Volume 2. Number 8. March 7, 1825, pp. 131-137.

• Essays on the Work of the Holy Spirit in the Salvation of Men--No. VIII. by Alexander Campbell, pp. 131-133.
• A Restoration of the Ancient Order of Things--No. II. by Alexander Campbell, pp. 133-136.
• History of the English Bible--No. II. by Alexander Campbell, p. 136.
• The Apocalypse Explained by Alexander Campbell, pp. 136-137.
• Episcopalian Diocese in Ohio by Alexander Campbell, p. 137.

      EVER since the creation of the heavens and the earth, God has always employed means, fitted to the ends he designed to accomplish. Indeed, the creation of this mundane state, is a creation of means suited to certain results. The means, as well as the end, are the creatures of God. His wisdom is most strikingly conspicuous, through all his works, in adapting his means to his ends. When he designs to bless the inhabitants of this globe with abundance of food, he sends the early and the latter rain. But does he intend to scourge them with famine? then the heavens become as brass, and the earth as iron. Or, perhaps, to vex them more grievously, he sends forth his armies of insects, apparently imbecile, but terribly victorious and puissant by their numbers. Or does he waste the race of men by diseases incurable? then the pestilence is inhaled in every breath, and a burning impetus given to every pulse, the means of which elude the philosopher's eye, and triumph over the physician's hand. When ships are to be engulphed in the fathomless ocean, and their crews buried beneath the foundations of the mountains; when forests, and villages, and cities, are to be prostrated to the earth in his vengeance, the whirlwind marches forth in awful grandeur, and knows no restraint but the will of him who rides upon its wings; or the earth rent with internal fires, trembles to its centre, and, while in convulsive throes, it spues up new islands in the ocean, it swallows myriads of men and their devices in a single respiration. Or, perhaps in the multitude of his resources, he sends the flaming thunderbolts, which fall with resistless power on those doomed to a more instantaneous destruction.

      The means are always suited to the end. In the accomplishment of a moral renovation, or regeneration of the human mind, the same fitness in the means employed is exhibited in every respect. No new faculties are created in the human mind, nor are any of the old ones annihilated--no new passions, nor affections are communicated. He that possessed a quick perception, a steady and retentive memory, a strong discriminating judgment, a vigorous and vivid imagination before he was regenerated, possesses the same without any change after he has been renewed in the spirit of his mind. Indeed, the whole temperament of the human mind remains the same after as before. He that was before of a volatile, irascible, bold and resolute temperament, or the contrary, is the same when regenerate. The biography of Saul of Tarsus, and of Paul, the apostle; of Simon, son of Jonas, and of the apostle Peter; of John, the son of Zebedee, and of John, the apostle, fully and unanswerably demonstrate and confirm these remarks. Indeed, who does not admit that men perceive, remember, reason, love and hate, fear and hope, rejoice and tremble, after they have been regenerated, as before. The experience of every man concurs in this fact. The renovation of the human mind, or the purification of the human heart, is not then affected by a new creation of faculties or affections, which would be the same as creating a new soul. The soul or spirit of Saul of Tarsus was the soul or spirit of Paul the apostle. The spirit of Saul was not destroyed and a new spirit infused into Paul; for then the spirit of Saul was annihilated, and not saved. It appears, then, that the faculties of the human spirit and the affections of the human mind are affected no more by regeneration than the height of the human stature, the corpulency of the human body, or the color of the human skin are affected by it. The memoirs of every saint recorded in the bible are appealed to as proof of this.

      If, then, as is proved, no new faculties are created, no new passions nor affections bestowed in regeneration, it may be asked, What does the renewal of the Holy Spirit mean? The scriptures authorize us in declaring that it consists in presenting new objects to the faculties, volitions, and affections of men; which new objects apprehended, engage the faculties or powers of the human understanding, captivate the affections and passions of the human soul, and, consequently, direct or draw the whole man into new aims, pursuits, and endeavors.

