Volume 2. Number 7. February 7, 1825, pp. 124-131.

• Essays on the Work of the Holy Spirit in the Salvation of Men--No. VII. by Alexander Campbell, pp. 124-126.
• A Restoration of the Ancient Order of Things--No. I. by Alexander Campbell, pp. 124-128.
• A Presbyterian University at Danville by Alexander Campbell, pp. 128-129.
• Oath of Allegiance to the Seceder Clergy; or to the Principles of the Associate Synod of North America by Alexander Campbell, pp. 129-130.
• History of the English Bible--No. I. by Alexander Campbell, pp. 130-131.

      IN the preceding essays on this subject, we have, as far as the limits of this work admitted; glanced at the outlines of those grand and benevolent displays of the Spirit of God, afforded in the revelation and confirmation of the christian religion. His multiform and splendid distributions as the Spirit of Wisdom and the Spirit of Power to the holy apostles, and to many of the first converts to the christian faith, in the introduction of the christian age, have just been noticed.

      As the Spirit of Wisdom, he bestowed those gifts of wisdom, of the word of knowledge, of prophecy, and of tongues, to the ambassadors of Messiah, to qualify them to reveal, in words adapted to every ear, the character and achievements of Gods only Son, and the benevolent purposes of the Father, through him, towards the human race. As the Spirit of Power, he clothed them with all those magnificent gifts of power over the bodies of men, by which they were always able to prove their mission and demonstrate their authority as the plenipotentiaries of the Son of God. What remains is to notice, with the same brevity, what the scriptures teach us of him as the Spirit of all [124] Goodness.The apostle says: "The fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness, and righteousness, and truth." This fruit, on another occasion, he particularizes thus: "The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long suffering, gentleness, goodness,¹ fidelity, meekness, temperance."

      While his distributions, as the Spirit of Wisdom and of Power, were confined to the apostolic age, and to only a portion of the saints that lived in that age, his influences, as the Spirit of all Goodness, were felt and realized by all the primitive saints, and are now felt by all the subjects of the new reign, or by all the citizens of that new kingdom which the God of Heaven set up in the reign of the Cesars. The citizens of this kingdom, which commenced on the literal Mount Zion, and which will extend to all nations, tribes, and tongues, have ever experienced, and will, to the end of time experience, the influences of this Spirit, as the Spirit of all goodness, righteousness, and truth. The full development of these influences requires us to take a brief view of the Old Covenant and the New, or of the Letter and the Spirit.

      Whatever illuminations were enjoyed by, and whatever prospective views were communicated to, the ancient saints and Jewish prophets, respecting, the christian age, one thing is certain, that the Old, or Sinaitic Covenant, was a covenant of letter, and not a covenant of spirit. It is equally certain and obvious that the Jewish church, with all its privileges, had but the shadows of good things to come; that their condition was as different from ours as flesh and spirit; and their rank as unlike ours, as that of servants and sons. We are authorized in speaking thus by no less a personage than that distinguished Jew and great apostle to the Gentiles--Paul. He represents the Jews as being in the flesh while under the law, or covenant of letter, and the christians as being in the spirit, as under the gospel, or covenant of spirit. He speaks of the service of the Jews as a service in "the oldness of the letter," and of the christians, as a service "in newness of spirit." He speaks of the Jews while under the covenant of letter, as in the bondage of slaves and possessed of the spirit of servants; but when in the covenant of spirit, as being the sons of God and possessed of the spirit of adoption--"not having a second time received the spirit of bondage, but as having received the spirit of adoption, crying, as new-born babes, Abba, Father." Wherefore, he argues, the believing Jews are no longer servants, but raised to the rank of sons.

      There are three passages in the writings of Paul to which we will at present refer in illustration of these two covenants. The first in his epistle to the Romans, chap. vii. "For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which we had under the law wrought effectually in our members to bring forth to death. But now we are loosed from the law, having died in that by which we were tied; so that we ought to serve in newness of the Spirit, and not in oldness of the letter." So the apostle represents the state of the Jews--first under the covenant of letter, and again under the covenant of spirit. The bondage and fear of the first covenant forms a perfect contrast to the liberty and confidence of the worshippers under the second. As we have given this passage in Macknight's translation, we shall also give it in Thompson's for the comparison of our readers: "For when we were in the flesh the sinful passions which subsisted under the law exerted their energy in our members to bring forth fruit to death; but we are now set free from the law by the death of that by which we were holden, so that we may serve with a new spirit and not by the old letter."

