Volume 2. Number 9. April 4, 1825, pp. 137-145.

• Essays on the Work of the Holy Spirit in the Salvation of Men--No. IX. by Alexander Campbell, pp. 137-139.
• A Restoration of the Ancient Order of Things--No. III. by Alexander Campbell, pp. 139-142.
• [Introductory Note to "To the Editor of the Christian Baptist"] by [Alexander Campbell], p. 142.
• To the Editor of the Christian Baptist by P. H., p. 142.
• Reply by Alexander Campbell, pp. 142-144.
• [Letter to the Editor] by A Reader of the C. B. (Jacob Creath, Jr.), p. 144.
• History of the English Bible--No. III. by Daniel Neal, pp. 144-145.

      THE gospel, or glad tidings of the benignity of God to mankind, is emphatically called the grace of God. Grace is a term of frequent occurrence in the New Testament, and always signifies the favor of God towards sinners.--This is no where so fully exhibited as in the gift of his Son. Hence the full, free favor of God came by Jesus Christ; and this is termed the grace, or the grace of God. The Spirit of God, by whose agency this grace is exhibited, is therefore called the Spirit of Grace. Those who have apostatized from the faith of the gospel, are said to have done despite, or to have offered an indignity to the Spirit of Grace, because they have treated with contempt that record which he inspired, and have contemned those splendid attestations which he vouchsafed in proof of its authenticity.

      A great many enthusiastic and extravagant things are said about the grace of God--by those, too, who profess to teach the christian religion. Hence we often hear grace spoken of as a sort of fluid, resembling the electric, which bursts from the clouds that pass over our fields. Free grace, sovereign grace, and grace in the heart, are terms long consecrated and hackneyed in sermon books, until many suppose that they are bible terms and phrases. Hence the grace of some religious sectaries is free, and of others [137] not free--is sovereign, and not sovereign--is in the heart, or not in it. There is a grace, too, which is called special, and a grace that is irresistible and efficacious. With some the day of grace is sinned away; with others it never comes, or never passes away. From all this confusion in the modern Babel, let us turn to the style of the New Testament. There we find that every bounty expressive of the favor of God towards man, is called a grace; that the bounty which one Christian exhibits to another, is called a grace; that the written or spoken gospel is called the grace of God; and when this gospel is announced, the grace of God is said to appear, or to shine forth. Those who hold or stand to the gospel, as delivered by the apostles, are said to stand in the true grace of God, contradistinguished from those who blended the law and the gospel. Those who did not correspond in temper and deportment to the gospel, "received the grace of God in vain;" and those who did so correspond are exhorted "to continue in the grace of God." Those, then, who believe the gospel, receive the grace of God; for, in receiving the gospel, they, in other words, receive the grace of God. When the gospel is exhibited to any people, "the grace of God has appeared," or "shone forth" to them. When they believe it in their hearts, or receive it sincerely, then, and not till then, they have the grace of God in their hearts. This is all the countenance the scriptures give to the popular phrase, "the grace of God in the heart. When men have believed the gospel, they are under the reign of grace--they are under the favor of Jesus Christ, and all the benefits they enjoy are so many multiplications of his favor. So that when the apostle prayed that grace might be multiplied to, or that the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ might be with the saints, he, in other words, desires that the favor or benefits of his reign might be with them. While Christians keep the commandments of the Saviour, they grow in his favor, or grow in grace, which is exhibited in the increase of all those dispositions and tempers of mind which are compatible with their state, as standing in the true grace of God.

