Volume 1. Number 4. November 3, 1823, pp. 23-29.

• On Teaching Christianity.--No. II. by Philip (Walter Scott), pp. 23-25.
• The Clergy.--No. II. by Alexander Campbell, pp. 25-27.
• [Introductory Remark on "Abuses of Christianity] by Alexander Campbell, p. 27.
• Abuses of Christianity, pp. 27-29.

      READER, you observe that this piece is entitled "An essay on teaching Christianity." Perhaps you are at a loss to know what it means. You will understand it better by and by. My last paper was intended simply to intimate to christian bishops or pastors, that, in spite of the discrepant and inapt schemes of sermonizing that now prevail by means of learned and popular establishments, there yet exists a certain, uniform, authorized plan of preaching Jesus, a plan consecrated by the high examples of all the heavens, and the holy apostles an prophets.

      I should immediately proceed to develops it, were I not thoroughly convinced that a recognition of a few preliminaries is absolutely necessary to the adoption of this authorized plan, and even to the understanding of it. These preliminaries, indeed, are neither very numerous nor very remote from vulgar apprehension--they are only two, and a very superficial glance at scripture will put the reader in possession of all that is necessary for understanding the writer of these papers. The first of these prefatory articles is, that the members of a church of Christ are united to one another by the belief of a matter of fact, viz. that "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God," and not by any attribute of government, catholic or sectarian. The second is, that the scriptures propose the belief of this fact, that "Jesus is the Christ," as the only means for increasing the body or church of God. Hence the didactical labors of a bishop or elder who would wish to edify and increase the body of Christ, divide themselves into two several sorts. In order to increase the body, he proves to the world by means of these ancient and venerable monuments which God has put into his hands, the four gospels, that "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God;" and, in order to edify the church, he points out in all the scriptures, as these holy and sublime interpretations which the Spirit has ever where given of this illustrious fact. But if it is true (as we shall immediately see from scripture it is,) that the body of Christ is united in its several members by the belief of this matter of fact, viz. that Jesus is the Son of God, and that it is increased by the confession and belief of it--then a number of very important corollaries are deducible from these two revealed propositions: First, the peace and union of a church of Christ are not the result of any sort of ecclesiastical government. Secondly, the increase of Christ's body is not dedicated on any thing so exceedingly exceptionable as modern confessions of faith; but on the confession of the first truth. Thirdly, the worshipping establishments now in operation throughout christendom, increased and cemented by their respective voluminous confessions of faith, and their ecclesiastical constitutions, are not churches of Jesus Christ, but the legitimate daughters of that Mother of Harlots, the Church of Rome. In these establishments a breach of canon is punished with ejection, and to nauseate their vitiated creeds is a certain bar to induction, unless a man is rich, and then he may do or deny anything. But, in order that the reader may entertain no doubt respecting the above mentioned propositions, let us attend to the scriptures--let us attend to the voice of the beloved Saviour, speaking in Matthew xvi. 13. "When he came into the coasts of Cesarea, he asked his disciples, saying, who do men say that I the Son of Man am? And they said, some say that you are John the Baptist; some, Elias, and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He said unto them, but whom say you that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, you are the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said to him, blessed are you, Simon Barjona; for flesh and blood has not revealed it to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say also to you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." In this beautiful, interesting, and highly significant passage, four things are particularly remarkable: First, the name, Christ, Son of the living God, which Simon gives to Jesus. Second, the name Petros, stone, which Jesus gives to Simon. Third, the truth itself, which Simon confesses. And fourth, the name Petra, rock, by which the Saviour, figuratively, in allusion to Simon's name, Petros, stone, designates this eternal truth, that he is the Christ the Son of the living God. On the belief of this fact, then, his church is founded, and by it is held together. I do not remember to have seen it remarked, but it is very much in our Lord's manner to rely in the very same words in which he is addressed. For instance, the [23] leper says, "if you will;" Jesus replies, "I will." Thomas says, "how can we know the way?" The Lord answers, "I am the way." "Why do your disciples transgress?" say the Pharisees; and "why do you also transgress?" says the Saviour. From want of attending to this, the vivacity of our Lord's reply to Simon is not felt, and the spirit of the whole passage, indeed, almost vanishes--you are the Christ--and you are stone, Petros. The Lord Jesus was very apt to speak in metaphor too. He styles Herod a fox; he calls his own body a temple, in allusion to the temple in which he at that time was. When he is on Mount Olivet among the vines, he styles himself the vine; he calls death a sleep; his own death a baptism; Simon a stone, Cephas: and in the above passage he calls the grand truth that he was the Son of the living God, a Petra, Rock, in allusion to Simon's name, Stone, and on account of its stedfast and indestructible certainty; and he adds, that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it;" i. e. as I suppose, his death, which was soon to be effected by the wicked Jews, should not disprove his pretensions to the Messiahship; or perhaps he means that the grave should not interrupt the fellowship of his church, which was to be founded on this imperishable fact, that he was the Christ. This passage sufficiently shows us what is the bond of union among the despised people; and it shows us even more, for it lets us know that the confession and belief of this bare fact, (Peter at this moment knowing nothing more, nothing as yet of his crucifixion for sin) is attended with certain blessing and salvation--"Blessed are you, Simon," &c. To the same purpose Paul says, "if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you shall be saved." Now, if modern confessions of faith had such blessing and such salvation appended to them by such authorities, their abettors might well boast. But they who bow down to such idols shall go down to the grave with a lie in their right hand. The sword of the Lord's mouth is unsheathed against the man of sin, nor will it kiss the scabbard until his enemies are consumed. O Gamaliel! O Socrates! O Satan! save your sinking disciples whose judgment now of a long time lingers not, and their damnation slumbers not!

