Volume 1. Number 6. January 5, 1824, pp. 34-42.

• The Clergy.--No. IV by Alexander Campbell, pp. 34-36.
• On Teaching Christianity by Philip (Walter Scott), pp. 36-38.
• Address to the Readers of the Christian Baptist.--No. II by Alexander Campbell, pp. 38-40.
• The Conversion of the World by Alexander Campbell, pp. 41-42.
• [Early Laws against Baptists and Quakers] (from Plain Truth), p. 42.

      AS THE clergy have occupied a most conspicuous place in the Egyptian, Chaldean, Persian, Grecian, Roman, and anti-Christian empires, common courtesy requires that we should pay them more than common attention. Our present number shall be devoted to their training and consecration.

      A lad, sometimes of twelve or fourteen years, is, by his parents, destined for "holy orders." To the grammar school he hies away. In the course of two or three years he is initiated into the Latin tongue. The fables of Æsop, the Viri Romæ, the wars of Cæsar, the metamorphoses of Ovid, the conspiracy of Catiline, the wars of Jugurtha, the pastoral songs of Virgil, with his Georgics and Æneid; the amorous and bacchanalian odes of Horace, his satires and epistles; the sapient invectives of Juvenal and Perseus; the amours, the debaucheries, the lecherous intrigues, the murders, and suicides of real and fictitious heroes and heroines; the character and achievements of Jupiter, Juno, Bacchus, and Venue, well relished and well understood, prepare him for introduction to the Grecian tongue. Now subjects of a similar character, written in a different alphabet, but written by men of the same religion and morals, command his attention for a year or two longer. He now enters college, perfects his knowledge in the pantheon, admires the beauties of Anacreon, is charmed with the sublimity of Homer, reveres the mythology of [34] Hesiod, and scans with rapture the flights of Pindar. From the inspiration of the Muses, from the summit of Parnassus, he descends to the frigid contemplation of triangles, squares, and curves. For this he acquires a taste also. The demonstrations of Euclid, the algebraic process, and Newton's principia captivate his powers of ratiocination. The logic of Aristotle, the rhetoric of Longinus and Quintilian, the ethics of Plato, and the metaphysics of the Gnostics, elevate him to very high conceptions of himself. So far the candidates for law, physic, and divinity accompany each other. Each of these, having got his diploma of Bachelor of all these Arts, shakes hands with his classmates, and enters into a department of preparation consentaneous to his future destiny. One puts himself under a doctor of law, another under a doctor of physic, and the pupil with whom we set out, puts himself under a doctor of divinity. His former classmates, with whom he was once so jovial, retain their former jocularity or sobriety,--there is no alteration of their visage. But my young priest gradually assumes a sanctimonious air, a holy gloom overspreads his face, and a pious sedateness reigns from his eyebrows to his chin. His very tone of voice participates of the deep devotion of his soul. His words flow on with a solemn slowness, and every period ends with a heavenly cadence. There is a kind of angelic demeanor in his gait, and a seraphic sweetness in all his movements. With his sunday coat, on a sabbath morn, he puts on a mantle of deeper sanctity, and imperceptibly learns the three grand tones--the sabbath tone, the pulpit tone, and the praying tone--these are the devout, the more devout, and the most devout.

      Meantime he reads volumes of scholastic divinity, and obtains, from sermon books and skeletons of sermons, models for future practice. Bodies of divinity, adapted to the sect to whom he looks for maintenance, are closely studied; and the bible is sometimes referred to as a book of proofs for the numerous articles of his creed. A partial acquaintance with church history is formed, and a minute attention is paid to the rules and manner of proceeding in ecclesiastical courts. Now he can descant upon "natural" and "revealed" religion; now the mysteries of scholastic divinity, viz. "eternal generation," "filiation," "the origin of moral evil," "the eternal compact," "the freedom of the human will," "eternal, unconditional election and reprobation," "the generality or speciality of the atonement," &c. &c. are, to him, as common place topics. After being a year or two at the feet of this Gamaliel, he appears before the presbytery or some other ecclesiastical tribunal: he delivers a sermon on which he has spent two or three months first, in collecting or inventing documents, then in writing, and lastly, in memorizing the whole. When he has it well committed, the only thing preparatory yet remaining, is to fix upon the proper attitudes of body, tones end gestures suited to the occasion: and, above all, he endeavors to conceal all art, that it may appear to flow from unfeigned sincerity. The sermon is pronounced and approbated, with a small exception or two. On the whole, it was a finished piece of mechanism. He lifts his indentures, and after another specimen or two, receives a license, which places him on a footing with those of other trades called journeymen. Indeed he is for a time hired by the day, and sent hither or thither at the will of his superiors. This, however, contributes to his ease, inasmuch as it saves him the toil of preparing new sermons, the same discourses being always new to a strange congregation.

      Such is the common training of a clergyman. It may not be so extensive, or it may be more extensive; he may commence his studies at an earlier or later period; he may be sent by his parents or by others, or he may go of his own accord; he may be a beneficiary, or he may be able to pay his way. These circumstantial differences may and do exist; yet the training of a clergyman is specifically the same in all cases.

