Volume 6. Number 6. January 5, 1829, pp. 509-515.

• A Restoration of the Ancient Order of Things.--No. XXIX.: Discipline of the Church.--No. VI. by Alexander Campbell, pp. 509-510.
• [Letter to the Editor] by J. F., p. 510.
• To Brother J. F. by Alexander Campbell, pp. 510-511.
• Essays on Man in His Primitive State and under the Patriarchal, Jewish and Christian Dispensations.--No. VI.: The Patriarchal Age.--No. II. by Alexander Campbell, pp. 511-512.
• A Letter from Rev. A. Wright, to Mrs. Lane by Alexander Wright, pp. 512-513.
• Answer to the Preceding by Charity (Mrs. Lane), pp. 513-514.
• Preface of the King's Translators by King James' Translators, pp. 514-515.

      IN the preceding essays under this head, we have paid some attention to the nature of private and public offences, and to some of the general principles which are to be regarded in our treatment of them. We have also had occasion to call up to the attention of our readers some prevailing defects in the morality of Christians, which are not generally taken cognizance of in any of the modern establishments. In our last we spoke of the deep solicitude for the restoration of a delinquent, and long continued forbearance which Christians are to exhibit towards him, for his ultimate recovery from the snare of the wicked one. But, while recommending to the consideration of our brethren the christian propriety and expediency of exercising much long suffering towards transgressors, and all mildness in our efforts to reclaim them from the error of their way, we must imitate the conduct of one, who, while attempting to pull another out of the fire, has to use the greatest caution lest the flame seize his own garments. Jude says, "Have compassion indeed on some transgressors; but others save by fear, snatching them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh" There is to be no conformity to the obliquity of the transgressor to reclaim him. We are not to drink a little with the drunkard, nor to tattle a little with the tattler, nor to detract with the slanderer, in order to convert them from the error of their way. While we show all tenderness for their persons, and all solicitude for their complete and perpetual felicity, we are not to show the least partiality for their faults, or a disposition to diminish aught from the malignity of their trespasses. We ought to lay their sins before them in all their true colors, without extenuation or apology; while we beseech and entreat them to abandon every sinful and pernicious way. There is often too much care taken to diminish from, and make excuses for an immoral or unchristian act. Hence we cheapen offence in the eyes of those who were wont to regard it in a much more heinous point of view. To show all willingness to restore him that is overtaken in a fault, and at the same time to exhibit the most unmingled detestation of the fault, crime, or whatever it may be called, is just the point to be gained by all those who aspire to the character of perfect men in Christ Jesus.

      Indeed there cannot be too much circumspection exercised over the conduct of all those with whom we fraternize in the kingdom of Jesus. Many of those in all countries who profess the christian religion, are extremely ignorant of the dignity of their profession, and they are too familiar with the low, mean, and demoralizing converse of the world. Many of them, too, are altogether uncultivated in their minds and manners, and so completely enchased in penury and ignorance, as to preclude the hope of much mental enlargement or improvement, except from the sheer influences of reading and hearing the oracles of God. Christianity can, and does, impart a seal dignity and elevation to all who cordially embrace it. The poor and the unlettered become not only tolerable but agreeable members of the christian community; and while they are commanded to rejoice in that they are exalted, the rich and the learned in this world who rejoice in that they are made low, can most cordially congratulate them on their promotion to the rank of sons of God. But there must not be, for indeed there cannot be, any insolence, haughtiness, or superciliousness amongst those who are all made one in the kingdom of Jesus, arising from any of the relations which exist in the frame and government of this world. The virtuous, poor, and unlettered christian, who is walking in truth, is just as honorable and exalted in the estimation of all the inhabitants of the upper world, as those who, from circumstances beyond their creation, have ranked higher and been more adored by a mistaken and ill-judging world. Piety and pure morality constitute the only nobility m the kingdom of heaven.

      It is, too, a happy circumstance in the original developement and exhibition of Christianity, which must eternally echo the praise of its founder, that the scene of its perfecting purity is laid rather below, than at, or above mediocrity, as respects all earth-born distinction. While but a few of the rich, the learned, and the noble, were honored with a place amongst the heirs of immortality, the poor and the unlettered constituted not only the great mass of the army of the faithful; but all the captains, commanders, generals, and chiefs were of the most common class of society. So that the history and biography of the New Testament present the most astonishing spectacle ever seen before--the poorest and most illiterate of men, shining in wisdom and purity, which cast into an eternal shade the wisdom and morality of all the sages and moralists of the pagan world. It thus adapts itself to the great mass of society, and proves its superlative excellence in giving a moral polish and lustre to that great body of men which all other systems had proved ineffectual to renovate, to improve, of even to restrain.