      A partial illustration of this may be taken from the history of Joseph, governor of, Egypt, and David, king of Israel. Joseph and David, in their childhood and youth, were employed in the cares, enjoyments, and pursuits of the shepherd's life. All their faculties of understanding, all their passions and affections as boys, were engrossed in the rural objects attendant on the shepherd's life. When elevated to the throne, their powers of understanding, affections, and passions were engrossed in the affairs of state, in the concerns of human government and royalty. A great change in their views, feelings, and pursuits, was necessarily effected by an entire change of objects. Or suppose an African child were transplanted from a Virginian but to an African palace, at the age of ten or twelve; new scenes, new objects of contemplation, a new education, new companions, and new [131] objects of pursuit, would revolutionize its whole mind, affections, and passions. But all these instances, although it might with truth be said, "Old things are passed away and all things are become new;" yet their mental faculties, powers of volition, and affections, are the same as when boys. This is, as was said, but a partial illustration; for in that renewed state of which we are speaking, heavenly objects of contemplation and pursuit are presented to all that is within man, and the change produced rises to a level with the magnitude, purity, and glory of the objects proposed. But lest we should get into metaphysical speculations, and fall into the errors we labor to correct, let it suffice to say, that before we can understand or admire the wisdom of God, in the adaptation of the means of regeneration, we must first know what the renewal of the Holy Spirit is. If regeneration, or the renovation of the human mind, were the result of the mere creative energy of the Divine Spirit, then, indeed, it were vain for us to talk of any means of renovation; then, indeed, a revelation in words, spoken or written--preaching or reading, are idle and unmeaning. This matter is at once determined with the utmost certainty, not by human speculations, nor reasonings, but by a sure and infallible testimony; and on this alone would we rest our views. Paul declares that Jesus Christ told him that he would send him to the gentiles to accomplish the following results: "To open their eyes, to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God; that they might receive forgiveness of sins and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me." Acts, xxvi. 18. Or, as it is more correctly translated by Thomson, "To open their eyes that they may turn from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God; that they may receive a remission of sins and an inheritance among them who are sanctified by the belief in me." Such was the object of the Messiah in sending Paul to the gentiles. Now who will not say, that when all this was done, those gentiles were regenerated or renewed in the spirit of their minds, and that the presentation of new objects to the mind was the means employed for the accomplishment of this end? Their turning from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, are made dependant on, and consequent to, the opening of their eyes; and we all know that Paul, when sent to open their eyes, always presented to their minds new objects, or the light of the world. And, indeed, this was all he was commissioned to do, because it was all that Jesus Christ deemed necessary to be done, and all that Paul was empowered or capacitated to do. There was, then, the same fitness in the means Jesus Christ employed to the end proposed, as appears in the whole kingdom of means and ends. Paul declares that the ministry of reconciliation was committed to him as to the other apostles, and that the word of reconciliation was summarily comprehended to this one sentence: "God was in Christ reconciling a world to himself, not reckoning to them their transgressions; for he has made him who knew no sin a sin offering for us, that by him we may be made the righteousness of God." The means employed to reconcile enemies must ever fail of effecting a reconciliation, unless the means are adapted to their state and character. Now herein consists the great and the apparent difference between the majority of the popular preaching and the apostle's preaching. The former pays no attention to the suitableness of means, but the latter always did. This we shall be at some pains to illustrate. Let a popular preacher of one school preach his gospel to a congregation he desires to see converted, and somewhere in his sermon a few dogmas of his school are presented to neutralize the other parts, or to orthodoxize the whole of it. He will say, it is true, that "natural men are spiritually dead, and as unable to believe in the Messiah as they are to scale heaven by a rope of sand, or to create something out of nothing;" or he tells the people that "God has foreordained a part of the world to everlasting life, and left the rest in their imbecile and bankrupt circumstances to sink down into everlasting death; that for these Christ died, and for a great portion of the human race no sacrifice was offered: no man can believe unless he to whom it is given;" and it must remain a matter of awful uncertainty whether any of the congregation he addresses are among those for whom Christ died, or to whom it shall be given to believe. Another preacher, of another school, tells his unconverted hearers that "their wills are as free to good as to evil, and that they are as able to believe in the Messiah as they are to eat and drink; that Christ died for all mankind, savage and civilized; and that it is still uncertain whether any of his congregation will be saved or not, or whether those who now believe will be saved or damned; but God did not foreordain the salvation or damnation of any man." These dogmas of the two great schools are continually heard from a vast majority of all the pulpits in the land. For, in fact, although there are perhaps ten thousand preachers in the land speaking every Sabbath day to all the synagogues, yet but two men speak in them all--and these two are John Calvin and James Arminius. Now it must be confessed that such preachers were not the apostles. Such means as these the Spirit of God never did employ in the conversion of Jews and Gentiles, in the age of primitive simplicity. And the reason is obvious, for there is no moral fitness or suitableness in those means to the end proposed. For what fitness is there to produce faith in telling a man that he cannot believe? or what fitness is there in telling a man that until he is quickened or regenerated by the Spirit of God, he cannot become a disciple of Christ in truth? Can such dogmas, however solemnly declared, or however often repeated, cause the Spirit to descend or to regenerate the man? But he must say these things in order to be, or to appear to be, orthodox! Again, what fitness is there to produce faith in telling a man that he is able to believe? Did ever a discourse upon what is called "the freedom of the human will," or men's natural powers, incline a man to choose what is good, or cause him to exert his displayed powers to believe? As rationally might one man attempt to persuade another to go to Spain or the Cape of Good Hope, by telling him his will was free to choose or to refuse, and that his natural abilities were sufficient. All such preaching is as absurd as it is unprecedented in the New Testament.

