The life and times — of — benjamin franklin, — by — joseph franklin, and

CHAPTER II.

At this time, and especially in this part of the country, the prominent matters of discussion among religious people, were the following:

1st. The nature and the process of conversion. The great body of religious people regarded sin as "the corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and of his own nature inclined to evil, and that continually." In such a condition, naturally, man was held to be incapable of doing anything good. He could not believe or obey the gospel—indeed he was not inclined to try to do so. The only motion towards righteousness which was admitted to be possible to a sinner, was to beseech God to have mercy on him. The true Calvinist did not admit even so much as this. The "total hereditary depravity" of man, "in all the faculties and parts, both of the soul and of the body," he held without explanation or qualification, and almost with as much tenacity as if God had really foreordained that he should believe it. Such a man never presumed to preach to the world. When the Lord called him anywhere to preach, He called some of His people there to hear, and helped them to understand it. When a sinner was to be converted, it was in the first place one of God's elect, chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world, and then the power sent to convert him was an "irresistible grace," which, indeed, did not always speedily, but always most surely, convert him, and then remain with him, so that he was sure to continue in the faith and be saved. The more popular form of belief (or of speculative theory rather); was that the sinner could resist the Spirit until it would flee from him, or seek after it until it would come to him with converting power. But that the real converting power was the Holy Spirit, personally present, and operating directly on the faculties of man, purifying him of this inherent tendency to sin, and saving him by giving him saving faith, was held in common by both these parties. They therefore regarded each other as "orthodox." But the Disciples (or "Campbellite," as those opposed to them most persistently nicknamed them), denied that there is any such ungovernable tendency to sin in human nature. It was, indeed, admitted that man's faculties are greatly clouded and influenced by sinful surroundings, but claimed that he may hear with the ear, understand with the heart, turn from sin, and be saved, 'and that this is essentially the process of conversion. This was a radical and irreconcilable difference. As soon as Alexander Campbell and those associated with him began their work and began to teach the people that man's faith (or belief of the truth) and obedience to the gospel are the ground of acceptance with

God, they were cried down as "heterodox." They did not "believe in the operation of the "Holy Ghost." They repudiated "Holy Ghost" religion. They knew nothing of "heart-felt religion," and taught only a "head religion." They had "no experimental knowledge of the power of God to forgive sins," and had nothing but "a. mere historic faith," which was only "the motion of the carnal mind." A distinguished Baptist of Kentucky refused to enter into a discussion with Alexander Campbell on the work of the Holy Spirit in conversion, because, as he averred, "Mr. Campbell had never had an experience of the work of grace in the soul, and consequently could know nothing about ft." Presbyterians, Methodists and Baptists made common cause against the Reformers. They might be biting and devouring one another at a fearful rate, but let a "Campbellite" make his appearance in the neighborhood and all was harmony among them at once—all the "orthodox churches" were instantly a unit against the heretic.

Alexander Campbell once very truly wrote, in the Millennial Harbinger, that, "The first, middle and last course, of the banquet to which the sectarian world invite us, is an immediate operation of the Holy Spirit in the conversion of sinners and the perseverance of saints." When an orthodox church undertook to have a revival, they met together and began to entreat the "Holy Spirit to "come down with converting power and save sinners." God was reminded that He "had promised to convert seeking, mourning sinners," that such were there and then before Him, waiting for Him to "verify His promise." Illiterate people went wild with excitement in these meetings. Within seven miles of where we now write, a rude and ignorant people about twenty years ago were holding a

meeting in a school house. The excitement had run very high, the air of the illy-ventilated room had been poisoned with noxious gases, and they were shouting, singing, praying, and exhorting, all at the same time, when some one shrieked out: "The devil is in the house; let's drive him out." The conceit suited the humor of the crowd, and they at once began a chase round and round the room, hooting and yelling as if themselves had belonged to the infernal regions. Presently one shouted loud enough to be heard above the din: "Here he goes, out through the door I" Out went the crowd, headlong, pell-mell, pushing, jamming and hurrahing, as senseless as people could be. "There he goes, into the pond," cried the same leading voice. The multitude followed on, and, surrounding the pond, they continued to halloo and throw sticks, until, the open air beginning to cool down their blood and relieve their heated imaginations, some, less excitable than the rest, fell back, the excitement began to die away, and in a few minutes longer time the whole congregation, silently, and half ashamed of themselves, retired to their homes. In more cultivated communities the excitement was held within more reasonable limits, though the memories of our readers will doubtless recall scenes of as wild excitement as that just described, enacted in the name of "heart-felt religion." A congregation of staid, Old-School Presbyterians, or intelligent Baptists, would never get into confusion at all; but they, nevertheless, held convicted sinners in expectancy of a direct converting power, working in them an instantaneous and "sensible" change.