      Now this great improvement is not the effect of good laws, but of good examples. No system of policy, no code of laws could have at first effected it, or can effect it now. The living model of the glorious chief, the living example of his immediate disciples, and the example of the disciples in their associated capacity, give the first impulse. The continued watchfulness of the brotherhood and their affectionate regard for the welfare of one another, operate like the laws of attraction in the material system. But not only the happiness of the society, but also its usefulness in the world, depend chiefly upon this care and watchfulness of the members of the body, one over and for another. Nothing has ever given so much weight to the christian arguments as the congenial lives of those who profess them. On the other hand, nothing has defeated the all-subduing plea of speculative Christianity (as it may be called) so much as the discordant lives of those who profess to believe it. Had it not been for this one drawback, Christianity this day had known no limits on this side of the most distant home of man.

      Now we must admit that in no age, the primitive age of Christianity not excepted, have all who have professed it acted up to its requirements. Many have apostatized from its profession altogether, and many who have not acted so flagitiously as to exclude them from the name, have, even in the estimation of their own friends, forfeited the character of real believers. Paul wept over the lives of such professors, and deplored their profession as more inimical to the doctrine of the cross than the avowed hostility of the open enemies of Christianity. The hardened sceptic (for such there are who hate the [509] light) rejoices over the flaws and blemishes of christians as the shamble fly over the putrid specks in the dead carcase. He feasts and fattens in his infidelity upon the moral corruptions of those who in deeds, deny the Saviour. And as the heavenly messengers rejoice more over one sinner that reforms, than over ninety-nine just persons who need no reformation; so he rejoices more over one christian that apostatizes, than over the wickedness of ninety-nine profligates who never professed the faith. Now as a real christian would be the last in theory or in practice to afford him such a feast, so let every christian watch over his brethren, that none of them may either comfort the wicked or afflict the saints--that none of them ma encourage the unbelieving, or cause the faithful to drop a tear over his fall.

      So long as a man evidently desires to please Christ, whatever we may think of his opinions, we are to love him as a brother. But when he evidently departs from his law, and tramples upon the authority of the Great King, we must exclude him.

      There are some who talk of forgiving their brethren when they transgress. This is a mode of expression which is to be used with great caution. When a brother trespasses against a brother, he that has received the injury may, and ought to forgive the injurious, when he acknowledges his fault. But when a man publicly offends against Christ, (for example, gets drunk,) his brethren cannot forgive him. There is no such power lodged in their hands. How then are they to be reconciled to him as a brother, and receive him as such? When they believe, or have reason to believe that God has forgiven him. But how is this to be ascertained? When any christian has been overtaken in a fault, repents of it, confesses it, and asks forgiveness for it, we have reason to believe that he is pardoned. "For if we confess our sins he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins; and the blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanses us from all sin." Whenever, we have reason to believe that our Heavenly Father has forgiven our brother, we cannot avoid forgiving him, and receiving him, because God has received him. And if he has kindly and graciously received him, how much more we, who are also polluted, and in the same hazard of falling while in the body. This then is the rule and reason in all disciplinary proceedings, against offenders:--When their penitence is so manifest as to authorize us to consider them as received into the kingdom of God, we must receive them into our favor, and treat them as though they had not transgressed. And here it may be observed, that the more frequently a brother transgresses, it will be the more difficult for us to know that he has repented; and it may be so often as to preclude, in ordinary cases, all hope of his restoration. But before there has been any fall, it is much easier to prevent than to restore; and therefore, in all christian congregations, prayer for one another, and watchfulness, with all love and tenderness, will, than all other means, do more to prevent faults and failings in our brethren.

EDITOR.      

GOOCHLAND, VA, August 22, 1828.      

