Syracuse University Library
Special Collections Research Center
Gerrit Smith Broadside and Pamphlet Collection

Address / reported by Gerrit Smith to the "Christian Union Convention" ; held in Syracuse, August 21st, 1838.

Smith, Gerrit, 1797-1874.

Digital Edition.

This digitization project was supported by Regional Bibliographic Databases and Interlibrary Resources Sharing Program funds, awarded by the New York State Library.

Call number: Smith 408

AN ADDRESS.

REPORTED BY GERRIT SMITH TO THE "CHRISTIAN UNION CONVENTION" HELD IN SYRACUSE, AUGUST 21st, 1838.

Beloved Brethren:

No person, acquainted with the words and the heart of Jesus Christ, believes, that it is His choice to have His disciples separated from each other by party lines - wearing the badges, and contending with each other about the peculiarities, of their respective sects. He, whose prayer for his disciples was, 'that they all may be one,' would have His Church as seamless, as was His garment. Nor will any person familiar with the sacred volume, believe, that the Apostles preferred the division of Christians into various parties to their collection in the same fold and under the same banners. If Paul loved parties in the Church, he would not say, 'that there should be no schism in the body;' - he would not enjoin 'one faith,' 'one spirit,' 'one mind,' 'one accord,' the 'same mind,' 'the same love.'

However it may have been formerly, it is certain that, in our age, the Church is not characterized by that unity, which Apostles labored to impress upon her, and for which her Redeemer so ardently prayed. Nor is it less certain, that the present division of His disciples, not only finds no justification in the Bible, but that it is utterly forbidden, both by its spirit and letter. Does it not then, dear brethren, greatly concern us to know, why this division is maintained? Two causes, accounting for it, present themselves to our minds. In the first place, there are, amongst the professed disciples of the Savior, not a few, whose bigotry, intolerance and contentiousness are gratified by this division; and, in the second place, there are others of these disciples, who are justifying and prolonging this division, through their mistaken belief, that union will at last come out of it. Believing, that Christians, who do not hold similar views on all important points in theology, cannot be brought into a harmonious and profitable association with each other, they judge it better, that whilst this disagreement continues, these Christians should remain in their respective sects. Hence, in a great measure, the maintenance of these numberless sects. Lest it should be supposed, that we believe these sects prefer the division to the union of Christians, we advert to the fact, that they each have their plan for effecting this union. Each believes, that the subscription by all Christians to its formulary or creed is the way for bringing this union of all Christians is pass. And we would not be so uncharitable as to charge them with being selfishly sectarian in this. We are willing to believe, that these sects, not only sincerely desire the union of all Christians, but, that, to a great extent, each one of them does, without any selfish ends in view, as sincerely conceive, that its way is the only way for successfully accomplishing this union. That the Episcopalian would have all Christians believe in the 'three orders of ministers,' and that the Baptist would have them all believe in 'immersion,' spring, as we would hope, not so much from a desire for the universal triumph of their respective sects, as from a desire for the union of all Christians, and from an honest belief, that this union cannot be accomplished, unless uniformity be exacted in relation to doctrines believed to be so true and so important. We consent, therefore, to admit, that the division of the Church into sects is not for the sake of division, but for the sake of union - and that this union is to be effected, to no small extent, by the means of this division. Whilst, then, we cheerfully accord due credit to these sects for their love of union, and charitably resolve their divisions into the motive of securing this priceless blessing, we are, nevertheless, constrained to interpose our decided objection to the means, which they employ for promoting their object; and to say, that they are not at liberty to depart from the Bible, in quest, either of this or any other blessing. We add, in this connection, that the signal failure to promote Christian Union, by the division of the Church into sects, is no inconsiderable evidence of the unscripturalness of the expedient.