      The second passage to which we shall refer, is 2d Cor. iii. In this chapter the apostle contrasts the two covenants, the manner of introduction or establishment of each, and the tendency and result of each. The covenants he contrasts by calling the law or old covenant the covenant of letter, and the new, or second covenant, the covenant of spirit. The literal and correct translation of the sixth verse retakes this manifest. The apostle says of himself and his associate apostles, "Our sufficiency is of God, who has qualified us [apostles] to be ministers of a new covenant, not of letter, but of spirit. Not a new covenant of letter, but a new covenant of spirit, then, was ministered, or introduced and established by the apostles. The reason of the introduction and establishment of a new covenant of spirit the apostle gives by contrasting the tendency of each; for, adds hot the letter kills, but the spirit gives life. The tendency of the first, or Sinaitic covenant, was to condemnation and death. The tendency of the New Covenant or Testament² is to justification and life. The apostle next and chiefly contrasts the manner of the introduction of each, called the ministration. In strict propriety of speech he does not call the one the ministration of death, nor the other the ministration of spirit; but he speaks designedly and particularly of the manner in which they were ministered or introduced; that is, the manner in which the letter and the spirit, the law and the gospel were introduced. These things premised, and the passage is plain and instructive in the highest degree. Now, says he, if the manner of introducing the letter which ends in death, that letter "of death, engraven in stones," was attended with glory, shall not the manner of introducing [by us apostles] the Spirit be much more attended with glory. Nothing could be more natural, when the apostle had called himself a minister, and while he was defending his mission, than to call the service which he was called to perform, a ministry, or ministration. After being so diffuse in these remarks, we shall now briefly give the sense of the whole passage, varying the terms for the sake of clearness. He has qualified us apostles with suitable and splendid miraculous powers to introduce a new covenant--not of letter, but of spirit. For the covenant of letter issued in death, but the covenant of spirit issues in life. Now if a covenant of pure letter, written and engraven on stones, and which issued in death, was introduced by Moses from God with considerable glory, so that it shone in the face of Moses who introduced it, shall not the introduction of a covenant of spirit from God, by us apostles, which issues in life, be attended with greater glory, inasmuch as spirit is superior to letter, and life more desirable than death. I say--if the introduction of that letter which immediately began to work condemnation, was attended with glory, much more does, in the present time, the introduction of that spirit which puts men in the enjoyment of righteousness, abound in glory. For, again, if that which was only of temporary duration was introduced with glorious accompaniments, much more shall the introduction of this, which is to [125] be permanent, be attended with miraculous accompaniments, incomparably more glorious. Let it be noted that in varying the terms we are not translating; but giving the ideas in other terms for the sake of perspicuity; and let it be remembered that the terms letter and spirit denote the law and gospel, of which the apostle speaks, and above all, that the design of the apostle in this chapter was to vindicate his official character, as one called and qualified to introduce the spirit or new covenant.

      We hasten to the third reference, which is designed to illustrate the two former. It is Heb. viii. The apostles were the ministers of the new covenant or the persons to whom the service of introducing it was committed, but Jesus is the mediator of it--for the grace came by Jesus Christ. Now then, says the apostle, he has more noble services allotted to him, inasmuch as he is the mediator of a better covenant, [not a mediator of the old one], which is established on better promises, [than the old one.] For if the first covenant had been faultless [but it was not, because it was letter engraven on stones,] there would have been no occasion for a second; for finding fault with them, [who had the letter; which made them faulty by condemning them] he says--by Jeremiah a Jewish prophet,--"Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant [not of letter but of spirit] with the house of Israel and the house of Judah--not such a covenant [of letter] as I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt (when at Sinai) because they did not abide by that covenant (of letter) of mine; therefore I took no care of them, says the Lord, (but gave them up to their enemies.) This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel, after these days, (for the letter was to be temporary) says the Lord, I will put my laws into their mind (without letters on stone) and write them upon their hearts, (not by letter but by spirit,) and I will be to them a God and they shall be to me a people. And they shall not (as the people under the letter) teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying (according to the letter,) Know the Lord, for all shall know me (under this covenant of spirit,) from the least of them to the greatest of them. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and iniquities I will remember no more." By saying a new covenant, God has made the former old. "Now that (old covenant of letter) which decays and waxes old, is ready to vanish."--Macknight and Thompson.