      This grace of God works in the hearts of the recipients. By it the peace of God rules, and the love of God is diffused in the hearts of men. A heart ruled by the peace of God, and warmed by his love, is as conscious or as sensible of it, as of any of its own emotions. Every person knows or is conscious that he loves, or fears, or dislikes any person, or thing. When two individuals are at enmity against each other, they are conscious of it, and of the cause. When they are sincerely reconciled to each other they are just as conscious of it, and of the means or cause of their reconciliation. And shall it be, when men are reconciled to God through his Son Jesus Christ, that they are, in this instance only, inconscious of it! Were this the case, with what propriety or truth could the apostle say to the Christians of his time concerning the Saviour, "Whom, having not seen, you love; on whom, not now looking, but believing, you greatly rejoice in him with joy unspeakable and full of glory!" That a person could believe on, or trust in another, that he could love him, and rejoice in him, without being conscious of it, is altogether inadmissible. A persuasion that God is so benign, that he is so philanthropic, as to account faith for righteousness to him that believes the record given of his Son, as necessarily produces peace with God, as the appearance of the sun dissipates darkness. "Being justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom, by this belief, we have obtained access to his favor in which we stand, and rejoice in a hope of the glory of God."

      Indeed a transition from darkness to light, from enmity to friendship, from hatred to love, from distrust to confidence, from despondency to hope, from sorrow to joy in those of adult age, is marked with so many sensible attributes, as to render the inconsciousness of it morally impossible. Those, however, who are from infancy brought up in the education and discipline of the Lord; on whose infant minds the sun of righteousness has shone, are not capable of contrasting their present views and feelings with their former. From the earliest recollection they have believed in Jesus, and have, in some measure, enjoyed the benefits of a hope of acceptance with God. As their capacities of understanding have expanded, as their faith and confidence have increased, their enjoyments of the grace of God have also enlarged--But, perhaps, in no case amongst those born in a land where Christian revelation is so generally diffused, can the contrast be so sensible and so obvious as in the first age of Christianity. For thousands of men and women who yesterday were perfect Pagans, to-day rejoice in the hope of eternal life. Once they were darkness, but now they are light. Their renovation was as sensible, as obvious, and as striking to themselves, as the emancipation of an adult slave, as the liberation of a captive, or as the opening of the eyes of a blind man is to himself. Not adverting to the extreme disparity in our circumstances in these instances, from those of the first converts, has given rise to a perplexity, and sometimes, to a perturbation of mind, extremely prejudicial to the happiness of many disciples. To this the popular harangues have contributed in no small degree.

      It is, perhaps, chiefly owing to the religious theories imbibed in early life from creeds, catechisms, and priests, that so few comparatively enjoy the grace of God which brings salvation. The grace of God, exhibited in the record concerning Jesus of Nazareth, affords no consolation. The hopes and joys of many spring from a good conceit of themselves. If this good conceit vanishes, which sometimes happens, despondency and distress are the consequences.--While they can, as they conceit, thank God that they are not like other men, they are very happy; but when this fancied excellency disappears, the glad tidings afford no consolation: anguish and distress have come upon them. This, with some of the spiritual doctors, is a good symptom too: for, say they, "if you do not doubt for you." When they have worked them into despondency, they minister a few opiates, and assure them that they are now in a safe and happy state. Now they are to rejoice, because they are sorrowful; now they are to feel very good, because they feel so very bad. This is the orthodox "christian experience." This is the genuine work of the Holy Spirit!