      But that the glorious truth, and nothing else, holds the saints together in particular churches, is evident from the holy epistles which are addressed to them in their individual capacities. Paul, in writing to the Corinthians, who were beginning to name themselves by their respective favorites, as the moderns do, informs that church, that, when he had first come among them, he had determined to know nothing among them but the bare gospel fact, that Jesus was the Christ, and had been crucified; nor did he attempt to ornament it with the eloquence of words, thinking, as I suppose, that a truth so supremely magnificent in itself, was perfectly insusceptible of extrinsic ornament, and in its own native excellency defied the united pens and tongues of men and angels. His only aim was to demonstrate its reality by the spirit and power of God which filled him, that the disciple's faith might not stand in his word, but in the power of God--the miracles. Knowing that if this great argument, supported as it was with miracles, failed to reduce men to union and to Christ, he had nothing of equal importance to propose for this purpose. The apostle, therefore, in order to reduce them to unity, reminds them of the fundamental bond of union by which they had been originally congregated, thus: "according to the grace (apostleship) of God to me, as a wise master-builder, I have laid the foundation and another builds thereon; but let every man take heed how he builds thereon, for other foundation (of union) can no man lay than that is laid, which is, Jesus is the Christ." These things may suffice to show that the bond of union among christians is the belief of a matter of fact, viz. that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God. The reader may consult Ephesians, ii., iii. and iv. chapters, all the Galatians, epistles to the Colossians, Romans, Timothy, &c. &c., where the apostles lay it down as a universal maxim, that this truth or word of salvation works effectually in all them that believe it!

      But our second proposition, viz. that the body of Christ is increased by belief of the bare truth that Jesus is the Son of God, and our Saviour, is a scripture doctrine, which the populars nauseate, if possible, more than our first. It is so simple, so manifestly foolish, that the sons of Gamaliel and Socrates are equally scandalized and ashamed of it. Yet, says Paul, it saves them that believe it. But it is chiefly abhorrent to modern establishments on account of the consequences of which it is pregnant--it sets aside all canon, all confession, every thing indeed which opposes and exalts itself against Christ and the New Testament. Nevertheless, this second prefatory article, that the body is increased by the confession and belief of the truth, is perfectly obvious from scripture. "Whosoever shall confess me before men, says the Redeemer, him will the Son of Man confess before the angels of God." Peter we have seen, confessed him to be the Son of the living God, though apparently a mere man; and the blessed Saviour honored his confession with a most gracious benediction--"blessed are you Simon, son of Jonas, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven." Now Peter at this moment was perfectly ignorant of every thing besides this truth, which he had learned from the Father, by the miraculous evidence which he had vouchsafed in support of it. It is wonderful the honor which the scripture writers every where do this single truth, that "Jesus was the Son of God." Paul would not dare to use learned words in speaking it, cautions the Hebrews against letting it slip out of their minds, and says to the Corinthians, that they are saved by it if they keep it in mind! John 1st epistle, chap. v declared that the man who believed it is born of God; and wrote and recorded all the miracles in his gospel to prove this illustrious fact. "These things are written," says he, "that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you might have life through his name." In John's days there were many antichrists; but that holy man did not dare to use any unlawful means for securing the disciples against their deleterious influence. He did not write to them that they should covenant like the Covenanters, form any sort of ecclesiastic government, make confessions of faith, liturgy, rubric, &c. &c. No--these things, says he, I have written concerning them that (would) seduce you--these things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may (continue to) believe in the name of the Son of God. One has only to believe in this name, and his is eternal life The body of [24] Christ, thus, then, is also increased by the belief of this excellent truth; and to be convinced of this, the reader has only to turn to any page of the New Testament, and he will read it in every line.