      I enter not into the merits or abstract truth of the above systems. This would be to run the same old metaphysical race again. Some of those dogmas may be metaphysically true, but they are distilled truths. They have come from the Calvinistic or Arminian distillery. That is, in other words, certain parts of the bible, mingled with philosophy, and put through a Calvinistic or Arminian process of distillation, issue [132] in these abstract notions. The men who deal in those distilled truths, and those who drink those distilled doctrines, are generally intoxicated. For even here there is a certain analogy between the revelation of God, and the corn and wheat of God. When the whole wheat or corn of God are used for food in their undistilled state, or when eaten in all their component parts, those who eat them are healthy and enjoy life; but when the component parts of those grains are separated by a chemical process, and the distilled spirit presented to human lips, men cannot live upon these spirits, but become intoxicated, and in process of time, sicken and die. This analogy is complete. They who believe and obey the New Testament, as God has presented it, live upon it, and enjoy life and spiritual health; but they who attempt to live upon those theories sicken and die. Those who feed themselves upon their free will and sufficient strength, often take care not to will to obey the apostles doctrine; and those who complain that the will is not free, often appear "freely willing" to neglect the great salvation.

      But some of the orthodox contend that it is not safe to permit a man to preach, or to speak to men on religion, who will not expressly and publicly declare that his theory is that men cannot believe unless they are first regenerated by the Spirit of God. This is the consummation of absurdity on their own principles. For surely they do not think that the Spirit of God will suspend or change the order of its operations according to the opinion of the speaker. On their theory, the Spirit of God will operate in its own way, whatever be the private theory of the speaker; and whether a man think or do not think that men can believe only as the Spirit of God works faith in them, the result on their own principles must be the same. But we have gone farther into this subject than was intended. I had intended, in this essay, merely to illustrate that there is a moral fitness in the word of reconciliation to become the means of the impartation of that Spirit of Goodness which we stated in our last as the peculiar characteristic of the covenant of Spirit, under which all christians live. And how much happier would the majority of Christians be, if, instead of eagerly contending about the fashionable theories of religion, they would remember that every good and perfect gift comes down from the Father of Lights--that he has promised his Holy Spirit to them that ask him, and that every necessary blessing is bestowed upon all them who, believing that God is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him, ask for those favors comprised in the love of God, the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit.

EDITOR.      

      HAD the founder of the Christian faith been defective in wisdom or benevolence, then his authority, his testimony, and his commandments, might be canvassed with as little ceremony as the discoveries and maxims of our compeers and contemporaries then his religion might be improved, or reformed, or better adapted to existing circumstances. But as all christians admit that he foresaw and anticipated all the events and revolutions in human history, and that the present state of things was as present to his mind as the circumstances that encompassed him in Judea, or in the judgment hall of Caiaphas; that he had wisdom and understanding perfectly adequate to institute, arrange, and adapt a system of things, suitable to all exigencies and emergencies of men and things, and that his philanthropy was not only unparalleled in the annals of the world, but absolutely perfect, and necessarily leading to, and resulting in, that institution of religion which was most beneficial to man in the present and future world. I say all these things being generally, if not universally agreed upon by all christians, then it follows, by the plainest and most certain consequence, that the institution of which he is the author and founder, can never be improved or reformed. The lives or conduct of his disciples may be reformed, but his religion cannot. The religion of Rome, or of England, or of Scotland may be reformed, but the religion of Jesus Christ never can. When we have found ourselves out of the way we may seek for the ancient paths, but we are not at liberty to invent paths for our own feet. We should return to the Lord.