We are, perhaps, wrong, in supposing, that Christians generally aim at, and labor for, Christian Union. It may be that most of them would perpetuate the division of Christians into sects, under the belief, that union is impracticable, and that such division is 'the next best thing.' They conclude, that it is better to 'agree to differ' than to labor against hope for a union. To the practice of taking up with 'the next best thing,' under certain circumstances, and where no sacrifice of principle is involved in the resort, we raise no objection: - but, in. the case before us, it is the Lord Jesus, who directs; - and, therefore, no substitute for the 'first best thing' can be innocently adopted. It might be added, that the result, in the instance under consideration, of forsaking God's way for the more seductive, if not the 'more excellent way' of man's devising, is not of a character to favor such an abandonment of principle. The union of Christians has not been promoted by the anti-scriptural measure. Their distractions are glaring as noon-day. Openly and shamelessly does 'Ephraim envy Judah,' and as openly and shamelessly does 'Judah vex Ephraim.'

Our age and country furnish another and very striking instance of the impolicy, as well as wickedness, of taking up with a 'second best thing,' in the stead and in guilty, disparagement of a Heaven-commanded 'first best thing.' God requires the immediate and unqualified liberation of the millions of our enslaved countrymen. But their murderous oppressors at the South and their scarcely less murderous enemies at the North exact the condition of the banishment of these afflicted brethren. Now, there are many of us, who, notwithstanding our approval of immediate and unconditional emancipation, and our knowledge, that God requires it, were guilty of accepting this condition, and of joining the Colonization Society. We joined it under the impression, that its plan was the 'second best thing,' and that God's plan, or the 'first best thing,' was impracticable. But how soon we found the curse of God upon our criminal choice! The Colonization Society, which, we thought, would work out the deliverance of our colored brethren, became their open and implacable hater, and was even more engaged to prevent their emancipation, than to promote their colonization. The rapid development of its true character and legitimate tendencies may be seen in the fact, that some of its leaders are already publicly justifying the forcible expulsion from their native land of the unhappy objects of their persecuting hatred. What a lesson is this, never to compromise with the wicked! - never, because the wicked hate and clamor against God's way, to turn our backs upon it, and to strike out a new way, in which they will consent to walk with us! Had the Christians, who have been praying and giving and laboring for the success of the, Colonization Society - some five, some ten, and others twenty years - had they been, all this time, 'workers together' with God in promoting His plan, as simple as it is righteous, of letting I the 'oppressed go free,' and of breaking 'every yoke,' not a vestige of slavery would be now remaining in our land. So, too, if Christian Union bad not been despaired of, and sectarian divisions adopted in its stead, the family of Jesus Christ on earth would, centuries ago, have presented the lovely aspect of a united family; and, centuries ago, would the unity of its love - bound members have achieved a glorious triumph over the powers of this world. Nothing has retarded this triumph so ranch, as the divisions of the Savior's disciples into sects. To use the language of one of the most distinguished of British writers, ' it supplies infidels with their most plausible topics of incentive; it hardens the consciences of the irreligious; weakens the hands of the good; impedes the efficacy of prayer; and is probably the principal obstruction to that ample effusion of the Spirit, which is essential to the renovation of the world.'

In further answer to the objection, that the union of all Christians is impracticable, we remark, that nothing is impracticable, which the Savior requires. And we add, that no Christian will be excused for not making an immediate contribution of his example to this blessed cause, because he sees so many other Christians, who, through their ignorance and remaining depravity, fail to appreciate its claims. Let every Christian remember, that, in this matter, 'every man must bear his own burden;' and, that it is no light responsibility, which he assumes, who favors a disunion, however temporary, or, for however good purposes, of those, whom the Savior has constituted 'members one of another' in His mystical body - yes, 'members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones.'

It is sometimes said, in reply to the advocates of Christian Union, that most of the passages, which they quote from the Bible, and especially those in that prayer of the Savior, to which we have adverted, have reference not to the union of the members of the visible Church, but to the union of the members of Christ's universal Church - or, is ether words, to the union of all believers. Our opponents readily admit, that it is the duty of these believers, when regarding themselves as members of Christ's universal Church, to have communion of heart with each other, and to be, and to feel themselves to be, united to each other, with a closeness answering to the prayer just referred to, and to figures employed in the New Testament, to denote the intimacy of the relation between the Savior and His disciples, and between one disciple and another. But, that such theories ought, at all hazards, to be immediately reduced to practice, and that the party creeds and party fences and party tables, in which the visible Church now abounds, should, at once, give way, for that 'one heart and one soul,' of which 'the multitude of them, that believed,' in Apostolic times, were, is what our opponents deny. They, who thus distinguish between our duties; as members of Christ's universal Church, and as members of Christ's visible Church, forcibly remind us of those, who, distinguishing between slavery in the abstract and existing slavery, pour out all their indignation and wrath upon the hateful abstraction, whilst they defend the more hateful reality.