      We have glanced at the vast honor every where in scripture put upon this majestic truth, that Jesus is the Son of Almighty God; we have seen how Paul and John exalted it, and also that it is the foundation and bond of union in the church of God, and how that the body of Christ is increased by the belief of it. But look at the marvellous evidence vouchsafed in support of it; the amazing concatenation of miracles drawn out to identify the person of the Christ; miracle after miracle follows each other in rapid succession, surprisingly diversified in manner, kind, and form; until the mighty chain terminates in that amazing and inscrutable wonder, his resurrection from the dead; a miracle which, for its transcendent peculiarities, the apostle, (Eph. i. 19,) singles out as affording the most illustrious display of the mighty power of God. But the Holy Spirit also, in all his diversified working of gifts and graces, in wisdom and knowledge, and miracles, and healings, discoursing of spirits, tongues, prophecy, and interpretation, was given to prove that Jesus was the Christ. And Peter makes this use of them on the day of Pentecost, when pointing to the multitude of separated tongues that crowned the heads of the apostles, he said, let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly, that God has made that Jesus whom ye have crucified both Lord and Christ. It was to preach and prove this that all the apostles were sent to the nations. But greater reverence could not be paid to any truth than the Lord Jesus himself pays to this, that he was the Son of God; when he bids all men worship him as they would the Father, he says, it is eternal life to know him; and in the moment of quitting this world enforces the belief of the truth with the sanctions of eternal life and death--"he that believes (that he is the Son of God) shall be saved; he that believes not shall be damned." The philosophers indeed have stolen away these sanctions from the faith of Jesus, and have pinned them to their jejune, pretended science of moral philosophy, where the name of the Saviour is perhaps never once mentioned. But they had better confine themselves to their own baubles, and let the truth of God alone, otherwise believe it; for if they do not, he will philosophize them when he comes to be glorified in his saints, when he shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, taking vengeance on them that obey not God, and believe not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

PHILIP.      

      WE observed in our last number, that one of those means by which the clergy obtained so complete a dominion over the bible, the consciences and the religious sentiments of mankind, was the pretence of a divine call to the work of the christian ministry. We now proceed to notice the second grand means employed to effectuate this object, viz. the confederation of themselves into associated bodies, called councils, synods, general assemblies, associations or conferences.

      Though the organized bodies distinguished by those names do not all claim the same powers or the same extent of dominion, yet they all agree in one essential characteristic, which is, that they all profess to have some divine warrant, which authorizes them to have control over the members, whether considered as individuals or as churches, which comprise the religious community, over the faith, the practices, or destinies of which they preside. The systems of what is called "church government," which the respective sects have adopted, though differing in many respects, all agree in this, that whomsoever they will, they kill; and whomsoever they will, they save alive--not their bodies we mean, but their reputation for "piety and orthodoxy." Few of those confederations, now-a-days, even of those who propose authoritatively to determine matters of faith, cases of conscience and rules of practice, literally kill those whom they condemn to suffer the vengeance of their censures. But there is a species of robbery which is worse than taking a man's property; and there is a species of murder worse than taking a man's life; and of both of these ecclesiastical courts are, even in this age, often guilty. But of this more hereafter.