      Now in the primitive church the disciples derived all their strength, confidence, peace, hope, and joy, from the grace of God appearing in Jesus Christ. In this grace they saw their sins forgiven, themselves accepted, and, on the promise and oath of him that cannot lie, they looked for eternal life. They continued in this joy while they continued keeping the commandments of their Lord, and thereby continued in his love. By this grace of God appearing in Jesus Christ, the Spirit of God comforted their hearts: through [138] it the spirit of adoption was received, and by it they cried Abba, Father. Their life and their joys sprang from him in whom they confided, and not from a high opinion of themselves. The foundation of their hope made them humble; the foundation of the hope of many moderns makes them proud. The fruits of the Spirit which they received were love to Trim that loved them, and to the saints for his names sake; joy, springing from their acceptance with God and hope of eternal life; peace with God through the sacrifice of his son; forbearance towards all, springing from the Divine forbearance which they were every day conscious of; goodness exhibited to friends and enemies, in overt acts of kindness; faithfulness to God and man; meekness in their temper; and temperance in restraining all their appetites, springing from the example of their glorious Chief. The fruits of the Spirit of the fashionable christians, are love to themselves, and to those who unite with them in subscribing the same creed, and in paying the same priest; joy, springing from a high conceit of their moral worth; peace with God, through their having made a covenant of peace on conditions of their own stipulating; forbearance towards the rich or honorable transgressors of their laws, or those of God; goodness to them that love them; faithfulness to men, so long as their interests are consulted thereby; meekness in their temper to those who flatter them that they are every way excellent; and temperance wherein appetite makes no farther demands. In others the fruits of the spirit of orthodoxy are various:--doubts, which spring from their want of certain good symptoms; fears, which arise from a conscience not purged from dead works; and alternate joys and sorrows arising from a good or bad opinion of themselves--censoriousness towards them who cannot say shibboleth as articulately as themselves, and pride originating from a notion that they are exclusively the elect of God. We hope that amongst the popular establishments there are many whom the picture will not suit; but it is with sincere regret that we declare, it is drawn to the life and deportment of very many who stand very high in the religious world, who are pillars, too, in the temples in our favored land.

      But to conclude, we commenced this essay with the intention of exhibiting the import of the grace of God, in the fixed style of the New Testament, regardless of the spurious dialect, or new nomenclature of modern divinity. The prominent ideas intended to be exhibited are, that the gospel of Jesus Christ is emphatically the grace of God; that this gospel received is the grace of God received; that this grace of God when received, works in the hearts of them that believe, that the Spirit of grace therein dwells in the hearts of men, and teaches them to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts; to live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present evil world; that they have "received the grace of God in vain" who do not exhibit its fruit; that "christians continue in the grace of God" while they abound in these fruits; and that while men hold fast the gospel as delivered by the apostles, they "stand in the true grace of God."

      Thus we see that the whole work of the Spirit of God in the salvation of men, as the spirit of wisdom, the spirit of power, and the spirit of grace or goodness, is inseparably connected with, and altogether subservient to the gospel or glad tidings of great joy to all people, of the love of God exhibited in the humiliation to death of his only begotten Son Detached from this we know nothing of it, because nothing more is revealed. And to indulge in metaphysical speculations, or to form abstract theories of our own, is not only the climax of religious folly; but has ever proved the bane of Christianity. If, at any time, in these essays, we approached the precincts of those regions, it was in following the gloomy doctors who begin and end there.

EDITOR.      

      "HOLY FATHER--now I do not pray for these only, but for those also who shall believe on me through their word, that they all may be one--that the world may believe that you have sent me." The testimony of the apostles, the Saviour makes the grand means of the enlargement and consolidation of his empire. He prays that they who believe on him through their testimony may be united. And their union he desires, that the world may believe that he was sent by God, and acted under the authority, and according to the will of the God and Father of all. The word of the Apostles, the unity of those who believe it, and the conviction of the world are here inseparably associated. All terminate in the conviction of the world. As the Father so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son; as the Son so loved the world as to become a propitiation for its sins, and as the Spirit came to convince the world of sin, of righteousness and of judgment, the conviction of the world is an object of the dearest magnitude in the estimation of the Heavens. All the attributes of Deity require that this grand object be achieved in a certain way, or not at all. That way or plan the Saviour has unfolded in his address from earth to heaven. We all must confess, however reluctant at first, that, in the government of the world, there are certain ways to certain ends, and if not accomplished in this way they are not accomplished at all. The fact is apparent, and most obvious, whether we understand, or can understand the reason of it. As well might Israel have dispossessed the Canaanites in any other way he might have devised, as we attempt to carry any point against the established order of heaven. Israel failed in his own way; in God's way he was successful. We have failed in our own way to convince the world, but in God's way we would he victorious. Wisdom and benevolence combined constitute his plan, and although his ways may appear weak or incomprehensible, they are, in their moral grandeur of wisdom and benevolence, as much higher than ours, as the heavens are higher than the earth.