We admit, that the Church universal on the earth is not identical with the-visible Church. The latter is composed of professed believers, and in it the tares are growing, along with the wheat, until 'the time of harvest.' But, in the former, every forehead wears the signet mark of the Savior. Does it, however, follow, because the two Churches are not identical, that we may introduce principles into the visible Church, which conflict with the principles of the Church universal? Surely not. The two Churches ate equally, instituted by Divine authority; and cannot, therefore, be designed to war with each other. Indeed, it is Christ's will, that they should be identical, so far as they would be so, if none but members of the Church universal were to become members of the visible Church. If, therefore, union be a principle in the Church universal, no less should it be in the visible Church. But it is said, that disunion is approved of and practiced in the visible Church, not from the love of disunion, but for the sake of ultimate union. Admit it - and then our objection to this disuniting process of union is, that we may not do evil, that good may come - that we may not violate the principles of the Church universal, even for the sake of establishing them. When he, who gives satisfactory proof of his faith in the Savior, presents himself for admission at the door of the visible Church, there can be no justifiable ground for his preclusion. Not even the plea, that they who assume the fearful responsibility of precluding him, sincerely desire the union of Christians, and as sincerely believe, that this union would be retarded by his admission, will be sufficient. He has a perfect right, whatever may be the apprehended consequence afire concession, to a place in the visible Church, and to association there with his fellow Christians. He has a perfect right to 'eat the same spiritual meal' and to 'drink the same spiritual drink,' which they do - the meat and the drink, which exuberant and infinite love has provided, in the privileges and ordinances of that Church, for the nourishment of the faith and the increase of the holiness and happiness and usefulness of the disciples of the Son of God. To deny him this right is to inflict a wrong up on his regenerated nature no less palpable than that, which the simple manhood of the poor slave suffers, when he is excluded from the pale of humanity, and thrust down to chattelhood.

It is said, in justification of having multiplied terms of admission into the visible Church, that they are intended to preclude, not the truly Christian candidate, but him only, who is a hypocrite or a self-deceiver. And the policy of these multiplied terms, by means of which many Christians are denied an entrance into the visible Church, is defended on the ground, that, but for it, the number of unworthy candidates received would be much greater than that of the worthy, who are rejected. But the policy, which would shut out from the visible Church those, who are acknowledged to be 'followers of God,' rather than make the door of entrance so wide, that impostors might pass through, is surely not the policy of Him, who will not 'break the bruised reed,' nor 'quench the smoking flax;' and who is even so tender of His 'little ones,' that He forbids the gathering of the tares, lest the wheat, with which they are intermixed, be thereby uprooted. The policy of the Savior is to let into Heaven all that believe: and this policy would nor be abandoned, even, though Satan himself were able to squeeze through the believers' gateway. Let such be the policy of the visible Church; and, if the wicked should consequently rush into it like a flood, and in numbers, which threaten to overpower the righteous, let her look up to her 'deliverer' - to Him, who has promised, that 'the gates of hell shall not prevail against her.' If need be, He can banish 'the children of the wicked one' from His Church on earth, as easily as He banished 'the wicked one' himself from His Church in heaven.