      To this course, which is, with some very small differences, the course pursued by Romanists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians of every grade, Congregationalists, and, perhaps, by some others; it has been objected that there is not much grace nor much dependence upon grace in this plan. This is, perhaps, a futile objection; for what need is there of grace, or what cause for dependence upon the grace of God, in a person so well qualified by art for this reverend office? A clergyman, thus qualified, can deliver a very popular and orthodox sermon without any grace; as easily too as a lawyer can plead the cause of his client without grace. If a lawyer can be so much interested in the cause of his client as to be warmly eloquent; if his soul can be so moved by sympathy, as it often is, even to seek relief in copious tears, without the influence of grace or supernatural aid, why may not a clergyman be elevated to the same degree, or to a higher degree of zeal, of warmth, of sympathy, of deep distress, in his pathetic addresses from the pulpit. Again, if one so well versed in theology, as to be able to comprehend, in one view, all the divinities, from the crocodiles, the gods of Egypt, up to Olympic Jove, or the venerable Saturn, as any clergyman from his youthful studies is; if a competent acquaintance with the sublimities of natural religion, and with the philosophical mysteries of scholastic divinity, cannot be eloquent, animated, and orthodox, without grace, he must, indeed, be as stupid as an ass.

      But there are some who think that there is some kind of an almost inseparable connexion between clerical acquisitions and the grace of God--that none can be eminently possessed of the former, that does not possess a competent portion of the latter. How can this be? If a parent who has three sons, A, B, and C, educates A for a divine, B for a carpenter, and C for a doctor of medicine; why should A possess the grace of God or the faith of the gospel rather than B or C? If such were the case, how could it be accounted for? Has the parent any divine promise that A shall possess the heavenly gift rather than B or C? Is there any reason in the nature of things, that the training of A, B, and C, will secure grace to A rather than to B and C? If so, then there is a connexion between Latin and Grecian languages, mythology, science, and the grace of God, that does not exist between the education of a carpenter or a medical doctor, and that grace. If the education of A secures the boon of heaven, then it becomes the imperious duty of every father thus to educate his sons. But this is impossible. He has not the means. Then the gift of God is purchased with money!!! It is, then, unreasonable to suppose that the training of a clergyman can, in any respect, contribute to his possessing the grace of God, even in the popular sense of that grace. Indeed, we would cheerfully undertake to prove that the training of a carpenter or mason is more innocent and less injurious to the human mind, than the training of a clergyman in the popular course, and that [35] there is more in the education of the latter to disqualify him to enter into the kingdom of God, than there is in the education of the former to unfit for admission into this kingdom. From these considerations the most favorable opinion which we could form of the regular clergy, is, that if there be, say, for the sake of precision, five thousand of them in the United States, five thousand carpenters, and five thousand doctors; there is an equal number of Christian carpenters, of Christian doctors, or of any other trade, proportionally according to their aggregate number, as there is of Christian clergy. If we err in this opinion, our error is on the side of charity for the clergy. For we conceive it would be much easier to prove from the bible and from reason, that in five thousand carpenters, masons, tailors, farmers, there is a larger proportion, in each, of members of the kingdom of God, than in the same number of regularly educated ministers. If we were to form our opinions on this subject alone from the history of the regular orthodox clergy in the time of the Jewish prophets, or in the era of Christ and his apostles, alas! alas! for the regular orthodox divines of this time!

      An objector asks, "Must our clergy, then, be ignorant and unlettered men?"--"is ignorance the mother of devotion?" Ignorance is often the mother of enthusiasm or superstition, either of which is, with many, equivalent to devotion. Many of those unlettered divines who are supposed to speak entirely from the Spirit, for every one knows it is not from a fund of knowledge or from literary attainments which they possess, are indeed as evidently without the grace of God as his holiness the pope or his grace the duke of York. They speak from the spirit, but it is from the spirit of enthusiasm. Enthusiasm is frequently accompanied with a remarkable volubility of speech and pathos of expression. There are none more eloquent or more ungrammatical than the enthusiastic. Indeed, some writers on eloquence of the highest order, say that this kind of eloquence is the creature of enthusiastic ardor. Thousands of ignorant unlettered men, not fettered by the rules of grammar, not circumscribed by the restraints of reason, not controled by the dictates of common sense, nor limited by the written word of God, are nevertheless both fluent, and, though incorrect, eloquent speakers: they are elevated by enthusiasm, and, like the meteors of the night, shine with more resplendence than the real stars. But to answer the above objector I would say, Let us have no clergy at all, learned or unlearned--let us have bishops and deacons, such as Paul appoints, such as he has described 1st Tim. iii. 1-14. Titus i. 5-9.

      But to resume the young clergyman where we left him, working by the day as a licentiate: he preaches, he travels, he explores "vacant churches," he receives his per diem, his daily compensation. Like a young gentleman in quest of a wife, who visits the "vacant" ladies; forms an acquaintance with the most charming, the best accomplished, until he finds one to whom he can give his heart and hand; the nuptial engagements are formed, and the ceremonies of marriage are completed; he settles down into domestic life and builds up his house. So the young priest, in quest of a "vacant church," forms as extensive an acquaintance as possible with all the unmarried establishments of this character, pays court to the most charming, i. e. the most opulent and honorable, if he be a young gentleman of high standing, until he find one that answers his expectations. A "call" is presented and accepted. His reverend seniors come to the celebration of his nuptials--with holy hands they consecrate him--he vows to be a faithful teacher of the doctrines of the sect, loving pastor of the flock, and they vow to be to him a faithful congregation, to support him according to promise, to love him for the work's sake, and to be obedient to his authority until God separate them--by death--no, but until he gets another and a louder call from some "vacant church" who falls in love with him, and for whom he is known to possess feelings incompatible with his present married state. Thus he is consecrated a priest for life or good behavior and then he sets about building up his cause and interest, which is ever afterwards represented and viewed as the cause and interest of Christ. Here we shall leave him for the present.