      BROTHER CAMPBELL,--AS your correspondence is very extensive already I cannot ask you to notice any thing from me. But should it ever come in your way, I would be glad you would remove a difficulty that appears to me connected with the apostolic office. I will first state what I consider necessary to the qualifications of an apostle. And first--He must have seen the Lord, and received his commission from Christ immediately. I need not stop here to prove this. Paul's apostleship was called in question by some of the Galatians upon the ground that he had received his apostleship at second hand, and had not obtained it from the Lord, so they concluded. His answer is, "Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen the Lord?" Again he says, in writing to the Corinthians, "And last of all he was seen by me also." So that his seeing that Just One and hearing the voice of his mouth, was necessary to his being a witness of what he thus saw and heard. They could all say, "That which we have seen and heard, declare we to you." The Second qualification regards their credentials, called by Paul the signs of an apostle: "Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, to signs and wonders, and mighty deeds" Let the name them: Speaking with divers tongues, curing the lame, healing the sick, raising the dead, discerning of spirits, conferring these gifts upon others, &c. Thirdly, Inspiration.--Their word was to be received not as the word of men, but, as it is in truth, the word of God, (1 Thess. ii. 13.) and as that whereby we are to distinguish the spirit of truth from the spirit of error. And lastly, they had a power to settle the faith and order of all the churches, as models to future ages, to determine all controversies, and to exercise the rod of discipline upon all offenders, whether pastors or flock. Acts xv. 4. 1 Cor. v. 3-6. 2 Cor. x. 8. and xiii. 10. Well, now comes the difficulty. Can it be said of Barnabas, that he possessed all these qualifications? Try him by the first. Again, had the apostles any power or authority given them to appoint successors? If they had none, how came they to appoint Matthias? Besides, if the first rule I have laid down be a correct one, then he had not his commission from the Lord in person. It will be said that they cast lots, and that the Lord, in making it to fall on Matthias, chose him. But does it not appear that they had not yet received the Spirit to guide them into all truth; and besides it was certain that the lot must fall on one or the other of the two they chose. Suppose then that either Matthias or Barnabas had been in Paul's place, and the Galatians had brought the charge against either, that they had received their commission from Peter and the other apostles at Jerusalem, and not from the Lord in person, I see not how either of them could have answered. And lastly, would there not be as many thrones as apostles in the kingdom of Christ, and instead of twelve be fourteen? or if there are to be only twelve, who shall we say occupies the seat--Matthias or Paul? Certainly from Paul have come forth marry of the regulations of Christ's house. I have mentioned these things very briefly. They may perhaps not appear worthy of notice. They are, however, at your disposal. It has appeared to me that it is as great a presumption in our day for a man to claim the title of ambassador as it is that of apostle.

	I remain affectionately yours,
	F.

      I MOST cordially agree with you in the last sentence. Matthias kept the twelve thrones of the twelve apostles to the Jews' full to usher in the reign of the Messiah. If Matthias had not been elected, Peter, on Pentecost, could not have stood up with the eleven. From the twelve thrones, on that day, to the twelve tribes, were proclaimed the statutes and judgments of the [510] new crowned King of heaven and earth. It was just as necessary that there should be twelve apostles on the day of Pentecost, in honor of the twelve tribes, as that there should have been seventy evangelists sent out to traverse Judea in honor of the seventy sons of Abraham who went down into Egypt, or of the seventy senators who aided Moses in the wilderness. Paul's call and mission to the Gentiles was an apostleship sui generis, of its own kind. Barnabas was sent out with him as an aid. He was also an apostle. Paul associates him with himself in this office. He asks the Corinthians, "Am I and Barnabas the only two apostles excluded from the immunities of the other apostles?" But they are not ranked amongst the original twelve. Matthias sat on Judas' throne. Paul's honors are not the honors of office. He labored more abundantly than they all. His crown is no ordinary crown. He will be venerated by the Gentile world, and his authority regarded while time endures. He is our apostle. He was not ashamed of us, and we have no right to be ashamed of him. A hint to the wise is better than a sermon to a fool.

	Yours most affectionately,
	EDITOR.

      THE Fall of Adam, the Deluge, the Confusion of Human Speech, and the Dispersion of the Family of Man, at so early a period, over all the face of the earth, were, under the management and gracious government of the Most High, overruled to the general interests of the world, and made to contribute to the procurement of the greatest possible quantum of human bliss, on a scale which transcends the limits of time and space. The calling of Abraham is the next public and interesting fact in the annals of the Patriarchal Age. The defection of the world from the knowledge, and consequently from the love and fear of God, so essential to temporal felicity, rendered a more clear and full developement of the divine character absolutely necessary; and for this, as well as other very interesting purposes, it pleased the Possessor of heaven and earth to signalize Abraham, and to make him and his descendants the repository of his gracious purposes, and communication concerning the whole race of men.

      The promises made to Abraham concerned his own progeny and the whole world. And because of the remarkable certainty with which Abraham believed or received them, he is distinguished as the most remarkable believer who had as yet lived upon the earth; insomuch that he is called the "Father of all who believe," in all nations and in all ages.