      We here see the new covenant is called spirit, and the old one letter. In the former a letter was presented to the eye, but in the latter it is written on the heart. The tables of the old covenant were marble--the tables of the new covenant are the spirit or mind of man. The letter when engraved upon the marble was as cold and as dead as the marble itself--the gospel, when believed or engraven on the heart, inspires a spirit as active and powerful as the spirit on which it is written. The old covenant left its subjects in the flesh where it found them. The letter addressed them as men in the flesh, and the covenant when first promulged was marked in the flesh of the subjects by a bloody excision. Neither righteousness nor eternal life was enjoyed by it. The saints under it were saved by the provision of a better covenant. The apostle said if any man might have confidence under that covenant, or in the flesh, he might have had more; and then tells that he was "circumcised the eighth day," &c.--and that "touching the righteousness that was in the law he was blameless;" yet he counted all the privileges he had in the letter as nothing, in comparison of the knowledge of Christ. Christians are told by the same instructor, that they "are not in the flesh, but in the spirit; not under the law, but under grace." All the religious institutions under the letter terminated in the flesh. They sanctified and purified only as respected the flesh, and could never make them that came to them perfect as pertains to the conscience.

      The new covenant is, then, fitly called a covenant of spirit, because it respected not the flesh, but the mind of man, and because it is consummated by the spirit of God. There are, it is true, written words in the book of the New Testament, as there are written words in the book of the law. But there is a MORAL fitness in the words of the NEW to be the medium of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, as the Spirit of all goodness, righteousness, and truth, as there was a MORAL fitness in the engraven words of the former, to be the medium of the inspiration of a spirit of bondage, fear and dread.³ There is a natural fitness in the pen in my hand to form letters on paper, but there is no natural fitness in it to cut down trees. Again, there is a natural fitness in an axe to cut down trees, but no natural fitness in it to answer the purposes of a pen. The exhibition of those attributes of the Deity, which the letter or law presented to them in the flesh, was, in like manner, morally fitted to produce guilt, and fear, and bondage. Just so, the exhibition of the inexpressible love, mercy, and condescension of God in the gospel, concerning his Son, is morally fitted to produce peace, love and joy in the minds of those who apprehend it.

      In a word, the covenant of letter could not inspire men with the spirit of sons. It demanded what it did not impart strength to yield. It presented a perfect rule, but left the heart unable to conform to its requisitions. The more clearly a Jew understood it, the less comfort he derived from it. It filled his heart with the spirit of bondage, and issued in condemnation and death. Moreover, the law entered that the offence might abound; and it was added to the promise of the inheritance, because of transgression, till the Seed should come. But the new covenant developes that love which is morally adapted to inspire the spirit of adoption. It makes sons. And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying Abba, Father.

      Thus far we have viewed the old covenant and the new, with a reference to the developement of the influences of the Holy Spirit, as the spirit of goodness, righteousness, and truth in the hearts of the faithful. We have merely noticed the means which God has employed, that his spirit might dwell in his church as in a temple. Submitting these remarks to the consideration of our readers, we shall postpone further remarks on this subject till our next.

EDITOR.      

      Extract from the Minutes of the Baptist Missionary Association of Kentucky, began and held at the Town-Fork Meeting House, in Fayette county, on Saturday, the 11th September, 1824.

      "THE next meeting of this association will be in the first Baptist meeting house in Lexington, [126] on the 30th of July next, which will be on the fifth Saturday of that month, at eleven o'clock, A  M.

      "It is proposed also to have a meeting of all the Baptist preachers who can attend, on Friday, the day preceding the meeting of the association, at eleven o'clock, A. M. at the same place, for the purpose of a general conference on the state of religion, and on the subject of reform. All the ministers of the gospel in the Baptist denomination favorable to these objects, are invited to attend, and, in the spirit of Christian love, by mutual counsel, influence, and exertion, according to the gospel, to aid in advancing the cause of piety in our state.