EDITOR.      

      "YOU are the Christ, the Son of the living God," said Simon, and "you are Stone," replied Jesus to the son of Jonas. Both the speakers were human apparently, and had been introduced to each other by Andrew, on the banks of the Jordan, about the commencement of the Saviour's ministry, when Simon had the name of Stone given to him, &c. To such an acquaintance the introduction of Andrew was sufficient, common civility seldom requiring more on such occasions, than "this is such a one, and this is such another one." Simon, with others, seems to have had no higher views of the Lord Jesus in the first instance, than the popular sect of our own day, called Socinians. Philip expresses these views to Nathaniel, "We have found him of whom Moses in the law and the prophets did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of Joseph." But though Peter in the first instance conceived of him as the son of Joseph, yet afterwards, as is evident, he had his views corrected, and was introduced to him as the son of one infinitely august; not, indeed, by flesh and blood, not by his brother Andrew, but by God the Father. "Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonas, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in Heaven."--All the Jews regarded Jesus as the son of Joseph. As such, they rejected his pretensions to the Messiahship; and, as such, he was reputed poor and vile by the rich and great of his own nation. If I am not wofully deceived, however, the noblest peculiarity of the Christian books consists in their disproving the false conceptions of the Jews on this point, by showing that he was the son of the living God. "God manifest in the flesh," is the grand arcanum of christianity--the sublime mystery it divulges to those who are initiated! But I must stop, for this would clash with the paradox of the Socinians, who are both gentlemen and philosophers, and Jews and saints.

      I think, and perhaps, too, the reader thinks, that in my last paper it was showed by a series of New Testament quotations, that this peerless fact, that "Jesus is the Christ," forms the sole bond of union among the holy brethren, and is also the means through faith for increasing the body of Christ in the earth.

      Hence it may be affirmed, without fear of being disproved, that the church of Christ is something essentially different from the popular establishments, that are maintained and increased by money, and their respective ecclesiastical constitutions and confessions. Let [36] Mammon withhold his support from these schemes and they would instantly be dissolved. The church of Christ, however, is founded on a rock, and its union and fellowship are as indestructible as the eternal and imperishable fact by which it is knit together; yea, it could exist if there were no such things as silver and gold in the world, and, indeed, the church of Jesus is fast passing into a world where there are no such things. A spark of common sense might teach any of us that God and Mammon can have no communion, even in this world; and this circumstance may well teach every person who has large annual contributions to make for the support of clergymen, that the society to which he belongs is not the church of Christ, that society requiring no such support.

      But has the Son of God indeed visited our benighted planet? Has the Creator of the ends of the earth really stretched forth a human hand? Has the great God for certainty strode across the stage of this ephemeral existence, and acted so mighty a part? Why then, O Emmanuel! why should we for a moment be in wonder if this matchless truth be made the bond of union among them that believe it! and the fact by which the sinful sons of men are born again into the everlasting kingdom! "Reader, have your eyes been opened to this illustrious truth? The scriptures disclose this secret and lift it high above all the other revelations of God. It is the very sun of the spiritual system. Shut your eyes to it, and christianity is a most dark and perplexing scheme. Once behold it, and you behold the most certain and substantial argument for love to God and men. This same Holy One died for sin, and if the knowledge of it fails to influence our hope, and love, and joy, it may safely be said that the scriptures have nothing of equal weight to propose for this purpose. That man is, or is not a christian, who is, or is not constrained by this grand truth to abandon sin and live unto God; and this is all the scriptures mean by the word gospel in the noblest sense of that term. This is the grace and philanthropy of God, which, having appeared to all men, teaches us to deny all ungodliness, and to live soberly, righteously, and godly, in the present evil world. The word "gospel," I am bold to say, is a term more abused than any other in our language.

      The religious public devoutly reckon a pulpit man to be explaining this term, and to preach the glad tidings of heaven, if he be but deducing some grave spiritual secret from such scraps of Holy Writ as the following--"Naphtali is a hind let loose"--"Ephraim is a cake unturned"--"Remember Lot's wife"--"Judas went and hanged himself"--"We took sweet counsel together," &c. &c. Such texts, "for Antichrist has made the word of God a mere text-book," such texts, I say, may afford the learned, subtle, and seraphic preacher an opportunity of exhibiting his own pretty talents before a polite and fashionable assembly; but they were never written by the Holy Spirit to establish the gospel fact, but for quite a different purpose; and the dry heathenish harangues spun from them are as dissimilar from the grand, certain, and divine evangelical narration, as the fabulous cosmogony of Epicurus is from the Mosaic history of the creation. In the mouth of the popular preachers, the gospel is quite a fugitive thing--rapid, flitting, retiring, uncertain--it eludes the grasp of the most expert and attentive hearer; accordingly few or none of all who attend the heptdomidal levees of these spiritual courtiers, can ever tell, in precise terms, what the gospel of the New Testament means. I have heard of several pious presbyterians who would not accept of an excellent property in the western country, because they could not think of leaving the gospel; so that the bible, which records the gospel, was to them a mere plaything of their preachers. Apropos: Two popular christians have this moment called to quarrel with me for saying, in my last paper, that the peerless gospel fact is the sole bond of union among the holy children; and that the testimony of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit for this for is recorded in the four evangelists. These two gentlemen will probably see this paper, and I here appeal to them whether the drift of their conversation with me was not to show that the writings of the evangelists were intended for the Jews only, and that the Gentiles had no need of these four books to support the grand fact that Jesus is the Son of the living God.