      It might be interesting here to inquire what it was in the faith of Abraham that rendered it so illustrious, and made him the Father of so many nations? Something intimately connected with our own enjoyments depends upon our clear apprehension of this matter. Let us therefore take a brief view of the call of Abraham, the promises made to him, and his faith in them. The passage to which Paul alludes (Romans iv.) upon the faith of Abraham, is found in Gen. chapter xv. "After these things a word of the Lord came to Abraham in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abraham; I protect you. Your reward shall be exceedingly great. Whereupon Abraham said, O sovereign Lord, what will you give me, seeing I die childless, and the son of Masek my servant, this Damascus Eliezer? Then Abraham said, Seeing you have not given me seed, this servant of mine is to be my heir. And immediately there came a voice of the Lord to him saying, He shall not be your heir; but one who shall spring from you shall be your heir. Then he led him out and said to him, Look up now to the heaven, and count the stars if you can number them. Then he said, So shall your seed be. And Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness." So reads Genesis xv in the Septuagint, which is not materially different from the common version.

      Here we find the reason why Abraham became the father of all who believe. The promise made to him and believed so fully by him, is this--"So shall your seed be"--as innumerable as the stars of heaven. This faith in this promise was accounted to him for righteousness. So says Moses, and so says Paul; but so does not say John Calvin nor John Wesley. One says, his system says that it was Abraham's faith in a future Messiah which was accounted to him for righteousness; and the other says it was Abraham's obedience which made him righteous. I am not to argue the case with them. We shall let their ashes rest in peace. But as for this Moses and Paul, they teach us to consider that Abraham was distinguished, honored, and accounted righteous, through believing that his seed should be as numerous as the stars of the firmament. Some Nicodemus, methinks, says, How can this be? Let us endeavor to find out this mystery.

      There was nothing more extraordinary ever believed by any man, than that he, an old man, ninety-nine years old, and his wife ninety, who had in her youth, and through all the years of parturition, been barren; should, by this woman, became the father of many nations, and have a progeny as innumerable as the countless myriads of the host of heaven. This was contrary to nature. When Abraham considered his own body as good as dead to these matters, and when he looked at the poor, wrinkled, shrivelled, and drooping old Sarah, and thought that they two, old and faded as they were, should become the parents of immense nations, it transcended all the powers of reason to believe it upon any other premises than the omnipotence and inviolate truth and faithfulness of God. To these he gave glory and rested assured that God would make good his promise. "Therefore," says that prince of commentators, Paul, "he staggered not at the promise of God by calling in question either his veracity or power, and was strong in faith, giving all the glory to God's power and truth. Therefore it was accounted to him (i. e. his belief in this promise) for righteousness." It brought him into a state of favor and acceptance with God. This faith was so unprecedented, so new, so simple, so strong, as to exalt Abraham to become not only the natural progenitor of nations, but also the covenant, instituted, or spiritual father of all believers in all ages and nations. His faith, then, becomes the model of "saving faith," or of that faith which terminates in the salvation of the whole man. For he that believes that God raised up the crucified, dead, and buries Jesus, and made him the Saviour of the world, believes in the same manner, i. e. rests upon the truth and power of God; and this belief of the promise of eternal life through a crucified Saviour, is just of the same kind as Abraham's faith--the object only different. And therefore all they of this faith are blessed with believing Abraham. [511] The distinguishing peculiarity of Abraham's belief was, that contrary to all evidence from the reason and nature of things, he embraced, with undoubting confidence, the promise: obviating all the arguments against his confidence, arising from nature and the common lot of men, by the power and faithfulness of God. Now he that believes that through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, God will pardon him, account him righteous, raise him up at the last day, and bestow on him eternal life, believes in the same manner (though the object be different) as Abraham did. For though in the reason and nature of things there is nothing to warrant such a confidence, yet the divine power and veracity are sufficient to overbalance all doubt and conjecture upon the question--How can this be?

      When we talk of believing in the same manner, it is in accordance with common usage. For, in act, there is but one manner of believing any thing; and that is, by receiving the testimony of another as true. Faith never can be more or less than the persuasion of the truth of narrative or of testimony, whether oral or written. The only distinction on this subject, which has any foundation in reason or revelation, is this--that the effect of believing is sometimes called faith, which, in this acceptation, is equivalent to confidence. For example, A. tells me that the ice on the Ohio river is strong enough to sustain my weight on the back of my horse. I believe his testimony, and my faith or confidence is such that I hazard my horse and my person on the ice. Faith, then, is sometimes used to denote the effect of believing. But still, when the grand question concerning faith comes to be discussed, there can be only one faith, and that is the belief of history, or the belief of testimony oral or written. Any operation of the mind detached from testimony, may be called perception, apprehension, memory, imagination, or what you please; but faith it cannot be. Any feeling of the mind may be called hope, fear, love, joy, peace, zeal, anger, or what you please; but faith it cannot be. A man might as reasonably talk of seeing without light, as of believing without testimony.