      "It is obvious to the most superficial observer, who is at all acquainted with the state of Christianity and of the church of the New Testament, that much, very much is wanting, to bring the Christianity and the church of the present day up to that standard--In what this deficiency consists, and how it is to be remedied, or whether it can be remedied at all, are the points to be discovered and determined.In the deliberations intended, it is designed to take these subjects into serious consideration, and to report the result by way of suggestion and advisement to the Baptist Christian community, and to the churches to which the members of the meeting may particularly belong. We know very well that nothing can be done right which is not done according to the gospel, or done effectually which is not done by the authority, and accompanied by the blessing of God. While God must do the work, we desire to know, and to acquiesce in his manner of doing it, and submissively to concur and obediently to go along with it."

      The sentences we have italicised in the preceding extract, are sentences of no ordinary import. The first of them declares a truth as evident as a sunbeam in a cell, to all who have eyes to see. The second presents a subject of inquiry of paramount importance to all who expect to stand before the Son of God in judgment. It affords us no common pleasure to see Christians awaking from their lethargic repose to the consideration of such subjects. That the fact should be acknowledged and lamented, that VERY MUCH IS WANTING TO BRING THE CHRISTIANITY AND THE CHURCH OF THE PRESENT DAY UP TO THE NEW TESTAMENT STANDARD amongst a people so intelligent, so respectable in numbers, and so influential, as the Baptist society in Kentucky; and that leaders of that community, so erudite, so pious, and so influential, should call upon their brethren to lay these things to heart, and to prepare themselves to make an effort towards reform, we hail as a most auspicious event.

      As I feel deeply interested in every effort that is made, either among the Baptist or Paido Baptist societies, for the avowed object of reform, and as this subject has become familiar to my mind, from much reflection and a good deal of reading, I trust I shall not be considered as obtrusive in presenting a few remarks on the above extract, or rather in presenting certain thoughts, a favorable opportunity for which it presents.

      Since the great apostacy, foretold and depicted by the holy apostles, attained to manhood's prime, or rather reached the awful climacteric, many reformations in religion have been attempted; some on a large and others on a more restricted scale. The page of history and the experience of the present generation concur in evincing that, if any of those reformations began in the spirit, they have ended in the flesh.--This, indeed, may be as true of the reformers themselves as of their reformations. I believe, at the same time, that the reformers have themselves been benefactors, and their reformations benefits to mankind. I do cheerfully acknowledge, that all they who have been reputed reformers, have been our benefactors, and that we are all indebted to them in our political and religious capacities for their labors. Because they have not done every thing which they might have done, or which they ought to have done, we should not withhold the meed of thanks for what they have done. Although two systems of religion, both end in the flesh, one may be greatly preferable to the other. This will appear evident when it is considered that, amongst religious persecutors, some are more exorable and lenient than others. Now, if there should be two systems of religion that both lead to persecution and issue in it, that one which carries its rage no farther than to the prison and the whipping-post, is greatly to be preferred to that which leads to the torturing wheel and to the faggot. The reason of this is very obvious, for most men would rather be whipped than burned for their religion. In other respects there are differences, which are illustrated by the preceding.

      Those reformers are not most deserving of our thanks who stand highest and most celebrated in the annals of reformations. We owe more to John Wickliffe than to Martin Luther, and more, perhaps, to Peter Bruys than to John Calvin. The world is more indebted to Christopher Columbus than to Americus Vespusius, yet the latter supplanted the former in his well earned fame. So it has been amongst religious reformers. The success of every enterprize gives eclat to it. As great and as good men as George Washington have been hung or beheaded for treason

      The reformations most celebrated in the world are those which have departed the least from the systems they professed to reform.--Hence, we have been often told that there is but a paper wall between England and Rome. The church of England, with king Henry or George IV. as her head, though a celebrated reformation, has made but a few and very short strides from her mother, the church of Rome, with the pope at her head. So sensible of this are the good members of the reformed church of England, that they yet give to their king the title of "Defender of the Faith," although the title was first given him by the pope for defending his faith. The reformation of the church of England, effected by Mr. Wesley, which issued in Episcopal Methodism, has entailed the same clerical dominion over that zealous people, which their forefathers complained of in the hierarchies of England and Rome. And not in England only does this dominion exist, but even in these United States, of all regions of the earth the most unfriendly to a religious monarchy, or even a religious oligarchy. The question remains yet to be decided, whether a conference of Methodistic clergy, with its bishop in its chair, and laity at home, is any reformation at all from a conclave of English prelates, headed by a metropolitan or an archbishop. It is even uncertain whether the Methodistic discipline has led more people to heaven, or made them happier on earth, than the rubric or liturgy of England.