      The gospel is a question of fact. Is Jesus the Son of the living God, or is he not? If it is false, the popular preachers cannot make it true--if it is true, the four evangelists have the honor of recording the evidence for its truth; and this brings us at once to their writings. Let us look at the circumstance of this fact as found in Matthew, Luke, &c. and we shall at once see whether any thing the pulpit men can strip from texts like those quoted above, can afford the shadow of an opportunity for preaching, i. e. proving that Jesus is the Christ. The evangelists tell us that this same personage was born in a stable, of a poor, but a religious female, at a moment, too, when she seems to have been exhausted by a long and fatiguing journey; accordingly, he was cradled in a manger, until the king of the country getting intelligence of his birth, obliged his guardians to seek for safety in a flight by night to Egypt. On his return misfortune still seemed to pursue him, and the family were compelled to pass their native canton and to seek a wretched security in Zabulon. At the age of thirty, he preferred his claims to the Messiahship, i. e. to be the Son of the living God. His pretensions were instantly rejected, and his fellow citizens en masse conspired against him, and drove him from the city. From this time he lived a wandering life, without a place to repose his head. His own tribe did not receive him; his own brethren disbelieved him; the people who heard him, pronounced him mad; and the priests who argued with him, and who are never behind in reprehending the good, declared him possessed. He more than twice escaped being stoned, and was actually scourged publicly. He was a known friend to sinners; and so excessively poor, that when he wanted to see Cæsar's head he had to ask for a penny. Thus he lived, insulted and abused, until an intimate acquaintance of his own betrayed him for the paltry sum of thirty Shillings. When he was seized in a garden by a banditti of soldiers in the dark, and accused by many of seditions and blasphemy before the national senate, the petty officer of that court smote him on the cheek, and when afterwards brought before the Roman tribunal, it was only to receive the same contumely afresh. They dressed him like a puppet, spit in his face, and struck him with the palms of their hands. He was adjudged to be crucified, and departed for the place of execution bearing his own cross. He was immediately nailed to it, and the malicious clergymen continued to persecute him with their pious scoffs, until, as if the world was in danger while the enemy to their power was alive, they sent [37] a ruffian soldier to pierce his side with a spear. But these doctors of divinity shall look on him whom they pierced. Thus he lived without a place to repose his head in life; and thus he died, without a grave to hide his murdered form in death. Now all this is intended to humble us in the dust. And it is the history of one pretending to be the Son of Almighty God; and to believe him to be the Son of God, is to believe the gospel; and to preach the gospel, is to show by the writings of the evangelists that this same suffering was all voluntary, and that he was the only begotten Son of God. But the writings of Matthew, &c. bear no resemblance to a popular preacher's gospel, which, too generally, is little better than a song of logic or metaphysics.

      Dear Lord, when I reflect that I have spent twenty years of my life under the noisy verbosity of a Presbyterian clergyman, without receiving the least degree of light from the holy word of God; when I see others led the same dark dance by the same blind leaders, I am prompted to address myself to the bishops and deacons of the church of Christ. Brethren, you are not numerous in N. America, and you see the religion of our Lord and Saviour is still in the hands of schoolmen--boys brought from colleges and sworn to maintain schemes that maintain them; as I suppose you to have adopted no system, permit me therefore to beseech you by your affection for the flock of God, by that great mystery which holds it together, by that dear name Jesus, by your fear of death and hope of life, by your bowels of love for a perishing world, throw wide open the boards of the bible, and abandon the popular scheme of teaching our holy religion by scraps. O Jesus: let me ever lay hold of you through the medium of the bible, your holy word which defies all extrinsic ornament, and is the faithful compass which ever points to heaven. Your pretended preachers have abandoned the holy commandment; they have adopted worldly schemes; they have usurped your authority, and turned the people's ears away to fables. They have no guide. Methinks I see afar, tossed upon the billows of the never sleeping Atlantic, a slender bark; the treacherous breezes have seduced her from the shore; the pilot, unable to retrace his course, stands upon the poop, and in an agony of fearful anticipation, gazes on the wide and pathless ocean: around him the bewildered crew are seized with pale affright. But why this distraction--why this horror and dismay? An angel whispers me they have no compass; and already the winds are up, the sky lowers, and no friendly star appears to point them to their much loved port. How gladly would they hie them away, but they have seen the spirit of the storm to flit athwart the heavens, and the rush of waters is in every soul. At last the tempest, the whole heaven descends, and the unbefriended bark sinks amid the tumult of conflicting waters. The mystery of this is manifest; the popular assemblies are without the bible; and may be divided generally into the superstitious, the unintelligently devout, the enthusiastic and the philosophic or Socinian.