      Now the true faith has, in all ages, been one and the same thing, in kind, if not in degree. The "true faith" has ever been the belief of all the revelation extant at that time. Hence Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, &c. were all justified by believing the communications made to them. So Paul teaches, Heb. xi. Noah became heir of the righteousness which came through faith, by believing God's promise concerning the Deluge, and Abraham by believing, "So shall your seed be."

      System-makers, to form a theory in the crucible of their invention, say, that "all were justified by believing the same thing." But this no man living is able to show. It is true, I contend, that the ground work of salvation by faith was either prospectively, or retrospectively the sacrifice of Christ. But not a person on earth believed that the Messiah would die as a sin-offering, or rise from the dead, from Eve to Mary Magdalene. Without believing this, nowadays, none to whom it is reported can be saved. The patriarchs had visions and anticipations of a Messias; but so indistinct, that they who spoke most clearly, Peter tells us, were not able to understand them: for, although they sought diligently what the Spirit which spake in them could mean, they did not understand its communications. But to conclude this episode: The Father of the Faithful was accounted righteous through believing the promise made to him, and all his children will be ranked with him through believing the communications made to them. See Rom. iv to the end.

EDITOR.      

"MAHONING CREEK, June 17, 1828.      

      MADAM--SINCE our interview at Mr. Bryan's, I have often thought of your case, which I consider as very singular. You are a professing member of the Presbyterian church; I therefore claim brotherhood with you, and deem it my duty to talk freely with you, and give you my reasons why I think your conduct strangely inconsistent. I shall state the facts, as far as my memory serves, from your own statement. "Your parents were members of the Presbyterian church, and you were baptized in infancy. Your husband and son had left the communion of the Presbyterian church, and joined in connexion with the Baptist church. You have long had doubts that your baptism in infancy was not good or valid. After you arrived to the years of maturity you applied to the officers of the church for liberty to sit down at the Lord's table; and after examination, you were admitted. Thus you were in full communion with the Presbyterian church--First, as a child of believing parents, you were born a member of the visible church, and consequently had a right to all the privileges of the church; but in order to partake of the ordinance of the Lord's supper, it was necessary you should act as a free agent, and believe in him; or, in other words, that you should rely and rest on his obedience and death as the only ground of your hope for pardon and acceptance with God: and along with this, that your conduct, both in civil and religious life, should be according to the rule prescribed in his holy law. Now in a state of infancy, although you had a right to the ordinance of the Lord's supper as a privilege, yet you were under a natural incapacity of doing those things which are in the nature of things connected with it in the institution--"Do this in remembrance of me;" and therefore, in a state of infancy, this ordinance could be of no advantage to you. But it was otherwise with respect to the ordinance of baptism. It was a visible discriminating mark between you, as a church member, and the heathen world--the same as circumcision discriminated the visible church in Abraham's family from the heathen world which were around him. Being in full communion in the Christian church, what more was necessary to your happiness as a church member, but a faithful discharge of every duty which you owed to God, to your neighbor, and to yourself. By some means, however, it came into your mind that you were not baptized, although the church was satisfied that you were. You became acquainted with Mr. Bentley. He took you under examination, and found you were a believer, and therefore had a right to baptism. He re-baptized you by dipping or plunging you under water. After this you had great joy and more spiritual comfort than ever you had before. "This scene I consider as somewhat similar to what took place at Antioch in the early period of the Christian church, Acts xv. 1. "Certain men which came down from Judea, taught the brethren, and said, Except you be circumcised after the manner of Moses, you cannot be saved." So in the present case, in the act of baptizing. Except you be plunged under the water by the person who administers, you cannot be baptized. To this I answer, Had the Lord Jesus Christ, who [512] is infinite in wisdom and knowledge, seen it necessary to make plunging under water the mode in which it should be administered, he would have said so. When he commissioned his disciples to go into all nations, and preach the gospel, and baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, it is not to be doubted but he would have added, By dipping them under water. He did not say so; and therefore those who make dipping or plunging absolutely necessary to the right administration of the ordinance, are guilty of innovation. They add to God's institutions, and to him they must be accountable.

      "Mr. Bentley's baptizing you, and your submitting to be baptized, was a superfluity in you both--you both did more than God required of you. You will both have to answer this question, "Who has required this at your hand?"