      But a restoration of the ancient order of things, it appears, is all that is contemplated by the wise disciples of the Lord; as it is agreed that this is all that is wanting to the perfection, happiness, and glory of the Christian community. To contribute to this is our most ardent desire--our daily and diligent inquiry and pursuit. Now, in attempting to accomplish this, it must be observed, that it belongs to every individual and to every congregation of individuals to discard from their faith and their practice every thing that is not found written in the New Testament of the Lord and Saviour, and to believe and practise whatever is there enjoined. This done, and every thing is done which ought to be done.

      But to come to the things to be discarded, we observe that, in the ancient order of things, there were no creeds or compilations of doctrine in abstract terms, nor in other terms other than the terms adopted by the Holy Spirit in the New Testament. Therefore all such are to be discarded. It is enough to prove that they ought to be discarded, from the fact that none of those now in use, nor ever at any time in use, existed in the apostolic age. But as many considerations are urged why they should he used, we shall briefly advert to these, and attempt to show that they are perfectly irrational, and consequently foolish and vain.

      I. It is argued that confessions of faith are or may be much plainer and of much more easy apprehension and comprehension than the oracles of God. Men, then, are either wiser or more benevolent than God. If the truths in the Bible can be expressed more plainly by modern divines than they are by the Holy Spirit, then it follows that either God would not or could not express them in words so plainly as man. If he could, and would not, express them in words so suitable as men employ, then he is less benevolent than they. Again, if he would, but could not express them in words so suitable as men employ, then he is not so wise as they. These conclusions, we think, are plain and unavoidable. We shall thank any advocate of human creeds to attempt to show any way of escaping this dilemma.

      But the abstract and metaphysical dogmas of the best creeds now extant, are the most difficult of apprehension and comprehension. They are farther from the comprehension of nine-tenths of mankind than the words employed by the Holy Spirit. We shall give a few samples from the Westminster creed, one of the best in the world:-- [133]

      Sample 1. "The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son."

      Sample 2. "God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established."

      Sample 3. "Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all supposed conditions; yet has he not decreed any thing because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions."

      Sample 4. "These angels and men, thus predestined and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number is so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished."

      Sample 5. "Although in relation to the knowledge and decree of God, the first cause, all things come to pass immutably and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, he orders them to fall out according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently."

      These samples are taken out of the 2d, 3d, and 5th chapters, and may serve as a fair specimen of the whole. Now the question is, whether are these words more plainly, definitely, and intelligibly expressive of divine truths than the terms used by the Holy Spirit in the scriptures? We do not ask the question, whether these things are taught in the Bible? but merely whether these terms are more plain, definite, and intelligible than the terms used in the Bible? This we refer to the reader's own decision.

      II. But, in the second place, it is argued that human confessions of faith are necessary to the unity of the church. If they are necessary to the unity of the church, then the church cannot be united and one without them. But the church of Christ was united and one in all Judea, in the first age, without them; therefore, they are not necessary to the unity of the church. But again, if they are necessary to the unity of the church, then the New Testament is defective; for if the New Testament was sufficient to the unity of the church, then human creeds would not be necessary. If any man, therefore, contend that human creeds are necessary to the unity of the church, he at the same time and by all the same arguments, contends that the scriptures of the Holy Spirit are insufficient--that is, imperfect or defective. Every human creed is based upon the inadequacy, that is, the imperfection of the Holy Scriptures.

      But the records of all religious sects, and the experience of all men of observation, concur in attesting the fact that human creeds have contributed always, since their first introduction, to divide and disunite the professors of the christian religion.¹

      Every attempt to found the unity of the church upon the adoption of any creed of human device, is not only incompatible with the nature and circumstances of mankind, but is an effort to frustrate or to defeat the prayer of the Lord Messiah, and to subvert his throne and government. This sentence demands some attention. We shall illustrate and establish the truth which it asserts.