      All the famous reformations in history have rather been reformations of creeds and of clergy, than of religion. Since the New Testament was finished, it is fairly to be presumed that there cannot be any reformation of religion, [127] properly so called. Though called reformations of religion, they have always left religion where it was. I do not think that King Harry was a whit more religious when he proclaimed himself head of the church of England, than when writing against Luther on the seven sacraments, as a true son of the church of Rome. It is even questionable whether Luther himself, the elector of Saxony, the Marquis of Brandenburg, the Duke of Lunenburg, the Landgrave of Hesse, and the Prince of Anhalt, were more religious men when they signed the Augsburg Confession of Faith than when they formerly repeated their Ave Maria.

      Human creeds may be reformed and re-reformed, and be erroneous still, like their authors; but the inspired creed needs no reformation, being, like its author, infallible. The clergy, too, may be reformed from papistical opinions, grimaces, tricks, and dresses, to protestant opinions and ceremonies; protestant clergy may be reformed from protestant to presbyterial metaphysics and forms; and presbyterian clergy may be reformed to independency, and yet the Pope remain in their heart. They are clergy still--and still in need of reformation. Archbishop Laud and Lawrence Greatrake are both clergymen, though of different dimensions. The spirit of the latter is as lordly and pontifical as that of the former, though his arm and his gown are shorter. The moschetto is an animal of the same genus with the hornet, though the bite of the former is not so powerful as the sting of the latter. A creed, too, that is formed in Geneva or in London, is as human as one formed in Constantinople. They have all given employment to tax gatherers, jail-keepers, and grave diggers.

      All reformations in religious opinions and speculations have been fated like the fashions in apparel. They have lived, and died, and revived, and died again. As apparel has been the badge of rank, so have opinions been the badge of parties, and the cause of their rise and continuance. The green and orange ribbon, as well as the blue stocking, have been as useful and as honorable to those that have worn them, as those opinions were to their possessors, which have been the shibboleths of religious parties.

      Human systems, whether of philosophy or of religion, are proper subjects of reformation; but christianity cannot be reformed. Every attempt to reform christianity is like an attempt to create a new sun, or to change the revolutions of the heavenly bodies--unprofitable and vain. In a word we have had reformations enough. The very name has become as offensive, as the term "Revolution" in France.

      A restoration of the ancient order of things is all that is necessary to the happiness and usefulness of christians. No attempt "to reform the doctrine, discipline and government of the church," (a phrase too long in use,) can promise a better result than those which have been attempted and languished to death. We are glad to see, in the above extract, that the thing proposed, is to bring the christianity and the church of the present day up to the standard of the New Testament. This is in substance, though in other terms, what we contend for. To bring the societies of christians up to the New Testament, is just to bring the disciples individually and collectively, to walk in the faith, and in the commandments of the Lord and Saviour, as presented in that blessed volume; and this is to restore the ancient order of things. Celebrated as the era of reformation is, we doubt not but that the era of restoration will as far transcend it in importance and fame, through the long and blissful Millennium, as the New Testament transcends in simplicity, beauty, excellency, and majesty, the dogmas and notions of the creed of Westminster and the canons of the Assembly's Digest. Just in so far as the ancient order of things, or the religion of the New Testament, is restored, just so far has the Millennium commenced, and so far have its blessings been enjoyed. For to the end of time, we shall have no other revelation of the Spirit, no other New Testament, no other Saviour, and no other religion than we now have, when we understand, believe and practise the doctrine of Christ delivered to us by his apostles.

EDITOR.      