      "Another item of your inconsistency is, you still wish to enjoy full communion in the Presbyterian church. I think that, all things considered, this looks like a wish to serve two masters; and Christ himself tells you that this you cannot do. I am a friend to occasional communion among Christians, but I consider your conduct as doing more--you annihilated your church membership through the medium of your parents, and submitted to a condition of church membership which God did not require you to do. This amounts to what is called "will-worship."

      "After your second baptism you had more joy and peace of mind than you ever had before. As a friend who wishes you real happiness, I deem it my duty to urge you to enquire into the true ground of your joy upon that occasion. God says, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked?' Here I observe that your joy was no conclusive evidence that your second baptism was right and approved by God. When Israel had made the golden calf in Horeb, they sung with joy and danced with gladness of heart; when, at the same time, God was highly displeased with them on account of their idolatry. He is the unchangeable God, who has said, "I will be glorified in all those persons who approach to me in the character of worshippers." If we do wrong, he is ready to forgive, but we must ask forgiveness in the name of Christ, and for his righteousness, sake; for it is only in Christ that all his promises are Yea and Amen. In all cases it should be our habitual concern to keep as much as possible out of the way of temptation to commit any sin, or neglect to perform any duty--to act habitually under this impression, "Thou God seest me," and under every new occurrence we meet with, to put the interrogatory, "Lord, what wilt thou now have me to do?"

      "That in all things, whether of civil or religious life, you may be careful to manifest the christian, is the sincere wish of your real friend,

ALEXR. WRIGHT.      

      "Mrs. Lane."

      MY DEAR SIR,--AFTER thanking you for your kindness in attending to my case, I have a few doubts which I beg you to resolve if compatible with your sense of propriety. "I was born," you say, "a member of the visible church." Then why should I have been baptized at all, for no person in the whole New Testament history, who was a member of the church, was ever baptized? Baptism was not for them in the church, as all the New Testament writers and many of our presbyterian doctors teach. If I was born a member of the church as any person is born a member of the state, was this owing to my mother or my father, or to both? Must members of the church be born again? and if so, what use in being born a member of the church if I am to be born again before I can either understand or enter into the kingdom of heaven? If I was born a member of the church, I must have been born a worthy member of the church or an unworthy one: if an unworthy one, then there was no privilege in it: and if a worthy one, was not my salvation sure without regeneration or baptism? You say, in consequence of my "being born a member of the church, I had a right to all the privileges of the church; but in order to partake of the ordinance of the Lord's supper, it was necessary I should act as a free agent and believe in him." Then it was not necessary that I should act as a free agent and believe to order to being a member of the true church, or in order to being a worthy subject of baptism? Then I wish you to tell me of what value is a membership and a baptism destitute of faith and free agency?

      "A natural incapacity," you say, kept me from the Lord's table, which could not keep me from baptism--because the one required "Do this in remembrance of me;" yet I had a right to do what I had a natural incapacity to do! Philip said, "If you believe, it is lawful for you to be baptized." Now does it not require as much natural capacity to believe, as to remember the death of the Saviour?

      "If," you say, "the Saviour had intended to baptize by dipping, he would have said, Baptize them by dipping." Why did he not then say, Baptize them by sprinkling? But if our Doctors Macknight and Campbell are to be believed as good critics, would it not have been anomalous to read the commission as you would have it read in English--"Immerse them by sprinkling them in the name," &c. or, "Immerse them by immersing them." If baptize is Greek, it must mean something in English: and if a Greek word equally means two actions, as different as sprinkling and dipping, it was a very bad language for the wise and benevolent Saviour in which to communicate his will. I should be afraid to risk much upon a language in which two actions so different may be meant by one word. I am glad that you remind me of the question, "Who has required this at your hands?" Now this is just what I desire you to keep in mind in resolving my doubts.

      But, my dear sir, you think my seeking for communion in your church and in the Baptist, is like serving two masters. Now, air, I will thank you much to tell me what master the Presbyterian communicants serve, for the Baptists do profess to serve the Lord. If, then, I thought you had another master to serve, I should not have made such a request. If it be as inconsistent to seek communion in two churches as to serve two masters, in whose service are all sectarian preachers? It seems I "annihilated my church membership received from my parents." Now if it can be annihilated by an act of a free agent, in obeying a command which was never given to parents, but to every one for himself, is it not a very weak and useless church membership which one rational act of a free agent annihilates!