      Human creeds are composed of the inferences of the human understanding speculating upon the revelation of God. Such are all those now extant. The inferences drawn by the human understanding partake of all the defects of that understanding. Thus we often observe two men sincerely exercising their mental powers, upon the same words of inspiration, drawing inferences or conclusions, not only diverse but flatly contradictory. This is the result of a variety of circumstances. The prejudices of education, habits of thinking, modes of reasoning, different degrees of information, the influence of a variety of passions and interests, and, above all, the different degrees of strength of human intellect, all concur in producing this result. The persons themselves are very often unconscious of the operation of all these circumstances, and are, therefore, honestly and sincerely zealous in believing and in maintaining the truth of their respective conclusions. These conclusions, then, are always private property, and can never be placed upon a level with the inspired word. Subscription to them, or an acknowledgment of them, can never be rationally required as a bond of union. If, indeed, all christians were alike in all those circumstantial differences already mentioned, then an accordance in all the conclusions which one or more of them might draw from the divine volume, might rationally be expected from them all. But as christians have never yet all possessed the same prejudices, degrees of information, passions, interests, modes of thinking and reasoning, and the same strength of understanding, an attempt to associate them under the banners of a human creed composed of human inferences, and requiring unanimity in the adoption of it, is every way as irrational as to make a uniformity of features, of color, of height and weight, a bond of union. A society of this kind never yet existed, and we may, I think, safely affirm never will. Those societies which unite upon the thirty-nine articles of the Church of England, and the thirty-three chapters of the Kirk of Scotland, do not heartily concur in those creeds. Most of them never read them, and still fewer heartily concur in yielding the same credence, or in reposing the same confidence in them.

      Their being held as a nominal bond of union, gives rise to hypocrisy, prevarication, lying, and, in many instances, to the basest injustice. Many men are retained in those communities who are known not to approbate them fully, to have exceptions and objections; but their wealth or some extrinsic circumstance palliates their non-conformities in opinion; whereas others are reproached, persecuted and expelled, who differ no more than they, but there is some interest to consult, some pique, or resentment, or envy to gratify in their excommunication. This is base injustice. Many, like the late Rev. Dr. Scott, subscribe them for preferment. He declared that he was moved by the Holy Spirit to enter into the ministry, and yet he afterwards avowed that then he did not believe that there was any Holy Spirit. This is lying and hypocrisy. These are, however, incidental occurrences. But the number of such cases, and the frequency of their occurrence, are alarming to those who believe that God reigns. Again, the number of items which enter into those creeds is not amongst the least of their absurdities. In the Presbyterian Confession there are thirty-three chapters, and in [134] these one hundred and seventy-one dogmas. In receiving "ministers," or in "licensing preachers," it is ordained that the candidate be asked, "Do you sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith of this church, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures." Observe the words, "the system." Yes, the identical system taught in the Scriptures--that is the one hundred and seventy-one dogmas of the Confession is the system of truth taught in the Holy Scriptures. Neither more nor less! But I am digressing. I only proposed in this place to show that the imposition of any creed of human device is incompatible with the nature and circumstances of man. This, I conceive, is rendered sufficiently plain from an inspection of the circumstances and character of the human mind already noticed.

      But it was affirmed, that every attempt to found the unity of the church upon the adoption of any creed of human contrivances;--upon any creed, other than the apostle's testimony, is not only incompatible with the nature and circumstances of mankind, but is also an effort to frustrate and defeat the prayer and plan of the Lord Messiah, and to subvert his throne and government.

      It will be confessed, without argument to prove, that the conversion of men, or of the world, and the unity, purity, and happiness of the disciples of the Messiah, were the sublime subjects of his humiliation to death. For this he prayed in language never heard on earth before, in words which not only expressed the ardency of his desires, but at the same time unfolded the plan in which his benevolence and philanthropy were to be triumphant.

      The words to which we refer express one petition of that prayer recorded by the apostle John, commonly styled his intercessory prayer. With his eyes raised to heaven, he says;--"Holy Father--now, I do not pray for these only (for the unity and success of the apostles) but for those also who shall believe in me through, or by means of their word--that they all may be one,--that the world may believe that you have sent me." Who does not see in this petition, that the words or testimony of the apostles, the unity of the disciples, and the conviction of the world are bound together by the wisdom and the love of the Father, by the devotion and philanthropy of the Son. The order of heaven, the plan of the Great King, his throne and government, are here unfolded in full splendor to our view. The words of the apostles are laid as the basis, the unity of the disciples the glorious result, and the only successful means of converting the world to the acknowledgment, that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah or the Son of the Blessed, the only Saviour of men.