      A BILL has been before the legislature of Kentucky for the incorporation of a University at Danville, 32 miles from Lexington, the seat of the Transylvania University; and for vesting the whole institution, its government and control, in the Presbyterian synod of Kentucky, not only till the millennium commence, but for ever. We have not yet understood the fate of this bill. We saw an unusual assemblage of the clergy of this synod at Frankfort, in November last; at which time, the reverend members of the synod were sweetly and gently opening the way for the introduction of the above bill. I not only hope, but I believe, the legislature of Kentucky understands the principles of republican government, of civil and religious liberty, better than to create or incorporate universities, and then to give them into the hands of any number of clergy, how intelligent and virtuous soever, for the purpose of subordinating them to a religious aristocracy. If the Synod of Kentucky stand in need of a college de propaganda fide for the propagation of their religion, let them build and endow themselves. To solicit the legislature to incorporate and to endow a University, and to give the control of it to a body of divines, is a very plain way of telling the public, that they intend to manage it for their own purposes, and not for state purposes. If the legislature, in their wisdom, think that it is necessary to incorporate and endow another University in the state, it must be either for the religious or literary interest of the state. If the literary interests of the state require it, why vest the control of it in an aspiring ecclesiastical body? Why endow, or even invest with corporate powers, a seminary for the advancement of classical and scientific knowledge in the state, and then give it to one religious establishment to convert it into an engine for their own sinister purposes--I say sinister, for their purposes are not the same as the purposes of the state in erecting an institution merely for literary objects.

      But if on the other hypothesis, the legislature deem it expedient to erect, incorporate, or endow a literary institution for the religious interests of the state; why then give the preference to any one religious party, as there is no state religion in Kentucky? If the legislature incorporate a University for creating priests, let all the religious sects in Kentucky, who desire to have priests manufactured in modern style, have a fair, that is, an equal chance of participating in its advantages. I think that all the priests should have an equal chance. But, perhaps, it may be thought expedient to have a few high priests in the state; if so, then do not give the control of the University to the Presbyterian synod, for they stand in the least need of it, inasmuch as they are pretty generally [128] high priests already. I do not know that the Presbyterian synod have any stronger claims upon the people's money, or the time and powers of the legislature, than any other good citizen of the state. Why, then, take them by the hand and aid and abet them in any sectarian project?

      But, as I said before, if the literary interests of the state require the incorporation and the consequent endowment (for to give birth to an institution of this kind, and not to feed, and cherish, and nurse it, would be cruel!!) of another university, let the state retain in its control, the management of it, and entrust it not in the hands of a would-be religious nobility. Knowing, however, that the legislature will act (or perhaps have already acted) as in their wisdom they think most conducive to the public weal, we shall only take a peep into the spirit of the synod in urging this matter.

      What sort of a spirit do they exhibit in this effort? What moved them to solicit such a favor for themselves, to the exclusion of all other christian sects? I see in them the spirit of the two sons of Zebedee. They beg for the highest places in the kingdom. They obsequiously approach the legislature of Kentucky, and pray them to grant that their sons may sit at their right hand in their dominion and rule. I trust the legislature will feel the same indignation at their request, as the other disciples felt at the request of the two brethren, headed by their old mother. How like the spirit of circumcision, and of the commonwealth of Israel, is the spirit of the synod! They will yet be the circumcision, to whom pertain the oracles, the covenants, and the colleges! How modest their requests, and how benevolent and humble too! Let us have the high places in the land, for we deserve them better than other sects; we can make a better use of them; we are up--we wish to be higher, and to see our brethren among the vulgus. We want the throne--we know how to wield the sceptre; for we were born to rule, and other religious sectaries to obey. We are no friends to equal rights and immunities--we would rather have peculiar rights and privileges ourselves.

      Yes, says the spirit of the synod, I have always been the pampered child in my mother's house; I cannot live like the other children of the family. I was never used to make my living by the bible and common sense; no, I have been fed, and nursed, and strengthened by good Latin and Greek and science. My brothers and sisters are hardy fellows; they can maintain themselves, or endure hardships. I have never been accustomed to such homely fare. Let them stand aloof, for I am holier than they. I am Jacob--they are Esau. Let them go and dwell in Mount Seir--I shall dwell in the goodly land, and must have the excellency. Yea. I am Joseph whom his father loved. I have always worn the variegated coat; and in former times ruled Egypt. Yes, I am that Joseph to whom his brethren bowed; that Joseph who taxed the Egyptians and mortgaged their lands to Pharaoh. Why, then, refuse me the throne, seeing I have so long sat thereon, and so long sworn by the life of Pharaoh? You princes of Egypt, you rulers and senators of the land, withhold not from me my rights and my honors. Bless me with your smiles and your money, and I will bless you with my prayers. Yes, I will pray for your long life, and in the days of famine you shall not starve; for I will give you goodly portions; indeed you shall be as Benjamin mine own brother; and a portion like that of Benjamin's shall be yours. But if you will not exalt me now in my humiliation, the Philistine shall come upon you; yea, the Philistines from Philistina--and your wives and your little ones shall be for a prey to them that hate you.