      Now although the forms of "church government" adopted by the respective sects, differ, as was said, in many respects, there is another grand point of coincidence, which fixes upon them all, one and the same general character. This point of coincidence is, that they are all modelled after, and assimilated to the different forms of civil government which have obtained in the nations of the earth, and often according to the government of the state in which the sect originated. Thus we have an ecclesiastic monarchy, an ecclesiastic aristocracy, an ecclesiastic democracy, an ecclesiastic mixed government. Yet, after all that has been said upon the subject of church government, lodged in human hands; after all the angry contests, whether an episcopacy similar to a monarchy; whether a presbytery similar to an aristocracy, or an independency similar to a democracy, be the government instituted by God, or authorized in the New Testament--it might perhaps appear, upon an impartial examination of the scriptures, that the whole controversy is a mere "vox et preterea nihil"--a sound and nothing else; that there is no such a thing as "church government," in the popular sense of the terms. But if we must, from the imperial power of custom, still retain the terms "church government" in our vocabulary, we will attach to the words the following meaning: we will say, that the government of the church is an absolute monarchy, and the Lord Jesus Christ is the absolute monarch, on whose shoulders is the government and in whose hands are the reins. That his will, published in the New Testament, is the sole law of the church; and that every society or assembly, meeting once every week in one place, according to this law, or the commandments of this king, requires no other head, king, lawgiver, ruler, or lord, than this Mighty One; no other law, rule, formula, canon or decrees, than his written word; no judicatory, court or tribunal, other than the judgment seat of Christ. That every such society, with its bishops and deacons, is the highest tribunal on earth to which an individual christian can appeal; that whosoever will not hear it, has no other tribunal to which he can look for redress. To suppose that two churches have more power than one, that one hundred have more power than one, or that the bishops of one hundred churches, with any other delegates sent from the churches, have more power than one church, is to places the power or [25] authority in men, and not in the one king or head. For if numbers create greater power, it is the power of men--it is human authority, and not the authority of God.