      Let us attend to the argument of the prayer. The will of Jesus was the same as the will of him who sent him. The will of heaven, that is, the will of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is, that all who believe on the Messiah through the testimony of the apostles may be one; consequently, they do not will that those who believe on him through the Westminster divines shall be one. The words of the prayer alone demonstrate this. And who does not see, and who will not confess, that the fact proves, the fact now existing, that those who believe in him through the words of the Westminster divines are not one? They are cut up or divided into seven sects at this moment. While the Saviour prays that those who believe on him through the apostles may be one, he in fact, and in the plain meaning of terms, prays that they who believe on him through any other media or means may be divided, and not be one.

      To attempt to unite the professing disciples by any other means than the word of the apostles, by the Westminster, or any other creed, is, then, an attempt to overrule the will of heaven, to subvert the throne of the Great King, to frustrate the prayers of the Son of the Blessed. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are God's thoughts and ways higher than ours. He knows, for he has willed, and planned, and determined, that neither the Popish, the Protestant, the Presbyterian, the Methodistic, nor the Baptist creed shall be honored more than the apostle's testimony, shall be honored as much as the apostle's testimony, shall be honored at all. These creeds the Saviour proscribed forever; they are rebellion against his plan and throne, and they are aimed at the dethronement of the Holy Twelve--He put them on thrones, he gave them this honor. All creed makers have disputed their right to the throne, have attempted, ipso facto, their degradation, and have usurped their government. But he that sits in heaven has laughed at them, he has vexed them in his sore displeasure, he has dispersed them in his anger, and confounded their language as he did their predecessors, who sought to subvert his throne and dominion by the erection of a tower and citadel reaching to the skies. The votaries of those creed makers have also concurred with their masters, and have attempted to raise them upon their shoulders to the apostolic thrones; but he has broken their necks, and they go bowed down always. He has made them lick the dust, and caused children to reign over them.

      But the conversion of the world is planned and ordered by the will of heaven to be dependant on the unity of the disciples, as well as this unity dependant upon the apostle's testimony An attempt to convert Pagans and Mahometans to believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and the sent of the Father, until christians are united, is also an attempt to frustrate the prayer of the Messiah, to subvert his throne and government. There are unalterable laws in the moral world, as in the natural. There are also unalterable laws in the government of the moral and religious world, as in the government of the natural. Those laws cannot, by human interference, be set aside or frustrated--we might as reasonably expect that Indian corn will grow in the open fields in the midst of the frost and snows of winter, as that Pagan nations can be converted to Jesus Christ, till christians are united through the belief of the apostle's testimony. We may force corn to grow by artificial means in the depth of winter, but it is not like the corn of August. So may a few disciples be made in Pagan lands by such means in the moral empire; as those by which corn is made to grow in winter in the natural empire, but they are not like the disciples of primitive times, before sectarian creeds came into being. It is enough to say, on this topic, that the Saviour made the unity of the disciples essential to the conviction of the world; and he that attempts it independent of this essential, sets himself against the wisdom and plans of heaven, and aims at overruling the dominion and government of the Great King. On this subject we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, because the people are dull of hearing. But we shall leave this prayer for the present, having just introduced it, and noticed the argument of it, by reminding the reader that [135] instead of human creeds, promoting the unity of the disciples, they have always operated just the reverse; and are in diametrical opposition to the wisdom and benevolence of the Heavens. Should the christian community be united upon the Westminster, or Methodistic, or Baptist, or any human creed, then the plan of heaven is defeated, the apostles disgraced, the Saviour's prayer unanswered, and the whole order of heaven frustrated, and the throne of the universe subverted. He that advocates the necessity of creeds of human contrivance to the unity of the church unconsciously impeaches the wisdom of God, arraigns the benevolence of the Saviour, and censures the revelation of the Spirit. He, perhaps, without reflection attempts to new modify the empire of reason, of morality and religion; to rise above, not only the apostles, but the Saviour himself, and arrogates to himself a wisdom and philanthropy that far surpasses, and in fact covers with disgrace, all those attributes that rise to our view, and shine with incomparable effulgence in the redemption of man.

EDITOR.      