The pioneers of the Reformation have for many years lamented what they regarded as a yielding of the fundamental truth 011 this subject, in the semifraternity

acknowledged in exchange of pulpits, union communions, and other ways of recognizing "the sects." On the other hand, it is manifest that the theory of direct spiritual influence is rapidly losing its hold on the minds of the people. There is a vast difference between Mr. Moody's procedure and the old-time revival; although he still teaches sinners to expect an internal mystic influence, which it pleases him to call "salvation."

2d. Denominationalism, or Churchism. The religious community were divided in their views of church polity and organization into Baptists, Episcopalians, Presbyterian and Congregationalists. These different views became the basis of different church, or denominational organizations. There were the Episcopal church and the Methodist Episcopal church; there were Old School, New School Cumberland, and Reformed Presbyterians; there was the Papal, calling itself the Holy Catholic church; and there was a large connection of churches called Congregational churches. Differing on various doctrinal subjects, there were four or five kinds of Baptist churches, and as many kinds of Methodist churches. There was a connection of Unitarian churches, and a Universalist church.

Closely connected with this question of sectism was that of Human Creeds as the basis of Church Organization. The subject was often discussed as a leading one. Most of the denominations had a "Confession of Faith" with its Doctrine, Discipline and Catechism, or "Discipline" with its Articles of Religion and Rules of the Church, or "Articles of Association," setting forth the points of doctrine and discipline on which a connection of churches maintained one fellowship. And it was strenuously argued that they were a necessity. When the Disciples made war on these creeds it was claimed that they had one "in the head if not in a book," and finally suggested that one of Alexander Campbell's books was secretly used as a Creed.

In this state of religious society the Reformation came on, assuming at the outset, what was scarcely denied, that the Bible must be regarded in all things. "Where the Bible speaks we speak, and where the Bible is silent we are silent." The fearless application of this rule, laid the axe at the root of all denominations. The Bible is silent as to a Methodist church, a Baptist church, an Episcopal church, or a Presbyterian church, etc. These organizations are, therefore, simply without authority. They cannot prove their right to an existence by the Bible, and, therefore, they have no right to an existence. The names Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, etc., are names not known in the Bible. It is, therefore, wrong to wear them. The Bible is silent as to Conferences, Presbyteries, Synods, Convocations, General Assemblies, Associations, etc. These are all, therefore, unauthorized institutions, and all their laws and ordinances are void. But these ecclesiastical councils, party organizations and denominational epithets, are the essential features of "Sectarianism." To give up these things would be to abandon "the church of their fathers," and "the church of their choice." This was asking too much for the sake of Christian union, and they would defend their denominations.

The Reformation, however, was not a mere negative. If it discarded the name Presbyterian, it besought the pious Presbyterian to call himself simply a Christian. If it threw away the name of Methodist Episcopal Church, it besought the members thereof to worship in a congregation of disciples of Christ, on the Lord's day, in the apostles' doctrine, in fellowship, in breaking of bread,

and in prayers. If it discarded the administration of a Synod, it substituted the administration of the affairs of the congregation of Christians by the overseers and deacons. If it asked professed Christians to lay aside their human creeds, it entreated them to accept the Bible as "the only and all-sufficient rule of faith and practice."

3d. Among these sects, the Baptists had assumed a prominence that gave rise to an extended discussion of Baptism. Most of the self-yelept orthodox churches, held to an infant church membership, with the initiatory rite of infant sprinkling. This had come from the Papal to the Anglican and Scottish Churches, and thence to these younger Protestant sects, without question of its authority or validity. When, therefore, the Baptists rose up and spread all over the country, denying that sprinkling is baptism at all, and denying that any but believers are scriptural subjects of baptism, Pedo-Baptists were greatly alarmed, and began to hunt for scriptural authority for sprinkling infants. In the absence of authority, they seemed to grow more determined than ever for the maintenance of the practice, and began to invent reasons why it should obtain. This discussion was still in full blast when the Reformation began and "baptism for the remission of sins," was proclaimed. The storm of discussion which had raged on the "subject" and "action" of baptism, increased to a hurricane, when a new party arose and began to emphasize on the commission of the Apostles, in which Jesus says: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," on Peter's apostolic command on Pentecost, "Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins,' and on the command of Ananias to Saul, "Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of

the Lord." This teaching on the "design" of baptism enraged the Pedo-Baptists more than their difference from the Baptists on the "subject" and "action" of baptism. On the design of baptism, Baptists and Pedo-Baptists made common cause against the Disciples. Baptism for the remission of sins was stigmatized as "water salvation," a "gospel in the water," "water regeneration," etc. Every possible means, often regardless of Christian dignity or truthfulness, was resorted to, to bring the "heresy" into ridicule. The Disciples were stigmatized as "water-dogs," and the churches of Christ as "hydraulic churches." The extreme of vituperation and abuse to which their opponents resorted, accounts for the disposition of the pioneer reformers. One Milton Jamieson wrote a "Treatise on the Subject of Baptism; principally designed as an Exposure of Campbellism." An instance or two from this will show what manner of spirit was sometimes manifested by men who professed to have "an experimental knowledge of the power of God." In his "treatise," Mr. Jamieson wrote: "Frogs are a race of reptiles that can only be produced under water; Campbellite can only be produced in the same way, and that by their own showing. In this, then, they are like frogs." From this the author glides into the Apocalypse and makes application of the "three unclean spirits like frogs" to "Campbellite." This dignified (?) treatise closed with the following lines of doggerel:

"Move along, my subjects hearty,

Blaming every sect and party;

Crushing creeds, opinions, isms,

Bringing in Millennial glory, —

Move along, for I'm before you;

Free yourselves from every tramel,

Follow nothing but--------A Camel."

4th. Universalism bad attracted considerable attention throughout the West. It had its own affirmation that "the whole human family will be made holy and happy," and three negations, viz.: There is no hell, no devil, and no future punishment. As a system (if it may be so called), it had two things to commend it and render it more or less popular, in a majority of western localities. In the first place, it was a natural rebound from Calvinism. A theory which would mercilessly consign the larger part of humanity to endless punishment, without a chance of salvation, could not long hold the public mind. In the first effort to escape from this doctrine, a large number at first held on to the idea that God had decreed the salvation of all for whom Christ died, but enlarged their belief as to the number for whom Christ died, so as to include the whole race. Christ died for all and therefore all will be saved, was the short argument. It seems, on a superficial view, to be a charitable and liberal theory; and, indeed, Universalists after they had gained some standing, assumed the designation of "Liberal Christians"—not as a denominational epithet, but that they were a denomination of "Liberal Christians." And, in the second place, Universalism commended itself to a class of people who are impatient of the restraints of the Gospel. It suited their cases, and was, therefore, the religion of their choice, in so far as they chose any religion at all. If "brother" Kidwell or "brother" Manford came along to preach a chance sermon in some court-house, the irreligious people were sure to be no inconsiderable part of the audience, and felt profoundly gratified if the preacher made a fluent speech against the "orthodox." It is related that on one occasion Jonathan Kidwell, usually a fluent speaker, was speaking in a grove, and arguing that there is no such place as hell.

Affected by some local embarrassment, he stammered a little, and several times hesitated, until a drunken man, leaning against a tree, and imagining that the hesitation of the speaker was for want of argument, cried out: "Make it out if you can, brother Johnathan; for if you don't I'm a gone sucker!"

To recapitulate: The objects most prominently before the minds of the people, when Benjamin Franklin, began to take a prominent part in religious affairs were: The Nature and Process of Conversion, Denominationalism, Baptism and Universalism. Within a few years, several subjects of disagreement among the brethren came up (of which a resume will elsewhere be given) and received the larger share of attention from his tongue and pen. But for fifteen or twenty years these continued to be most prominent, and gave shape and tone to all his work.

And it should be farther noted that the circumstances which brought these subjects to the front were such that every man who spoke or wrote on either of them, necessarily assumed a controversial tone. On one side was a party holding these things as dear as life, and determined to hold them at all hazards; and on the other side was a party who believed them to be heresies, and were, therefore, as determined to drive them out of the minds of the people.

If it be urged that the general prevalence of controversy made many men of that generation intolerant and pugnacious, it is suggested in reply, that there is another extreme quite as dangerous, at least, to the spread of the gospel and the increase of righteousness. So long as men keep within the limits of common courtesy and good decorum, it is hard to conceive of an extreme of urgency in the presentation of the truth. Indecorous language, or personal abuse, were never right under any circumstances.

But we deny that these were characteristic of the pioneers of the Reformation. And we greatly fear that this complaint against our older preachers comes from a class who are scarcely willing to have the principles of the Reformation boldly presented, under any circumstances. We, of this generation, may be inclined to surrender the truth rather than to defend it. Christians are to "contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints," to "put on the whole armor of God," and "wrestle, not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places," to "fight the good fight of faith,"—all which expressions indicate a state of war. In avoiding what we choose to call the extreme pugnacity of the pioneer preachers, we should be exceedingly careful not to run into the opposite extreme, illustrated in the following incident: A preacher, in a community where he had never been before, was soon warned not to say anything against the other churches, as there would be many of their members out on that clay. On the way to the meeting-house it was suggested to him that it would not be advisable to say anything in regard to the liquor traffic, as a certain dealer, who always subscribed liberally to the church, would be there. After entering the pulpit, a brother went up and whispered in his ear not to make any attack on infidelity, as there were several infidels present, and it was hoped that they would subscribe liberally for the preaching that year. Beginning to feel himself fenced up within narrow limits, the preacher said: "Well, pray tell me what I shall preach about, then?" The answer came promptly: "Why, preach against the Jews; I don't think they have a friend in this town."

But we must get on with our history.