To any one who examines the religious press of the different sects of the
present time, it is clear that there never was a period in which the
_ecclesiasticism_ founded on the Augustinian theory was more a leading
object of effort. At the time that the Bible Society and other benevolent
religious associations originated, the tendency of the different sects was
to a harmonious union for the great end of sending the gospel to the
destitute. At that time, questions in relation to the modes of ordination
and baptism, and as to church officers, seemed to vanish as matters of
small concern to all whose chief aim was to save the lost. But now the
reverse tendency is manifest. Every sect is engaged in magnifying the
importance of its own distinctive peculiarity, in getting up publishing
houses to disseminate its own peculiar modes of religious teaching, in
raising funds to build churches, and in building up its own distinctive
schools and colleges. And this is done not so much, as it would seem,
because the salvation of ignorant and guilty men depends on these
sectarian peculiarities, as because the extent, respectability and
influence of a sect will be thus promoted. Every editor of every religious
paper, therefore, is a chief leader in an effort to build up a sect, which
as before shown, originates from the Augustinian dogma.
It is an established maxim in law and all administration of justice, that
where a man’s property, character, and professional success are involved,
he is barred from testimony as an incompetent witness. And it is deemed no
disparagement to the most honorable and high‐minded men in the community
to be dealt with on the assumption that such personal interests so bias
men’s judgment that they can not be trusted.
Now it will not be denied by any one, that our religious periodicals are
all supported by the differing sects with the express understanding that
each shall advocate the views of the sect that especially patronizes it.
And should any editor become convinced that the opinions he was appointed
to advocate are false, he could not honorably retain his office without
declaring his change of opinion, and this declaration would inevitably
result in the loss of his professional character and income among his
friends and supporters.
For example, if the editor of the Independent were to become convinced
that churches organized on the Congregational mode were unscriptural, and
should attempt to defend such a view, he would either resign his post or
be removed from it. The same would be true in regard to the editors of the
Presbyterian, Episcopal, Baptist and Methodist religious magazines and
newspapers.
So in regard to the professors of our theological schools, who are the
chief supporters of theological magazines. They must all teach the
Augustinian dogma of a depraved nature transmitted from Adam to all his
descendants, or resign their professional reputation, their office and its
income.
These being facts, it may properly be affirmed that the religious press in
this country is barred from the full and free discussion of the great
question of eternal life, “What must we do to be saved?”
One of the most remarkable indications of this fact is the course pursued
by the leading religious periodicals of each sect in noticing the work
before referred to, _Common Sense applied to Religion, or the Bible and
the People_. In that work, and in an article in the Independent, as well
as by private letters, an appeal was made to their editors, who, many of
them, are personal friends of the writer, to instruct her and to instruct
the public wherein there was any failure in that work, either in setting
forth truly the principles of common sense and the rules of
interpretation, or in deducing by these principles the _system_ of common
sense, or in proving that the Augustinian dogma and the system founded on
it were contrary to the common sense and the moral sense of mankind, and
unsupported by the Bible.
As these editors are not only honorable and Christian gentlemen, but among
the most acute and profound metaphysicians in the world, it would be the
height of ill manners to assume that, discerning any failures, they
refused to specify them, either in private or in public, except for the
reasons intimated. No editor whose periodical is supported by a sect for
the express purpose of maintaining its distinctive peculiarities, could
indorse that work as correct in its statements and arguments without
giving up the basis on which the existence of that sect depends which
supports his periodical.
In these circumstances the editors of the Independent fairly and openly
avowed that they could not open their columns to “a psychological and
theological discussion” of this sort. And every editor of every other
religious periodical tacitly made the same declaration by _entire silence_
on the main subject of the volume—the very principles, involving the
existence of the sect for whose defense they were appointed.
So manifest was this position of these leaders of the theological world,
that the most intelligent and best informed publishers came to the
conclusion that whatever else theologians differed about, they were all
united in the determination that such a discussion of these points as was
sought by the author should not be permitted. And even the editors of the
secular press were urged not to allow their columns to be used for such
purposes.