      ANNO DOMINI 1526, the New Testament was translated into English by Tyndal. This translation was printed at Antwerp. It had an astonishing circulation amongst the people. The bishops of the English hierarchy condemned it. They not only condemned it as a dangerous book for the laity, but complained of it to the king, and proceeded against those that read it with great severity. His majesty, Henry VIII. called it in by way of proclamation, June, 1520, and promised a more correct translation. But says Neal, "It was impossible to stop the curiosity of the people so long; for though the bishops bought up and burnt all they could meet with, the Testament was reprinted abroad and sent over to merchants in London, who dispersed the copies privately among their acquaintance and friends." "At length it was moved in convocation that the whole bible should be translated into English and set up in churches; but most of the old clergy were against it. They said this would lay the foundation for innumerable heresies, as it had done in Germany, and that the people were not proper judges of the sense of scriptures. To which it was replied that the scriptures were written at first in the vulgar tongue; that our Saviour commanded his hearers to search the scriptures, that it was necessary the people should do so now. These arguments prevailed with the majority to consent that the petition should be presented to the king, that his majesty would please to give order about it. But the old bishops were too much disinclined to move in it. The Reformers, therefore, were forced to have recourse to Tyndal's translation."²

      Two remarkable facts in the history of the first translations of the scriptures are worthy of particular notice. The first is, that all who attained to the honor of first reformers attempted to give a translation of the scriptures in the vulgar tongue of the people they labored to reform. Peter Waldus, A. D. 1160, attempted a translation of the four Gospels into the French language. John Wickliffe, A. D. 1367, translated the New Testament into English. Martin Luther gave a translation of the bible in the German. Olivetan translated into the French, and Beza, the friend and companion of Calvin, rendered the New Testament into Latin. The second fact is, that the reigning clergy uniformly opposed these translations under the pretext of their inaccuracy, and their dangerous tendency amongst the laity.

      But to return to the English bible, it is a fact worthy of some attention, that Wickliffe, who gave the first translation, was condemned as a heretic, and after his death, the orthodox dug up his bones and burned them. William Tyndal too, who gave the second English translation, was condemned to death and executed as a heretic.

      William Tyndal's New Testament was printed in one octavo volume, without a name, without any marginal references, or table at the end. In the year 1536 it had passed through five editions in Holland. Tyndal also made a good progress in translating the Old Testament. The five books of Moses, the books of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the two books of Samuel, the Kings, and Chronicles, with Nehemiah and Jonah, were translated by him. Miles Coverdale and John Rogers finished it. Some marginal notes were added which gave offence to the clergy, and the whole work was prohibited by authority. Tyndal translated, as Wickliffe before him, from the Vulgate Latin, and not from the Greek. Archbishop Cranmer reviewed and corrected it, leaving out the notes and prologue, cancelled the name of Tyndal, and gave it the fictitious name of Thomas Matthews' bible. It was sometimes called Cranmer's bible, though in fact it was still Tyndal's translation corrected. The Archbishop's name and influence obtained the royal authority, and it was read by all sorts of people.

EDITOR.      

      THROUGH the kindness of a friend from Kentucky, at the city of Washington, we obtained direct from the press, Alexander Smyth's Explanation of the Apocalypse, or Revelation of John. Much was promised by Mr. Smyth, and he was a good deal snarled at by sundry editors for his impertinence in invading the dominions of the clergy. Some, indeed, were so candid as to allow that as a monk had invented or discovered the art of making gunpowder, it was not unreasonable to suppose, that a military general might discover the meaning of the Apocalypse. Now, although we had no prejudices against the general, we had not much faith in his pledge staked on the discovery; and, indeed, we are sorry that he has fallen so far short of the monk alluded to. He has made a great noise, but that appears to be the whole he has done. His pamphlet is, indeed, likely to sell well at fifty cents, though it does not contain as much matter as the present number of this work. But the size of it is the best property it possesses. The omnipotent key which he promised to this revelation has been long in the possession of the infidel world. It is this: "it now appears that, although the christian church has received the revelation of John the divine as genuine, for more than sixteen centuries, it is a pious forgery." This omnipotent key would unlock all the mysteries of the bible with the same ease it unlocks the revelation of John. But how will the general maintain the character of an honest man in professing to have discovered an infallible key to unlock this revelation, which the deists have worn out, and got welded a hundred times, and which is yet unable to open the lock! But this is not all: it illy comports with the declaration that he had found out such a key of interpretation, which leaves him in the rank of may-bes and perhapses. He has [136] to say occasionally, This may mean and that perhaps may signify. This is a slippery key--a key that often misses the bolt. He supposes that Ireneus, who died A. D. 202, was the pious forger of this revelation, and that it was written as an enigmatical representation of events prior to that time; and yet some of the events which he brings forward as a part of this enigmatical history, happened after the death, or just at the close of the life of Ireneus. He has not attempted to explain many of the most important items in this book, otherwise than by telling us it is "a pious forgery." When the fact that the revelation of John existed and was quoted and referred to by writers from A. D. 100 till 200, presented itself, he discredits the testimony of historians, but afterwards quotes them as of authority in other instances. At one time Eusebius is a writer of no credit when his testimony opposes the general; at another time he is quoted without a demur. The same infallible key some of the infidels of the first centuries found out for unlocking the prophecies of Isaiah. They declared that what Isaiah said of the sufferings of the Messiah was written after the events had occurred, and that his prophecies were a pious forgery, although the Jews had held them sacred for many centuries before the christian era. Indeed the general's Explanation affords another instance that sceptics are the most credulous of mankind, while they object to the credulity of others. We have not time at present to give this work any more attention, nor, indeed, do we suppose it deserves any more. Perhaps the general intended to write a burlesque on the commentaries of the age.