      Now, reader, in preaching the gospel or in arguing for the truth of this illustrious fact that Jesus is indeed the Lord of heaven, do you think that, upon the whole, it is common among the pulpit men to argue from the same topics from which the Lord himself argued? After reading the above sketch of the life of Jesus, perhaps you may think that there is no topic from which any probable argument can be drawn in support of his claims. You will probably say, what in the world can a preacher have to say in proof of this, for all human testimony seems to be in array against it! You will ask, what has he to oppose to the decisions of a Roman judicature, so famed for the inflexibility of its justice! What mighty argument to counterbalance the adjudication of the Jewish sanhedrim, the most ancient and most authoritative council that ever sat? And if it could be shown that these erred in condemning him, how is he to obviate the difficulty about the priest and the people who thought him a madman, and the testimony of his brethren who discredited him and his fellow-citizens! &c. &c. Dear reader, the modern preachers of christianity could prove any thing if you only give them a pulpit, on the terms, that not a soul of all who listen shall have the right of questioning a single word they say; accordingly they will preach up the cross and the gospel from any text between Genesis and Revelations. The two popular christians, above alluded to, averred that the gospel could be preached at any time in five minutes; yet our Lord on his plan taught only very few though he preached for three years, and his followers had all the glory of the miraculous evidence laid right before them. It took the Bereans two whole years before they could decide upon the reality of the report. But popular preachers can teach this truth, and nobody, even the taught, can tell how. This fact, by which we are saved, is nevertheless greatly proved; the testimony, the united testimony of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit has set it to rest; and though Jews and antichristian preachers have done all in their power to disprove and obscure it, yet we are all taught by God, and he that receives his testimony sets to his seal that God is true.

PHILIP.      

      It is presumable, that some of you, my friends, read this paper with a prejudiced mind. If this were not the case, it would be, to us, matter of astonishment. Good men have their prejudices as well as others. Nathaniel, an Israelite indeed, in whom there was no guile, was so prejudiced, that when Philip told him that "he had found him, of whom Moses in the law and the prophets did write, Jesus of Nazareth the son of Joseph," he said, "Can any good thing come out of Nazareth:" To our prejudiced readers we would say, as Philip said to Nathaniel, "Come and see." Come and search the scriptures, and see whether these things are so; whether the popular schemes, or what we oppose to them, is founded on the divine word. This is all the favor we ask of you; and neither your candor, your honor, not your interest will allow you to do otherwise. Philip said, come see this Jesus, this son of Joseph, and judge for yourself. He came, and saw, and heard. From a very short acquaintance, he received this Jesus, not as the son of Joseph, as Philip had designated him; but he received him as the Son of God. He, convinced from his interview, exclaims, "Rabbi you are the Son of God, you are the King of Israel?"

      The apostles themselves were long under the dominion of prejudice concerning Messiah's death, resurrection and kingdom. The teaching of the scribes, and the traditions of the elders; the popular notions of the times bewildered them. When plainly informed of his death, Peter exclaims, "That be far from you, Lord, it shall not be so done to you." When they were told of his resurrection from the dead by those [38] to whom he appeared alive, "they were astonished," and the words of their informants "appeared unto them as idle tales, and they believed them not." Of his rein and kingdom they had no correct ideas until Pentecost. Till that day they looked for temporal rule and dominion to be given to Israel according to the flesh. They expected Messiah's kingdom to be a continuation of the old Jewish, enlarged and improved. The citizens of Berea are represented by the inspired Luke as more noble than the citizens of Thessalonica. And why! Because they heard the word with all readiness of mind, and "searched the scriptures daily whether these things were so." My friends, be thus noble, and go and do likewise. Perhaps the consequence may be similar to the history of the Bereans, marked with an emphatic therefore: "THEREFORE, many of them believed."

      "Good has been often called evil, and evil good. Truth has been piously called error, and error truth. Pure religion has frequently been called heresy, and heresy pure religion. Paul had to confess that he worshipped God in the way which the populars called heresy. So we frankly confess, that some of our views have been by the populars called heretical and blasphemous. Because we have said, that we christians are not under Moses, but under Christ; not under the law as a rule of life, but under the gospel, we are said to have spoken "blasphemous words against Moses and the law." Because we have said that the Jewish sabbath is no more, we are represented as without religion, profane and impious; and, because we have called much of what is called warm preaching, and warm feelings, and great revivals, enthusiasm; we are said to deny "experimental religion" or the influence of the Holy Spirit, by the word, upon the minds of believers. "Yes," say our enemies, "you deny the moral law, the christian Sabbath and experimental religion."

      To the first of these charges we shall, in the present address, call your attention, reserving the others for a future day.

      The "moral law," or decalogue, is usually plead as the rule of life to believers in Christ, and it is said that it ought to be preached "as a means of conviction of sin." The scriptures never divide the law of Moses into moral, ceremonial, and judicial. This is the work of schoolmen, who have also divided the invisible world into heaven, hell, and purgatory; who have divided the obedience of Christ into active, passive, and both; who have divided the members of the church into speechless babes, seekers of religion and regenerated saints; who have divided the kingdom of heaven, or christian kingdom, into clergy, ruling elders, and laity; and who have philosophized, allegorized, and mysticized christianity into an incomprehensible and ineffable jargon of christianized paganism and Judaism.

