Vermont telegraph. [volume] (Brandon [Vt.]) 1828-1843, 1836-09-28
BRANDON,

MINISTERIAL TrrLEs@Tbis subject is re
celvlng more attention every day. And wha
are the "difhculues'' in the way of reforma
ton! Let editors of religious papers begin
Let them begin consistently. Let brothe
LeaVltt Of the New-Yor Evangelist, before
he publishes much farther on the right side
strike out the ''Rev." which stands before
his own name at the head of his paper
Let all the titled class dispense with thciI
own titles, and let it be known that they
wish to dispense with them, and let them
cease to use them towards each other, and
the work will be done
At the last anniversary Of Washington
College, the title Of D. D. was conferred on
James Culbertson of GAINESVILLE, who de-
cEnes acceptance of the honorary badge, in
tie foIlawing article over his signature, pub
Iished in the Pittsburgh Herald:
Il feel thankful to the board for their
friendly designs, but hereby announce
nv deliberate determination to decline,
and | do hereby decline the honor con-
ferred. Here | might close my commu-
nication; but some may be ready 10 in
quire, why have you come to this con-
cIusion2' | am ready to answer, and
say for the following reasons -
|. Because | have long been doubt
full whether such titles were compatible
~ Of oh
ty. The LETTER is exhibited in such
passages as the following: BE We not
called of men Rabbi, for one is your mas
ter, even Christ, and all We are brethren.
The connection of this passage makes it
more pointed and impressive. The
Pharisees are condemned because they
loved fattering distinctions, and particu-
larly because they loved greeting in the
markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi
Rabbi.
But if we have mistaken the letter. can
we be mistaken in the spirit of christiani-
.ty? Is it not a lowi y, unaspiring, unas-
Stunning, unostentatious system? l am
far from ascribing pride, ambition or a
love OF show to those who wear those
honorary titles, for many of them are a.
rnong the humble and unobtrusive. But
still it is question, whether these distinc-
tons do not in the estimation of the world
clothe christianity in a worldly livery
which does not belong to her.
2. Because the titles, even if strictly
compatible with christian principles, are
not in their present application confined tc
thcf- original and approrriate design. Il
cannot be doubted they were originally
intended as the honorary testimonials to
eminent atainments. 1t is equally I'm,
questionable that these titles have stopped
in their requirements below their original
demands, and thus have lost their value
and sunk their reputation.
3. Because they have become too pop
ular, and are in that way ensnaring.-
this is a delicate point, and | shall moi
dwell upon it.
4. Because the prevalence Of these
honorary badges in the churches, preiu-
dices acute and Discerning men in the
world, and creates embarrassment in the
efforts of the church to do good. This is
a reason which l deem of vast impor-
lance. We believe as private christians,
we unfold as ministers, a system which
calls for cRUCIrIxIoN to the world
What will be the effect, when the world
beholds US investing each other with hon.
orary appendages and fattering dislinc-
tons! Doubtless it will produce distrust
in our honesty, and so interfere with our
usefulness.
s. Because the distinctions partake
too much of the character and spirit of
Popery, and identify Protestants to too
great an extent with the man of sin en-
circled with SPLENDID titles. l admit that
many clothed with these honors have no
affinity to the popish system: but still
their position before the public involves too
great an assimilation.
g. Because l feel myself totally I'M
worthy of such distinction, and nv
friends could not mortify me more, than
by addressing me under this title.
For these and similar reasons do re-
specially but determinately decline this
honorary distinction, and request you,
Mr. Editor, to give publicity to this com
munication. g.
Your brother,
JAMES CULBERTsON.
From the New England Spectator.