So far from being rightly charged with opposition to all ecclesiastical organization, we believe, that every disciple of Jesus Christ should be a member of the visible Church; and we admit, that organization enters essentially into our conceptions of that Church. We admit too, that the members of the visible Church mast necessarily be divided into many and distinct ecclesiastical communities: but, these communities are to correspond, not with the diversities of sentiment in their members, but simply with the many and respective localities of those members. This division of the visible Church, which the necessity of the case imposes, is the only one, that we justify. As we believe, that all the Christians of Ephesus, whatever may have been their disagreements with each other, were required, by Apostolic and Divine authority; to came together and to organize themselves into a Church, and as we believe this was the case at Phillippi and Corinth and wherever Apostolic Churches were planted, so, we believe, that all the Christians of

[2]

a New England or an Ohio village, however great may be the collisions of their respective creeds, are bound by the same authority, to do likewise. And, as was the case with the Churches referred to, so we would have the Church of that village derive its name simply from its locality. Why should not the Christians of Bennington and Elyria compose 'the Church of Bennington' and 'the Church of Elyria,' as well as the Christians of Corinth and Colosse 'the Church of Corinth' and 'the Church of Colosse'? There is no reason, why they should not, which will abide the great test-day of human conduct. If the Christians of any village or city are too numerous to be duly accommodated in single organization, let there be as many distinct Churches, as are necessary, and let them be distinguished from each other by numbers merely. The first and second and third Churches of Syracuse is an expression far more grateful to our ears than the Baptist and Methodist and Presbyterian Churches of Syracuse: and, if we were to admit that they both equally indicate a growth of the Savior's cause, they, nevertheless, indicate, in the one case, a growth with harmony, and in the other a growth with division. We close our remarks m behalf of the duty of ecclesiastical organization, with saying, that we believe, that there are injunctions upon Christians, which they cannot fulfil, but in a collective capacity.

We will say a few words on the much vexed question of creeds. Every Christian must have a religious creed; and it is his duty to have it clearly defined, and to be well established in it. But, one Christian has no right to impose his creed on another Christian - no right to make a Procrustean bed of his own creed, on which to torture and model the creed of his fellow Christian. Having confidence in the correctness of our creeds, it is undoubtedly our duty to labor to persuade all men to adopt them: but, to require of the candidate for connexion with the visible Church any thing beyond satisfactory evidence, that he is a Christian, is to require just so much more than the Savior requires for admission into the Church universal and into Heaven: and, moreover, it is virtually to say, that there are some, whom the Savior admits into communion with Himself, who are unworthy of association and fellowship with ourselves.

In relation to discipline, we remark, that it is indispensable to the purity and peace of a Church; and that no Church can prosper, which neglects that process of wise and patient and faithful dealing, prescribed by the Savior, for disposing of disagreements between Christian brethren. We further remark, that it is as plainly the duty of the members of a modern Church, as it was of the members of an Apostolic Church, to 'mark them, which cause divisions and offences,' and to 'withdraw themselves from every brother, that walketh disorderly.'

The advocates of Christian Union are frequently asked, whether they think it right, that local Churches should unite with each other in Presbyteries, Associations or any other of the ecclesiastical councils, in which such Churches are accustomed to combine. We frankly admit, that the frequently bad character of such Bodies, and the tendencies in the best of them to a perverse exercise of their power and influence, inspire us with strong fears of them all. A dozen years ago, and we were very much at ease, with respect, both to Methodist Conferences and to Presbyterian power: but, now, who that values Christian Liberty and the rights of man, can consent to wear the yoke of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church? - or who, that abhors the despotism of popery, does not equally abhor the rival despotism of American Methodism? Whilst, however, we insist, that local Churches should be independent of each other, and entirely free in the choice of their respective teachers or overseers, we do not deny such Churches may profitably enter into an Association, provided the Association be clothed with no higher than advisory powers, and provided, also, that tile exercise of these powers, limited and unalarming as they are, be vigilantly watched.