      We published, seven years ago, a speech pronounced to an association on this subject, in which we objected to this division of the law; the substance of which, if we recollect right, was this: we objected to this division of the law, First, because it was unauthorized by either the Old or New Testament, i. e. neither God by Moses, his Son Jesus Christ, nor his apostles, had ever made such a division. They always spoke of the law as one grand whole. "The law was given by Moses, but the grace and the truth by Jesus Christ." "The law and the prophets continued until John the Baptist." "You are not under the law," &c. &c. Here is no moral, ceremonial or judicial law, but "the law." Secondly, because this division of the law perplexes the mind of a student of the bible, who, while he meets the words "the law," is puzzled to know which of the three is meant; whereas, if he would always view the phrase "the law," when not otherwise defined, as the one and undivided law of Moses, he would never be perplexed. Because, in the third place, this division is illogical or incorrect, as respects the moral and judicial laws. All writers and speakers we have either heard or seen, blend, in their expositions, moral and judicial precept a, making the latter as moral as the former. They have no palpable or distinguishable criteria of distinction. Because, in the fourth place, they represent the ten commands as the moral law; whereas they tell us that the law contained two tables: the former teaching religion, or our duty to God; the second teaching morality, or our duty to our neighbor. This moral law, then, is both moral and religious; for these same divines distinguish religion and morality. In the fifth place, because one precept of this moral law was as ceremonial as any item in their ceremonial law, viz: the fourth commandment. For these reasons and others, we objected then to this division of the law. We have never heard any thing said, though much has been said on that subject, of the least weight to change our views delivered at that time.

      But, without going further into the detail on this part of the subject, we proceed to observe, that Moses, the great lawgiver to the Jews, delivered this law as a rule of life to the Jews only; and it was all equally important to them, and binding upon them. It was all holy, just, and good, as respected its design; and was equally divine and authoritative. He that touched the ark died the death, as well as he who stole the golden wedge. He that offered strange fire upon the altar was consumed, as well as he that cursed his father.He that gathered fuel on the Sabbath, and he that blasphemed the God of Israel, were devoted to the same destruction. But the law of Moses was given for a limited time. The world was about twenty-five hundred years old before it was given; "for until the law sin was in the world," and this law was designed only to continue till the promised seed should come, the great Law-giver. Moses pointed Israel to this great Law-giver. Malachi told the Jews to remember this law until Elias should come. The Messiah said plainly, "that the law and the prophets preached till John." But, "since that time, the kingdom of God was preached." Paul repeatedly affirms that christians are not under the law, but under the gospel, as a rule of life. In teaching the Jews he compared the law to a school-master until Christ came; but since faith or Christ came, he assured them they were no longer under the school-master. He declared they "were delivered from the law"--"they were free from its" "they were dead to it." He says, "it is done away"--"it is abolished"--"it is disannulled."

      Moses had a brother of great dignity, of illustrious fame, whose name was Aaron. This brother of the lawgiver was divinely ordained a high priest, and divine laws ordained concerning him and his successors. In process of time the son of Jesse was crowned king over Israel, under God, who still retained the sovereignty. Concerning this David and his successors divine laws were published. Israel were under Moses as a lawgiver, under Aaron as high priest, under [39] David as king. These three were types of Christ as lawgiver, priest, and king. Now the populars and we agree in one grand point on this topic. They say that "Jesus Christ is our only prophet, priest, and king." To this we cordially and fully agree. Therefore, we will not submit to Moses as our prophet or lawgiver, to Aaron as our high priest, to David as our king. If we would yield to Moses as our lawgiver, we would yield to his brother Aaron as our high priest, and to the son of Jesse as our king. We honor Moses, Aaron, and David. We study their history, their offices, and their deeds. We revere them as Messiah's types. We will treat them with every due respect; but will not put ourselves under them. While we acknowledge Jesus to be the great lawgiver, the great prophet, the great high priest, David's son, and David's king, we are assured that every part of Moses' law worthy of our regard has been republished and reenacted under more glorious circumstances and with more illustrious sanctions by him--that every item of Aaron's priesthood has been fulfilled by him--that every excellent trait in the character and government of David has been exhibited by him, free from imbecility and imperfection. Messiah, you are my only prophet, priest, and king; for you are worthy!

      "Then," say the populars, "you have no moral law as a rule of life--no preaching of the law as a means of conviction of sin; you may live as you list--your doctrine is licentious--it is antinomian--it is dangerous to morale--to piety--to all good."