      I am obliged to you for the comparison you have made for me in bringing the Israelites dancing before the calf, to my recollection, as a counterpart of, or an offset to, the peace and joy I informed you I experienced on my [513] baptism. It may serve to keep me humble. But, my dear sir, if you compare my immersion into the name of the Lord Jesus for the remission of my sins, to the Israelites making a golden calf, I entreat you to tell me to what shall I compare the sprinkling of an infant? and when the question is asked you, "Who has required this at your hands?" tell me what answer you will make, and then I shall be able to decide who makes the calf. I will thank you, cordially, to explain these matters.

	Your friend,
	CHARITY.

      Now to the later we answer, that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, it is the word of God, as the king's speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian and Latin, is still the king's speech, though it be not interpreted by every translation with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, every where. For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a naturall man could say, Verum ubi multa nitent in carmine, non ego paucis--Offendor maculis, &c. A man may be counted a vertuous man, though he have made many slips in his life, (else there were none vertuous, for in many things we offend all) also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand; yea, not onely freckles upon his face, but also starres. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be currant, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the sunne, where apostles or apostolike men, that is men endued with an extraordinary measure of Gods spirit, and priviledged with the priviledge of infallibility, had not their hand? The Romanists therefore in refusing to heare, and daring to burn the word translated, did no lesse then despite the Spirit of grace, from whom it originally proceeded, and whose sense and meaning, as well as mans weaknesse would enable, it did expresse. Judge by an example or two. Plutarch, writeth, that after that Rome had been burnt by the Galls, they fell soon to build it again: but doing it in haste, they did not cast the streets, nor proportion the houses in such comely fashion, as had been most sightly and convenient: was Catiline therefore an honest man, or a good patriot, that sought to bring it to a combustion? or Nero a good Prince, that did indeed set it on fire? So, by the story of Ezra and the prophesie of Haggai it may be gathered, that the temple built by Zerubbabel after the return from Babylon, was by no means to be compared to the former built by Solomon (for they that remembered the former, wept when they considered the later) notwithstanding, might this later either have been abhorred and forsaken by the Jews, or profaned by the Greeks? The like we are to think of translations. The translation of the Seventie dissenteth from the Original in many places, neither doth it come neare it for perspicuity, gravity, majestie; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? nay, they used it (as it is apparent, and as S. Hierome and most learned men to confesse) which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had been unworthy the appellation and the name of the word of God. And whereas they urge for their second defence of their vilifying and abusing of the English bibles, or some pieces thereof, which they meet with, for that heretikes (forsooth) were the authors of the translations, (heretikes they call us by the same right that they call themselves catholikes, both being wrong) we marvel what divinity taught them so. We are sure Tertullian was of another mind: Ex personas probamus fidem, an ex fide personas? Do we try mens faith by their persons? we should try their persons by their faith. Also S. Augustine was of another minde: for he lighting upon certain rules made by Tychonius a Donatist, for the better understanding of the word, was not ashamed to make use of them, yea, to insert them into his own book, with giving commendation to them so farre forth as they were worthy to be commended, as is to be seen in S. Augustines third book De doctr. Christ. To be short, Origen, and the whole church of God for certain hundred yeares, were of another minde: for they were so farre from treading under foot (much more from burning) the translation of Aquila a Proselyte, that is, one that had turned Jew, of Symmachus and Theodotion both Ebionites, that is, most vile heretikes, that they joyned them together with the Hebrew original, and the translation of the Seventie (as hath been before signified out of Epiphanius) and set them forth openly to be considered of, and perused by all. But we weary the unlearned, who need not know so much, and trouble the learned, who know it already.