      That ecclesiastical authority which is capable of increase, which accumulates with the numbers that combine, is not the authority of God, nor of his word; for his authority and that of his word are one and the same in all circumstances. Now if one church has not the right or authority to make any law for the government of itself, all the churches on earth combined have not a right nor authority to make a law to govern it. If they have no right to make laws, they have no right to dictate doctrinal sentiments; and if they have no right to dictate doctrinal sentiments, they have no right to impose on it interpretations of scripture; and if they have no right to do any of these things, they have no control, no jurisdiction, no authority over it whatever. So that in fact there is no other authority recognized, allowed, or regarded, by a society of christians, meeting in one place as a church of Jesus Christ, than the authority of its king or head. The king appointed twelve men, to whom he gave authority to act in his name, and when his kingdom came he authorized them to sit on thrones, pronouncing statutes and judgments to the Israel of God. The remnant of the twelve tribes that believed in the Messiah, immediately yielded to the mission of those apostles, because of his authority commissioning them. Therefore, they continued steadfast in the apostles' doctrine, and in the apostles' commandments. And thus the apostles spake, saying, We are authorized by God; "he that is of God hears us; he that hears us not, is not of God." From this it is evident that the authority of the apostles is the authority of God, and that their commandments are the commandments of the Lord and Saviour. But the modern clergy have often placed themselves upon this throne which was given to the apostles only; and they have, if possible, in some instances, been still more impious--they have placed themselves upon the throne of God, and dealt damnation with a liberal hand to all their foes, judging, as they thought, correctly, that whosoever opposed them, opposed God. But they have combined their energies and augmented their sway, by confederating in one holy alliance, by which they carry their decisions into more powerful and speedy effects. Then let us ask, whence is the divine warrant for such confederations. The 15th chapter of the Acts of the apostles is appealed to. The incidental meeting of the apostles at Jerusalem, and their being called together with the elders and the whole church on one question, is converted into a warrant for an ecclesiastical council by Romanists and Episcopaleans. It is converted into a presbytery, a synod, or general assembly by Presbyterians. It is converted into an association by Baptists. It becomes a conference in the hands of a Methodist. This is a flexible and pliant passage, if it answers all these purposes. But, strange as it may appear at the first glance, this meeting of the apostles and the church at Jerusalem, was not a Catholic nor Episcopalean council, summoned by a prince, king, or an emperor; it was not composed of the bishops of two, ten, or a hundred churches: nor was it a Presbyterian synod, for they were not the preaching and ruling elders of two or three congregations, nor of any plurality convened; nor was it a Baptist association, for they were not the ministers and messengers of a number of churches meeting annually or biennially to hear the state of the churches and to give their advice in difficult cases. Nor was it a Methodistic conference composed of preachers of a certain grade, without a layman among them. And what renders it a meeting per se--sui generis, a meeting of its own kind, is that its decisions were the decisions of the Holy Spirit, and became a part of holy writ, or of the law of Christ. It was adjourned sine die, never to meet again. But we have said it was incidental, or as some would say, accidental.The circumstances of the case were these: Certain brethren of the Jews, zealous of the law, went down from Judea to Antioch, where Paul and Barnabas were teaching, saying that they had a commandment from the apostles who happened to be at Jerusalem at that time, authorizing them to command the Gentile converts to be circumcised, and to keep the law of Moses, in order to salvation. After that, Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, the Judaizers persisting that they had a commandment from the apostles in Jerusalem, to this effect, the church at Antioch sent Paul and Barnabas and certain others with them to Jerusalem, to see the apostles, who happened to be all there; thither they came and were all received by the apostles, and elders, and church. They told their errand; the apostles, and elders, and the whole church came together, called a meeting to consider this matter. The subject was the greatest ever agitated in the world, since the christian era. It lay at the very basis of making of twain one new man, i. e. of uniting Jews and Gentiles in one associated body--the church. The question itself respected, too, the law of Moses, its perpetuity and universal obligation. This was a most delicate point. Moreover, the recent calling of the Gentiles astonished all the apostles, as an event they had not been looking for. It was the last evolution and developement of the manifold wisdom and goodness of God to their minds; it was the discovery of the last secret in the admirably gracious plan of God, with respect to the whole human race. From all these considerations it was not wonderful that it should have produced so much excitement in the minds of all. It was consequently necessary that the minds of all the apostles, or the revelation of the Spirit communicated to them all, should be fully and publicly expressed and recorded. It was also necessary that this should be done in the first and grandest church of the Jews, and in the metropolis of the Jewish nation, while the nation yet existed; so that the reception of the Gentiles, and the renunciation of the Jewish system, might be first approved and recommended by the Jews themselves: and that the most public refutation of the errors of the Judaizers might be afforded, and the whole scheme denounced by the very persons from whom, and in the very place from which, they said they had their instructions. It is a most precious fact to us Gentiles, that all the apostles who were Jews; all the elders of the church who were Jews, and the whole church of Christ in the metropolis, composed of Jews, should thus, by the revelation of the Spirit, publicly renounce the whole system, and declare that, with all their birthright and natural privileges and religion, "they expected to be saved by the grace of the Lord Jesus just as the Gentiles." And thus they exhilarated the Gentiles by telling them in their decrees, that it not only seemed good to the Holy Spirit, but "also to us" Jews, that those decrees should be established and proclaimed. Such was the nature, design [26] and utility of the interview at Jerusalem, like which there never was, and like which there shall never be another. This occurrence correctly viewed, and the whole scheme of a confederated priesthood appears in its naked deformity, unsupported by the most distant allusion to any scriptural warrant, a worldly scheme, the wickedness of which we hope to make fully appear.

      We are at this moment called from home for some time, and deprived of the opportunity of bringing this article to a close. Hoping to resume it again, we must dismiss it for the present.

EDITOR.      

      THE following is an extract from a work of modern date, which, though it may in some respects be exceptionable, is nevertheless deserving of the candid investigation of every advocate of primitive christianity.--EDITOR.

      IT will be allowed that the best human institutions, through the lapse of time and the gradual encroachments of corrupt society, become changed in their nature and tendency, though they may retain their original names and pretensions. The art of building is architecture still; but from the difference in materials, plan, and construction, very different fabrics result. An African's but is not a Solomon's temple. If, then, it fares thus with the institutions of men, was it to be expected that christianity, the supreme excellency of which no man can know only by the special teaching of heaven, should share a better fate, and be mocked with no spurious imitations. Surely no. Let it not here be understood that man is void of sufficient intellectual faculties; were it so, he would be excusable in rejecting the oracles of God, and blameless in making him a liar. From man's perverseness and depravity alone, his religious errors spring; it is hence that his views are perverted and corrupt, and he is said to be spiritually dead in trespasses and sins, alienated from the life of God, through the ignorance that is in him.