      Blessed Jesus! are, you thus insulted by pretended friends? Are your laws an inadequate rule of life? Guided by your statutes, will our lives be licentious, our morals loose, ourselves abandoned to all crime? Was Moses a more consummate lawgiver than you? Did his commandments more fully or more clearly exhibit the moral, the godly course of life, than yours? Were the sanctions of his law of more solemn import, of more restraining authority, than your precepts? Is there no means of conviction of sin, of its evil and demerit, in your doctrine, manner of life, or in your death? What argument, what inducement, to cease to do evil and to learn to do well, in all the laws of Moses, in all the statutes of Israel, in all the examples of patriarchs, saints, and martyrs, speaks such language, exhibits such motives, conciliates such regard, denounces such vengeance, attracts so much reverence, inspires with so much awe, wins by so much goodness, and reconciles with so much power, as your death? That heart, O Lord! that feels not the force of this argument, this omnipotent argument, to cease to do evil and to learn to do well, in vain will be assailed by moral suasion or by moral law. The thunders of Sinai--the flashing fluid of unmeasured force--the rending echoes of the celestial trumpet--the nodding summit--the crashing rocks and the trembling base of the smoking mount, veiled in the blackest darkness, cannot constrain nor allure it to righteousness, humanity, and the love of God. Philosophy, marching forth in all her imaginary strength, clad in all her fancied charms, is perfect impotence compared to your doctrine. The example of patriarchs, of prophets, of saints, and martyrs, from Abel to Noah, from Abraham to David, from David to John the Baptist, is inefficacious compared with yours. Moses and his fiery law, his statutes and his judgments, as the body without the spirit is dead, are lifeless and inoperative compared with your new commandment, your piercing law animated and quickened by your life, confirmed and sanctioned by your death. No; the statutes and ordinances commanded in Horeb, the meekness of Moses, the patience of Job, the zeal of Elijah, the piety of Daniel, the pathos of David, and the wisdom of Solomon, will not, cannot illumine that understanding, captivate those affections, purify those desires, purge those motives, subdue those lusts, which your doctrine, your example, your law, your love, your sufferings, your death, your resurrection, your exaltation, fail to accomplish. But did your character, your doctrine, your life, your death, your resurrection and your exaltation ever fail, when fully apprehended, ever fail to purify, to renovate, to reform? No! never! never! Who can know you and not love righteousness, and not hate iniquity? When the dying thief, in his day, saw your character and heard your fame, he entrusted his soul to you, and preached righteousness to his companion. When the persecuting Saul saw you, O Saviour of the world! enthroned in glory--when he heard your winning voice, he fell beneath the rays of your majesty, and from a lion put on the meekness of the lamb.

      Yet having your New Testament, ratified by your blood, are we without a rule of life? are we authorized to live as we list? The thought is impious! O Sun of Righteousness! your salutiferous rays were long expected to enlighten, to cheer, and to quicken those sitting in darkness, in the region and shadow of death. Yet you have risen, and more glory shines from the clouded face of Moses than from yours!! Great Lawgiver, the Gentiles long waited for your law, and have you left them without law, to live as they list? Moses and Elias waited on you on the holy mount--they laid their honors and their commission at your feet. When they ascended to the skies, your Father's voice commanded your disciples to hear your law, to yield exclusively to you--and shall we not? Forbid it Heaven!

      Lord Jesus, may your character open to our view as depicted in your doctrine, your miracles, your sufferings, your death, your resurrection, and your glory; and then we shall not fear to put ourselves exclusively under you, as our lawgiver, our prophet, our priest, and our king!

EDITOR.      

      MAN has been often considered as a creature of circumstances. Diversified by climate, by language, by religion, by morals, by habit, he presents a most varied aspect to the contemplative mind. Betwixt "the frozen Icelander and the sun-burned Moor," the wandering Indian and the polished cit, the untutored savage and the sage philosopher, the superstitious pagan and the intelligent christian, what a difference! To the sceptic reasoner the human race presents an insoluble enigma. The questions, what am I? whence came I? and whither do I go? are questions which philosophy in its boasted powers, deism in its bold excursions, infidelity in its daring enterprizes, attempts in vain. The bible alone answers them with satisfaction and certainty. To the disbeliever of it the world has neither beginning, middle, not end. The sceptic feels himself a speck of matter, floating down the stream of time into a region of impenetrable darkness, alike ignorant of his origin and his destiny. Whether there is in him a spark of immortality, or whether he [40] is all annihilated in the grave, are, to him, things unknown and unknowable. The reptile, encased in its kindred shell, the oyster clinging to its native rock, could as easily calculate the rapidity of the particles of light, or measure, by its powers, the orbit of a comet, as the most gigantic genius, by its own vigor, unaided by the bible, could prove that there is a God, that there was a creation, that there is an immortal spirit in man, or that there will be an end of this mundane state of things. We know what deism, philosophy, and natural religion arrogate to themselves: but their pretensions are as vain as their efforts to give assured hope are impotent and unavailing. Deism steals from the bible the being of a God, the immortality of the soul, the future state of rewards, and shutting the volume of light, impudently arrogates to itself that it has originated those ideas from its own in generate sagacity. But we are insensibly falling into a disquisition foreign to our present purpose.

      The world, as respects religion, is divided into four grand divisions--the Pagan, the Mahometan, the Jewish, and the Christian. In the first of these there are some fragments of divine revelation mutilated and corrupted. The knowledge of God once communicated to Noah, was transmitted to his descendants; and although many of them were never favored with any other revelation than that committed to him; and although that revelation was vitiated and corrupted with thousands of the wildest fancies and most absurd notions, yet it never has been completely lost. Hence the most ignorant savages have some idea of a God, and offer him some kind of worship. They endeavor to propitiate him by sacrifice, and consider themselves under some kind of moral obligation to one another. They view certain actions as pleasing, and others as displeasing to him.

      The Jewish religion though once enjoined by divine authority, as exhibited in the Old Testament, has, by the same authority, been set aside as having answered its design. In the best form in which it could now appear on earth, it would be as dry and useless as a shell when the kernel is extracted. The good things once in it are no longer to be found; and, as corrupted by the modern Jews, it is quite another religion than that instituted by Moses. There is no salvation in it.

      The Mahometan religion recognizes three hundred and thirteen apostles, of whom six brought in new dispensations, viz. Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Mahomet. The last vacated or rendered obsolete all the preceding. It consequently contains many items of divine revelation; but these are like the fragments of revelation found in the pagan establishments, so perverted as to be darkness instead of light. The Mahometans have, like the modern Christians, their different sects, their orthodox and heterodox teachers and opinions.