      Yet before we end, we must answer a third cavil and objection of theirs against us, for altering and amending our translations so oft, wherein they deal hardly and strangely with us. For to whom ever was it imputed for a fault (by such as were wise) to go over that which he had done, and to amend it where he saw cause? S. Augustine was not afraid to exhort S. Hierome to a Palinodia or recantation: the same S. Augustine was not ashamed to retractate, we might say, revoke, many things that had passed him, and doth even glory that he seeth his infirmities. If we will be sonnes of the truth, we must consider what it speaketh, and trample upon our own credit, yea, and upon other mens too, if either be any way an hindrance to it. This to the cause. Then to the persons we say, That of all men they ought to be the most silent in this case. For what varieties have they, and what alterations have they made, not onely of their service-books, portesses, and breviaries, but also of their Latine translation? The service-book supposed to be made by S. Ambrose (Officium Ambrosianum) was a great while in speciall use and request: but Pope Hadrian calling a council with the aid of Charles the Emperour, abolished it, yea, burnt it, and commanded the service-book of S. Gregory universally to be used. Well, Officium Gregorianum gets by this means to be in credit, but doth it continue without change or altering? No, the very Romane service was of two fashions; the new fashion, and the old, (the one used in one church, the other in another) as is to be seen in Pamelius a Romanist, his preface before Micrologus. The same Pamelius reporteth out of Radulphus de Rivo, that about the yeare of our Lord 1277, Pope Nicolas the third removed out of the churches of Rome, the more ancient books (of service) and brought into use the missals of the Friars [514] Minorites, and commanded them to be observed there; insomuch that about an hundred yeares after, when the above named Radulphus happened to be at Rome, he found all the books to be new, of the new stamp. Neither was there this chopping and changing in the more ancient times onely, but also of late; Pius Quintus himself confesseth, that every bishoprick almost had a peculiar kinde of service, most unlike to that which others had; which moved him to abolish all other breviaries, though never so ancient, and priviledged and published by Bishops in their dioceses, and to establish and ratifie that onely which was of his own setting forth, in the yeare 1568. Now, when the father of their church, who gladly would heal the sore of the daughter of his people softly and slightly, and make the best of it, findeth so great fault with them for their ods and jarring, we hope the children have no great cause to vaunt of their uniformity. But the difference that appeareth between our translations, and our often correcting of them, is the thing that we are specially charged with: let us see therefore whether they themselves be without fault this way, (if it is to be counted a fault, to correct) and whether they be fit men to throw stones at us: O tandem major parcas insane minori: they that are less sound themselves, ought not to object infirmities to others. If we should tell them that Valle, Stapulensis, Erasmus, and Vives, found fault with their vulgar translation, and consequently wished the same to be mended, or a new one to be made; they would answer peradventure, that we produced their enemies for witnesses against them; albeit, they were in no other sort enemies, then as S. Paul was to the Galatians, for telling them the truth: and it were to be wished that they had dared to tell it them plainer and oftener. But what will they say to this, that Pope Leo the tenth allowed Erasmus translation of the New Testament, so much different from the vulgar, by his apostolike letter and bull: That the same Leo exhorted Pagnin to translate the whole Bible, and have whatsoever charges was necessary for the work? Surely, as the apostle reasoneth to the Hebrews, that if the former Law and Testament had been sufficient, there had been no need of the later, so we may say, that if the old vulgar had been at all points allowable, to small purpose had labour and charges been undergone, about framing of a new. If they say, it was one Popes private opinions, and that he consulted onely himself; then we are able to go farther with them, and to averre, that more of their chief men of all sorts, even their own Trent champions, Paiva and Vega, and their own inquisitour Hieronymus ab Cleastro, and their own bishop Isidorus Clarius, and their own Cardinal Thomas a vio Caletan, do either make new translations themselves, or follow new ones of other mens making, or note the vulgar interpreter for halting, none of them fear to dissent from him, nor yet to except against him. And call they this an uniform tenour of text and judgement about the text, so many of their worthies disclaiming the now received conceit? Nay, we will yet come nearer the quick: does not their Paris edition differ from the Lovain, and Hentensius his from them both; and yet all of them allowed by authoritie? Nay, does not Sixtus Quintus confesse, that certain Catholicks (he meaneth certain of his own side) were in such an humour of translating the scriptures into Latine, that Satan taking occasion by them, though they thought of no such matter, did strive what he could, out of so uncertain and manifold a varietie of translations, so to mingle all things, that nothing might seem to be left certain and firm in them? &c. Nay further, did not the same Sixtus ordain by an inviolable decree, and that with the counsel and consent of his Cardinals, that the Latine edition of the Old and New Testament, which the counsel of Trent would have to be authentick, is the same without controversie which he then set forth, being diligently corrected and printed in the printing house of Vatican? Thus Sixtus in his preface before his Bible. And yet Clement the eighth, his immediate successour to account of, published another edition of the Bible, containing in it infinite differences from that of Sixtus, (and many of them weighty and materiall) and yet this must be authentick by all means. What is it to have the faith of our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with yea and nay, if this be not? Again, what is sweet harmony and consent, if this be? Therefore, as Demaratus of Corinth advised a great king, before he talked of the dissensions among the Grecians, to compose his domestic broils (for at that time his queen and his sonne and heir were at deadly fuide with him) so all the while that our adversaries do make so many and so various editions themselves, and do jarre so much about the worth and authority of them, they can with no show of equity challenge us for changing and correcting.

[TCB 509-515]