      Such is the language of the spirit of this synod which would rather reign in Danville than serve in Transylvania. I hope the legislature have admonished them to go home and study their religion a little better, and to endeavor to exhibit that humility and benevolence to all, which ought at least, to have some appearance in their character, and at the same time, have told them, it is not theirs to grant the sovereignty to them, rather than to others equally worthy, though not quite so clamorous as they.

EDITOR.      

      WITHIN a few months past, some of the congregations of Seceders, or, as they call themselves, the Associate Presbytery of Pennsylvania, have been swearing loyalty to their opinions and their clergy. This is the consummation of priestcraft, and an awful lesson to their cotemporaries of the tremendous length to which an infatuate people may be led by the nose by a cunningly zealous and aspiring priesthood. Some of them no doubt, are conscientious too; for those that count their beads, and say prayers to St. Andrew, and the Holy Virgin, and kill heretics, are conscientious too. I have heard men swear most profanely, and in the same breath pray to God to forgive them. But really that, in the United States of North America, in the autumn of 1824, a congregation should be found so priest-ridden, as it appears most of these congregations are, is, to me, a phenomenon. From eighty to one hundred members of one of these congregations, in this vicinity, a few weeks ago swore as follows:

      "We do, with our hands lifted up to the Most High God, hereby profess, and, before God, angels, and men, solemnly declare, that we desire to give glory to the Lord, by believing with the heart, confessing with the mouth, and subscribing with the hand, that in him we have righteousness and strength. We avouch the Lord to be our God; and in the strength of his promised grace, we promise and swear, by the great and holy name of the Lord our God, that we shall unfeignedly endeavor to walk in his ways, to keep his commandments, and to hearken to his voice, in love to him who has delivered us out of the hand of our enemies; and to serve him without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him all the days of our life.

      "And seeing many at this time in a state of progressive apostacy from the cause and testimony of Jesus Christ, and many snares are laid to draw us after them; though sensible that we are in ourselves as liable to go astray as any, yet, entreating the Lord to hold up our goings in his paths, that our footsteps slip not, and trusting that through his mercy we shall not be moved forever, we do solemnly engage before him that lives forever and ever, that in every place where we may in providence be called to reside, and during all the days of our life, we shall continue steadfast in the faith, profession, and obedience of the true reformed religion, in doctrine, worship, Presbyterial church government and discipline as the same is held forth in the word of God, and received in this church, and testified for by it, against the manifold errors and latitudinarian schemes prevailing in the United States of North America." [129]

      Now let it be noted that all this parade of words of solemn sound and awful moment, interspersed through this long oath, an extract of which has been given, and all the other clauses of this solemn oath are merely subservient to this one point, viz. "We solemnly engage [their hands at the same time lifted up to heaven] before Him that lives forever and ever, that in every place where we may be called to reside, and during all the days of our lives, we shall continue steadfast in the faith, profession, and obedience of the true reformed religion, [i. e. we shall continue Seceders] in doctrine, worship, Presbyterial church government and discipline, as the same is held forth to us in the word of God, [a mere manoeuvre, as the next wards show] and received in this church and testified for by it." In plain English, I swear by him that lives forever and ever, that I will continue in the belief of the doctrine, worship, Presbyterial church government, and discipline, as received by the Secession church, go wheresoever I may, and as long as I live. Yes, "as testified to by it." Now any man of common sense, who reads the "Declaration and Testimony of this church," may at once see the import of the oath. In the Declaration and Testimony, page 118, they testify against all christians, who will not subscribe to, and contend for, written confessions of faith drawn up by fallible men. In page 121, they testify against all who oppose the duty of covenanting, or who assert that it is not a duty in New Testament times. They also testify against singing any other psalms or hymns than king David's, and against occasional communion with other churches, and constructively against occasionally hearing any other preacher than a Seceder. They might have shortened the oath, and have rendered it more plain, and more easy to be remembered. Thus--I swear I am a Seceder now; and I will be a Seceder while I live; and I swear that I will avoid every thing that might endanger perjury, by staying at home when I cannot hear a Seceder minister; that I will not in conversation either argue in support of my own sentiments, nor against those that oppose them.⁴