      Christianity was first propagated by apostolic agency. Their doctrine was a stream of pure grace, issuing from the throne of God. The light which first irradiated the earth was but a faint figure of the light held forth by the apostles; for they exhibited the Deity himself in all the grandeur and excellency of his character. The focus of this light was the resurrection of Jesus; hence whatever might be the exordium of their discourses, they always made haste to testify this fact. It was this which demonstrated Jesus to be the Son of God. It was this which showed the design of his death accomplished: that death was virtually abolished, and "life and immortality" brought to light. The effect, in those that believed their testimony, was life; they were quickened by it; begotten, or born again; entering a life of friendship with God which they did not previously possess. The resurrection of Jesus implies his previous death an event which shows the peculiar character of Deity, as "the just God and the Saviour;" hence Jesus is called "the image of the invisible God." To such a character all "baptized infidels" and professed deists are entire strangers; they worship another god, a god corresponding with their own imaginations.

      By this statement may be seen the rock, the foundation on which the primitive churches were built. We may see what it was which gave them life, and animated with a boldness and confidence that often astonished and confounded their adversaries, who imagining their gods to be offended by christians refusing to do them honor, made no scruple to sacrifice them. At what period of time the teachers of christianity turned aside from primitive simplicity is not necessary to say; but early as the days of Constantine, we see them engrossed with very different things. In his days was the great uproar with the Unitarians, which did not subside with his reign; for his successors being some unitarian and others orthodox, continued to convulse the religious world till orthodoxy finally prevailed. In those commotions the teachers of both parties appeared more like greedy wolves than imitators of the Lamb of God. Their rage for victory over each other seemed to be animated by the love of power and emolument. Church livings began then to be rich, particularly that of Rome, which, when it became vacant, set in motion all the clerical chariots in the empire, rolling towards Rome to obtain the fat living. As these things were too disgusting to christianity, some spoke boldly against them. But soon the arm of power was stretched out against all whose love of truth led them to oppose reigning abuses, and those of them who could not escape felt the vengeance of Christianity, so called. Those who escaped took refuge in the mountains and vallies of the Alps, and in those wintry regions subsisted for ages by mechanical trades. Often were they invaded, harassed, and nearly destroyed, but never exterminated till Louis XIV. of France sent an army to assist his son-in-law, the duke of Savoy, in accomplishing it. About the same time Louis had converted France into a complete slaughter house, that if he enjoyed the title of "Beloved Son of the Church," he showed himself worthy of it by his zeal in what he no doubt imagined to be her interests.¹

      Thus history shows us, that, instead of converting men by the plain apostolic truth, concerning "Jesus and the resurrection," simply, they were more zealous to improve upon Nebuchadnezzar's plan, who, in his zeal for the worship of God represented by the image on the plain of Dura, heated a tremendous furnace, and hurled the impious into it. He had music to draw and fire to drive, and imagined, no doubt, that the heart must be hard, stubborn, and rebellious, which would not be melted by the influence of one, nor softened by the allurements of the other.

      But since the great furnace is no more, our moderns have recourse to means somewhat different in appearance, though not in effect. They make very little use of the tale concerning "Jesus and the resurrection;" this is too stale for the unproved ears of their audience; and what gave life to the dead in sins nearly eighteen centuries past, might seem (to them) to have lost its effect, and will, by no means, answer their purpose. Their plan is briefly this: First, they set man to judge in his own cause--man, whose heart the scripture declares "is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked; who can know it?" is set to judge of himself; not, indeed, by the rules of justice, but by certain marks and signs, to distinguish [27] himself from other men as converted, or partly converted; a believer, or desiring to believe; religious, or seeking to be religious. Those who are of neither class; but hardened to heedlessness, they endeavor to melt down by pouring upon them fire and brimstone, feeding them with the thunderbolts of heaven, answerable to Nebuchadnezzar's furnace. Those who imagine themselves distinguished from other men, are fed with very different things; the scriptures are cut up into piecemeal, and the very best given to the first rates; while those who are a kind of half converts, wanting something to complete their happiness, as decided favorites of heaven, receive every encouragement, and are set diligently to work in one shape or other, to obtain the ultimatum of their wishes. In this manner Paul is despised when he says, "If by grace, then it is no more of works, otherwise grace is no more grace; but if it be of works, then is it no more of grace, otherwise work is no more work."