It is objected to our plan of Union, that the Church, which is organized upon it, will be of a heterogeneous composition, and continually liable to internal discord from conflicting denominational predilections. It does not occur to the objector, that they, who come into a Union Church, come not, as Baptists or Methodists or Presbyterians, but as Christians: and, that they come, because Divine grace has conquered their party spirit and their inordinate attachment to the peculiarities of their respective sects. We readily admit, that it would be fatal to the harmony and peace of a Union Church for its members to indulge sectarian feelings; but, it must be remembered, that such a Church is, in its very plan and nature, to be composed of persons, who have sunk those feelings in that love, by which we are commanded to 'love one another' - in that generous and comprehensive Gospel love, which makes no divisions amongst the people of God, and 'which sticketh closer than a brother.' How unphilosophical, as well as unscriptural, to suppose, that those Christians, who believe it imperative on them to love one another, and, in all circumstances and at all hazards, to remain united to one another, would be peculiarly addicted to contentions with one another! And, surely, it is no less unphilosophical and unscriptural to suppose, that those Christians, who cherish the belief, that it is lawful for them to separate from each other, will find this belief promotive of their union with each other. Would there be more harmony between husband and wife, if they felt that liberty to differ and to part from each other, which Christians so unhappily and so unwarrantably feel, in relation to themselves? Is it not true, on the other hand, that the duty still necessity, which they feel themselves under of continuing to dwell together, in the relation of husband and wife, goes far to prevent the indulgence and even tile existence of a jealous and contentious spirit? The consciousness on the part of its subjects, that they are indissolubly bound to each other, and that they must cling to each other and love each other, exerts, beyond all doubt, a mighty peace-preserving influence on the conjugal relation. No less mighty will be the like influence on the Church of the consciousness of its members, that, as nothing 'shall be able to separate them from the love of God,' so nothing should be allowed to 'be able to separate them from tile love of' each other.

They, who judge, that the Christians of a given village would be less harmonious, were they all in a Union Church, than they would be, were they all in a denominational Church, do perhaps judge rightly; but for tile purposes of our argument, they certainly adopt a very wrong standard of comparison. The proper question is, whether these Christians, if collected in a Union Church, would be guilty of internal dissensions sufficient to overbalance, not only the like dissensions amongst these same Christians, were they distributed, as is usual, amongst several denominations, but sufficient to over-balance their sectarian animosities also? The proper question is; not whether the Unionist would disagree more widely and frequently with his fellow Unionist than the Baptist with his fellow Baptist, or the Methodist with his fellow Methodist: but, whether more widely and frequently than the Baptist with the Methodist or the Presbyterian with the Episcopalian? The proper question is, whether the Christians of this world, if all embodied in Union Churches, would present as many and as unsightly seams and breaches, as they now do, in their numberless dissensions, their sectarian jealousies and controversies? We are but little interested, however, in questions of this sort. We are not so much concerned about the peace, as about the obedience, of Christians: - for, not only is peace subordinate to purity, but, in the end, it is sure to follow it.

Are we asked, whether we would have an individual quit the denominational Church with which he is connected, on his coming to embrace the principles of Christian Union? We reply, that, in general, and, especially, if there be no Union Church of which he can conveniently be a member, we would have him remain in his present connexion; unless, indeed, sectarian despotism should expel him from it. Let him see to it, however, that he neither take, nor countenance, a step, in violation of the principles of Christian Union; and that, in questions of application for admission, or of discipline, or of any other ecclesiastical matters, in which he may have a voice, he never be found to swerve from those precious and Gospel principles. Let him remain where he is. Peradventure the loveliness of his Gospel charity and meekness shall, under the blessing of God successfully commend his principles of Christian Union to the adoption of his brethren.

We hear it objected to the Union Church that it fails to require of the candidate for admission to it, sufficient evidence of practical piety. It requires evidence, that he is a Christian. It dares not require more. What is it, however, but practical piety, but holy living, that is legitimate evidence of Christian character?

We need say no more. Brief, as is this exposition of our views, it is, we trust, sufficiently explicit to prevent their being misapprehended. 'Brethren, our hearts' desire a ill prayer to God' is, that you may all be willing and glad to contribute, in a Gospel way, to the speedy fulfillment of the Savior's petition, that His disciples may 'all be one.' And when the blessed and glorious day of that fulfillment shall have arrived, not only will the world be constrained to exclaim: 'Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!' - but, in that unity, the world will see, as the Savior has Himself foretold, important, if not indeed indispensable and irresistible proofs, that He is the sent of God, and that His disciples are beloved of God. 'That they nay be one, even as we are one - I in them and then in me, that they may be made perfect in one: and that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast love them, as thou hast loved me.'