      King Henry called a parliament, and obtained an act requiring all his subjects, under the pain of treason, to swear that he himself was supreme head of the church of England. Yes, and three friars, four monks, with John Fisher, bishop of Rochester, and Sir Thomas Moore, lord chancellor of England, were put to death for refusing to swear that king Henry was head of the church under Christ.⁵

      Now it might be a question amongst moral philosophers and theological casuists, whether he that swears, that during all the days of his life, even to the last breath, he will continue a Presbyterian of the associate order, and he that swears that king Henry or king George is the head of the church, do not exhibit the same ignorance of human nature, and of christian religion; and whether the creatures of the king, or the creatures of the priest, are the more pliant and servile. I think it requires no great skill in mental philosophy to decide that the policy which led the king to require this oath of supremacy in favour of himself, and that which moved the worthy associate divines to require their subjects to swear allegiance to them, under the mask of supporting the true religion, is one and the same policy.

      According to the rules of interpretation of former oaths and covenants, adopted by this religious community, the obligations of this oath are hereditary; their children now existing, and those yet unborn, are under its sanction, and are bound to be of the same true religion of their fathers. I am informed by those who witnessed this strange and awful scene of priestly domination and lavish servility, that it was performed with all the awkwardness of a militia muster. The priest obliged to keep his eye upon the book in reading the oath, and upon the behaviour of those before his altar, who at a signal given, were to lift their hands, and continue in a certain posture until informed to change their attitude. O! that some intelligent and benevolent tongue could have addressed the poor people, and have told them the nature and design of what they were about to do, before they lifted up their hands to heaven to swear that they would be Seceders all the days of their lives!⁶

EDITOR.      

      FOR the information of those of limited reading, we design to give a few historical facts respecting the progress of the English bible. The importance and utility of these historical notices will be apparent as we proceed.

      It is a remarkable coincidence in the history of all the noted reformers from Popery, that they all gave a translation of the scriptures in the vernacular tongue of the people whom they labored to reform. There are other striking coincidences in the history of these men which may hereafter be noticed. John Wickliffe, who was born 1324, and died 1384, was the first reformer that disturbed the peace and unity of the church of Rome, and he was the first man that translated the New Testament into the English language. One of the errors which the popular clergy of that day laid to his charge, was, that he taught that the New Testament is a perfect rule of life and manners, and ought to be read by the people. He also taught that there were but two officers in the christian church, viz. the bishops and the deacons. "That christians must practise and teach only the laws of Christ." His disciples were called Lollards. Wickliffe's Testament was in manuscript circulated amongst the laity and read with great avidity. But the reading of this blessed volume was attended with great danger, for in the beginning of Henry Fifth's reign a law was passed, which enacted--"That whosoever they were, that should read the scriptures in the mother tongue, (which was [130] then called reproachfully Wicleu's Learning,) they should forfeite lande, catel, lif, and godes, from theyre heyres forever, and so be condempned for heretykes to God, enemies to the crowne, and moste errant traitors to the lande." So great was the rage of the clergy against reading the New Testament in English, when it first made its appearance. Every one who read it was suspected of heresy, and many were suspected of having read it, against whom it could not be proved, because they were a little more intelligent than their neighbors. For the reading of this volume will soon make a layman more intelligent than a priest who only uses it as a text book. John Keyser became so intelligent as to say, that although the Archbishop of Canterbury had excommunicated him, "he was not excommunicated before God, for his corn yielded as well as his neighbors." This much light was however dangerous to this man, for he was committed to jail for knowing and saying this much. This happened in the reign of Edward VI.

      John Wickliffe made his translation, A. D. 1367, not from the Greek but from the vulgate New Testament as read in the Catholic church. This vulgate, which was read for many centuries, was a correction of the old Italic version, conjectured to have been made in the middle of the second century, not long after the first Syriac version was made. The old Italic was made from the Greek and Old Testament from the Septuagint. Jerome, A. D. 382, translated the Old Testament into Latin from the Septuagint, or rather corrected from the old Italic version. The Italic version, mended by Jerome, has been long in great repute amongst the Romanists, and is what is commonly called the Vulgate, from which Wickliffe gave the first English New Testament.

EDITOR.      

[TCB 124-131]