      The "christian nations" have the bible, but many of them have, like the Jews, rendered it of little or no effect by their traditions. Dividing the whole family of man into thirty parts, five parts are professed Christians; six parts are Mahometans and Jews; and nineteen parts Pagans. This is the mournful state of the world according to the most correct statements. Add the Mahometans, Jews, and Pagans together, and they amount to twenty-five thirtieths of the whole human race. So that but one-sixth of Adam's offspring possess, and but few of these enjoy, the revelation of God.

      To what is this doleful state of the world attributable is a question that deserves the attention of every Christian. If there were no hereafter, the temporal wretchedness of ignorance and superstition presents an object that must awaken the sympathies of every benevolent mind. And if there be a hereafter, and if future happiness were attainable to those immersed in pagan and Mahometan gloom, wretchedness, and crime, still the amelioration of their earthly condition, the rational and Christian enjoyment of this present life are objects of such vast importance as to excite all that is within us to consider whether those possessing the light of heaven are, in any sense, chargeable with the crimes and miseries of the heathen world.

      If, as some affirm, every man is accountable not only for what he has done, but for what he might have done, the question would not be of difficult determination. But as we would wish to see this point established on more solid and convincing ground than abstruse speculations, we shall appeal to the New Testament. The Saviour of the world charged the scribes and pharisees of that age with having "shut up the kingdom of heaven against men," with having "neither gone in themselves, nor suffered those that were entering to go in." He charged the lawyers or doctors of divinity with having taken away the key of knowledge from the people. The apostle Paul taught the Christians that it was possible for them so to walk as to give occasion to the adversaries of their cause to speak reproachfully of it and them; that they might so walk as that the name of God, of Jesus, and his doctrine might be blasphemed. And Peter declared, that, in consequence of false teachers and disciples, "the way of truth should be evil spoken of." He also teaches that Christians may so conduct themselves as that those who behold their conduct may be allured to the belief of the gospel. [See Matt. xxiii. 13., Luke xi. 52., 1st Tim. v. 14. vi. 1., 1st Pet. iii. 1., 2d Pet. ii. 1, 2.] Those records show that professed disciples may, both by omitting to do their duty, and by committing faults, prevent and greatly retard the spread of the gospel, the enlargement of Messiah's kingdom." We are convinced that the character of the "christian communities" is the greatest offence or stumbling block in the way of the conversion of the world. And that therefore the only hopeful course to convert the world is to reform the professors of Christianity.

      But what kind of a reformation is requisite to this end? It is not the erection of a new sect, the inventing of new shibboleths, or the setting up of a new creed, nor the adopting of any in existence save the New Testament, to the form in which it pleased the Spirit of God to give it. It is to receive it as it stands, and to make it its own interpreter, according to the ordinary rules of interpreting all books. It is not to go back to primitive Calvinism, or primitive Methodism, primitive Lutherism, but to primitive Christianity. The history of the church for many centuries has proved, the history of every sect convinces us, that it is as impossible for any one sect to gain such an ascendance as to embrace as converts the others, and thus unite in one grand phalanx the Christians against the allied power of darkness, as it is to create a world. Every sect, with a human creed, carves in it, as the human body, the seeds of its own mortality. Every sect has its infancy, its childhood, its manhood, and its dotage. Some die [41] as soon as they are born, and others live to a good old age, but their old age is full of grief and trouble. And die they must. As it is appointed unto all men once to die, and after that the judgment, so it is ordained by God that all sects must die, and that because their bond of union is under the curse. Where are the hundreds of sects that have already existed? They only live in history as beacons to posterity.

      It need not be objected that some sects have already taken the New Testament and run into the wildest extremes; for either they interpreted it according to the reveries of Swedenborg, the fanaticism of Shakerism, or the enthusiasm of New Lightism, or they apostatized from a good profession. Recollect, we say, that the scriptures are to be their own interpreter, according to the common rules of interpreting other writings.

      Christians, as you honor the Saviour and the Father that sent him; as you love the peace and prosperity of the kingdom of the Holy One; as you love the souls of your children, your relatives, your fellow-citizens; as you deeply deplore the reign of darkness, of paganism, of horrid cruelty over such multitudes of human beings; as you desire and pray for the salvation of the world, the downfall of Antichrist, of Mahometan delusion, of Jewish infidelity, of pagan superstition;--return, return to the religion of our common Lord, as delivered unto us by his holy apostles! Model your churches after the primitive model, erected under the agency of the Holy Spirit--and then the churches of the saints will have rest and will be edified, "and walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, they will be multiplied" with accessions until all flesh shall see the salvation of our God.

EDITOR.      

      THE first Baptist church in America was founded at Providence in 1639. Their sentiments spreading into Massachusetts, in 1651, the general court passed a law against them, inflicting banishment for persisting in the promulgation of their doctrines. In 1656, Quakers making their appearance in Massachusetts, the legislature of that colony passed several laws against them. No master of a vessel was allowed to bring any one of this sect into its jurisdiction on penalty of £100. Other still severer penalties were inflicted upon them in 1657, such as cutting their ears and boring their tongues with a red hot iron. They were at length banished on pain of death; and four, refusing to go, were executed in 1656.

[Plain Truth.      

[TCB 34-42]