      Now, as those whose life springs from "Jesus and the resurrection" alone are never tired of this grand subject, but dwell upon it with sweet delight; so those whose life springs from another source, never make it the soul of their discourse, but are ever harping upon experimental faith, vital godliness, inherent holiness, and the like; and though they swell their mouth with the word gospel five hundred times in a single discourse, yet they never hold the thing forth from the pulpit only in such manner as to have a very different effect to that which it produced in the days of Paul. Hence the striking difference between primitive Christians and those of modern times, the latter being as zealous for the doctrines and commandments of men as the former were for the precepts of the Christian Lawgiver. The close attachment of professed Christians to the traditions and precepts of men, is not matter of wonder, if we consider again the high pretensions with which teachers array themselves. They speak of themselves in the words which apply only to the apostles. Instead of being content with the simple title, TEACHER, they swell themselves into all the importance of ambassadors from the court of heaven, "stewards of the mysteries of God," and the channel through which God conveys salvation. They seem "willingly ignorant of this," that the apostles can have no successors, seeing that none after Paul were witnesses of the resurrection of Jesus, not having seen him alive after that event. This was the first grand requisite in an apostle. "As stewards of the mysteries of God," the apostles too were guided into all truth; but can our moderns say this of themselves? In fact, the apostles need no successors; for, as "the law and the prophets prophesied until John," so Christ and the apostles continue to preach and to testify in all ages. There is no new edition of the gospel, and, strictly speaking, no new preachers; for a preacher is a publisher, and a publisher is a preacher.

      As for the office of pastor, very few possess the requisite qualifications laid down in the scriptures; and to give that title to whom the scriptures do not, would be doing violence to those scriptures: the bare appellation of teacher is all that such can claim. Now the word pastor is equivalent to that of shepherd, or bishop; and the word elder is often used in reference to the same office, as will be seen by comparing the scriptures of Peter and Paul.

      Thus we see the extravagant pecuniary claims, as well as the high-sounding titles of reverend gentlemen, fall to the ground by the touch of the scriptures. But as questions opposing the scripture plan never cease, it will be asked, when are teachers to study? I answer, when they walk by the way, when they lie down, and when they rise up, as every saint does; and if they be taught of God, the word of Christ will dwell in them richly; so that with natural abilities for communication, they will be "apt to teach" and ready on all occasions. If, indeed, teachers cannot be prepared for want of time to study, why do they make a monopoly of teaching: for by attending to Paul's instructions to the churches at Rome, Corinth, Ephesus, and others, it will be seen that teaching is a thing not to be restricted to an individual of an assembly, but that every man in an assembled body of christians, possessing in a great or less degree the gifts for teaching or exhortation, should not be obstructed, but allowed opportunity to exercise the same. But this is not permitted where one man engrosses all, and drinks up too, the resources of the congregation, which ought to be appropriated to the use of the poor, as Paul enjoins. "Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store as God has prospered him," that is, to form a "collection for the saints" in want. It will be said that inferior teachers must exercise their gifts at other times, and not when the whole church is assembled. I answer that the scripture knows nothing of such plan. The gifts of the saints ought to be exercised in love for edification of the whole body; but how can this be done except when they are come together? As for appointing other days besides the "Lord's day, the first day of the week," no man who trembles at the word of God, would presume to "bind upon the disciples" any such thing: it would be legislating for Christ, changing his "times and laws."