EDITOR.      

      IT appears from the journal of the proceedings of the seventh annual convention of the Protestant Episcopal church, in the state of Ohio, that the Right Reverend Bishop Chase received on his tour through England, in solicitations of donations, property to the amount of twenty thousand dollars, for the establishment of a theological institution for the qualifying of clergymen for the church of England in this diocese. In his episcopal address to his convention he tells his clergy and laity that he generously presented a sum of money bequeathed to himself, by John Bowdler, esq. of England, having converted this money into a "well-wrought set of communion plate for the chapel of the intended seminary." To perpetuate this disinterested act of benevolence to the clerical praise of the first and second donor, on the chief piece of the plate is engraved as follows:--

      "A flagon, two chalices, two patens, and collecting plate. This communion plate was purchased with a sum of money which the late John Bowdler, Esq. of Eltham in Kent, England, appropriated to the use of the Right Reverend Philander Chase, D. D. bishop of Ohio, and was, by the bishop's desire, dedicated forever to the service of this chapel. A. D. 1824."

      Well may it be said that the righteous shall be held in everlasting remembrance, when their names are thus engraved on silver, and their piety commemorated by their own hands in letters as durable as the precious metal. This disinterested act of munificent benevolence of the Right Reverend bishop of Ohio, will, no doubt, in the eyes of the pious protestants, cover the policy of the subordinating these twenty thousand dollars to the interest and personal benefit of the bishop for life or good behaviour. For in the aforesaid journal, we are told that all the donations made to the bishop in England, were made upon the basis that the bishop is to reside at the seminary wherever located, and to have the charge and direction of it as one of the principal professors, and president; and, as such, to receive a proper compensation out of the funds contributed. The interest of twenty thousand dollars, at six per cent. is twelve hundred dollars per annum. Now, should the bishop only receive as "a proper compensation," the interest of this sum per annum, it will be obvious that, by his late tour, he has not only essentially subserved the interest of the church of England, but secured for life a handsome support in Ohio--a sum exceeding that paid to the governor of the state. But we are informed that, "according to the bishop's deed, upon which all donations are predicated, the real estate proposed to be given, and the appendages to it, will revert to the present bishop, the proprietor, in the event of establishing the seminary at any other place, (than the estate conveyed by the bishop;) but notwithstanding "such reversion, it will become the duty of the bishop to reside personally at the seminary." Thus the welfare of the bishop is secured by every means, as well as the protestant church. And who would not go on a similar tour, having any prospect of thus consolidating the property of the church and his own upon the same basis. Such is the policy of this measure, and such are the prospects of building up this Zion in the wilderness. But where is the spirit and the resemblance of the new testament church and its bishops, in all this management? But we ought not, perhaps, to think of comparing this Right Reverend Bishop and his diocese to any congregation of saints and its bishops, mentioned in the age of uncorrupted simplicity. One thing is incontrovertible, that neither the founder of the christian institution, nor any of his immediate followers, ever saw such a flagon, two chalices, two patens, and collecting plate, as suited the taste of the Right Reverend Bishop Chase, D. D.

EDITOR.      

[TCB 131-137]