christ and to the laws of his kingdom, is as much bound to “abstain” from the use of alcohol as a beverage, as he is from the use of arsenic as an article of food. This is, in my judgment, a part of his vow as a Christian, and as a Son of Temperance he goes no further; and the addition of his human vow does not strengthen his divine vow any