      "The first day of the week" is the day on which primitive Christians came together, and their example is as the law to Christians of all ages; for they acted under the eye and instruction of the apostles, to whom the Lord Jesus said, "He that hears you hears me." The pulpits of the present day call "the first day of the week" sabbath; but the New Testament does not speak so. As they please to call it sabbath, so they legislate as to the manner in which it must be observed; for, instead of obeying the injunction relative to the seventh day sabbath, that they should make no fire in all their dwellings, nor cook their victuals, they enjoin what they please, and very frequently enforce their precepts by the civil power. Thus the fear of man is substituted for the fear of God. Such proceedings can answer only one purpose--by compelling people to be at leisure, they will be more likely to attend before the pulpits.

      As our moderns do not keep the "first day of the week" as sabbath, so neither do they observe it as the "Lord's day." Upon "the first day of the week the disciples came together to break bread" in remembrance of the Lord's death; and as the "first day of the week" comes once in seven, the plain Christian, whose inquiry is, "Lord, what would you have me to do?" needs not the finger of some great divine to point out his duty or privilege in respect to partaking of the "Lord's supper" every "Lord's day." But the customs or traditions of men have made void this institution. The same contempt of his authority who commanded his apostles to teach believers "to observe all things [28] whatsoever he had commanded them," is often manifested in respect to baptism. The scripture very significantly places that ordinance between a confession of "the truth as it is in Jesus," and admission into the churches as members of the faithful body: but the authority of men has transferred that ordinance, or something under its name, to the speechless infant, making of "none effect" the ordinance of God.

      It is tiresome to follow the steps of corruption. Another instance wherein the authority of God is supplanted by the will of man, shall suffice. It will be recollected that "the author and finisher" of the christian faith manifested an utter aversion to ostentation; hence he spoke against the practice of praying standing at the corners of the streets, and commanded his disciples to keep within doors when they wished to pray; and not only so, but to enter into the closet, praying in secret. The reverse of this is commanded by the pulpits, not indeed that men should attend to it in the streets; it is sufficient for their purpose that the devotee be seen or heard, praying in his family.²

      These, out of many specimens of departure from primitive simplicity, are enough to show that the authority of the christian lawgiver is not more regarded now than it was in the twelfth or fourteenth century; for though a great part of the professing world may reject this, that, and the other abuse; yet, whilst they do what they please, obey what they like, and cherish whatever abuses may suit their taste, prejudices, or circumstances, how can it be said that they recognize the King of Zion? And, indeed, what better could be expected, when such is the purity and sublimity of the christian faith, that none can know or appreciate its excellency but by the teaching of God--whilst such is the perversity and depravity of the human heart, that it seems to pervert or contaminate whatever does not correspond with its corrupt principles. Besides, a man might seem to be born to his religion as to his father's inheritance--it forms, as it were, a great part of his patrimony. And whatever it might be that induced some of our forefathers to suffer so nobly in opposing some abuses of christianity, yet they could not communicate their spirit to their children, and so posterity cease to advance in the work of reform. They prefer the ipse dixit of man to the labor of thinking for themselves. It is thus their prejudices become firm as the foundations of the mountains, and their abhorrence of change is in proportion.

      But some will say that these are hard sayings, harsh and uncharitable, and seem like judging. I answer, that nothing is hard to him whose foundation is eternal truth; even the "wrath which is to come" he views with fearless countenance. No coming storm can move him to dismay. As for the harshness of truth, it will be harsh to the ear fostered and fed by flattery. But if it be uncharitable to speak truth, surely it is more uncharitable to poison with deceit and falsehood. And where is charity when the love of truth is absent? Charity rejoices not in iniquity, but "rejoices in the truth." Charity regards the truth as its true mother, and will pine and die under a step-mother. As respects judging, no judging can be wrong which is measured by the truth on which we stand and hope to stand in judgment yet to come. Nay, further--a measure of judging is absolutely necessary to every christian. Is he not to discriminate and recognize the brethren of his Lord." Yes, verily, or he would be neglecting the "new commandment," that peculiar precept, by the observance of which He will distinguish his sheep from the goats, who said, "Love one another as I have loved you?" This love, says John, is "for the truth's sake as it is in Jesus," dwelling in those that believe it. This love cannot exist where the views of the professing body are not simplified as respects the truth being the sole ground of their only hope, joy, and peace. When, therefore, the plain christian looks for "the love of the truth" and brotherly charity in the gay and pompous assemblies of the professing world, he is constrained to say, they are not here.

[TCB 23-29]