      For any thing we know, it was in the bounds of possibilities for the Saviour to have founded his kingdom without apostles or their word; but we are assured, from the fact of their having been employed, that his wisdom and benevolence required, in reference to things on earth, and things in heaven, that they should be employed. If, then, as is evident, there is a certain way in which christianity can pervade the world, and if the unity of the disciples is an essential constituent of this way, how grievous the schisms, how mischievous the divisions among them!! While they are contending about their Orthodox and their heterodoxisms, they are hardening the hearts of the unbelievers at home, and shutting the door of faith against the nations abroad. While the Saviour, in the prospect of all the sorrows that were about to environ him, in the greatness of his philanthropy, forgetful [139] and regardless of them all, was pouring out his fervent desires for the oneness of his followers, many who call themselves his disciples are fomenting new divisions, or strenuously engaged in keeping up the old ones. They in fact prefer their paltry notions, their abstract devices, their petty, shibboleths to the conversion of the world. Yes, as one of the regenerate divines said, some time since, he would as soon have communion with thieves and robbers, as with those who disputed his notions about eternal generation, or eternal procession, or some such metaphysical nonsense; so, many in appearance, would rather that the world should continue in pagan darkness for a thousand years, than that they should give up with a dogmatic confession, without a life giving truth in it.¹ From the Roman pontiff down to a licensed beneficiary, each high priest and Levite labors to build up the shibboleths of a party. With every one of them, his cause, that brings him a morsel of bread, is the cause of God. Colleges are founded, acts of incorporation prayed for as sincerely as the Saviour prayed for the union of christians in order to the conversion of the world, theological schools erected, and a thousand contributions levied for keeping up parties and rewarding their leaders.

      I have no idea of seeing, nor one wish to see, the sects unite in one grand army. This would be dangerous to our liberties and laws. For this the Saviour did not pray. It is only the disciples of Christ dispersed among them, that reason and benevolence would call out of them. Let them unite who love the Lord, and then we shall soon see the hireling priesthood and their worldly establishments prostrate in the dust.

      But creeds of human contrivance keep up these establishments; nay, they are declared by some sects to be their very constitution.--These create, and foster, and mature that state of things which operates against the letter and spirit of the Saviour's prayer. The disciples cannot be united while these are recognized; and while these are not one, the world cannot be converted. So far from being the bond of union, or the means of uniting the saints, they are the bones of controversy, the seeds of discord, the cause as well as the effect of division. As reasonably might we expect the articles of confederation that league the "Holy Alliance" to be the constitution of a republic, as that the Westminster or any other creed should become a means of uniting christians. It may for a time hold together a worldly establishment, and be of the same service as an act of incorporation to a Presbyterian congregation, which enables it to make the unwilling willing to pay their stipends, but by and by it becomes a scorpion even among themselves.

      But the constitution of the kingdom of the Saviour is the New Testament, and this alone is adapted to the existence of his kingdom in the world. To restore the ancient order of things this must be recognized as the only constitution of this kingdom. And in receiving citizens they must be received into the kingdom, just as they were received by the apostles into it, when they were in the employment of setting it up. And here let us ask, How did they receive them? Did they propose any articles of religious opinions? Did they impose any inferential principles, or require the acknowledgment of any dogmas whatever? Not one. The acknowledgment of the king's supremacy in one proposition expressive of a fact, and not an opinion, and a promise of allegiance expressed in the act of naturalization, were every item requisite to all the privileges of citizenship. As this is a fundamental point, we shall be more particular in detail.

      When any person desired admission into the kingdom, he was only asked what he thought of the king. "Do you believe in your heart that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, the Lord of all," was the whole amount of the apostolic requirement. If the candidate for admission replied in the affirmative--if he declared his hearty conviction of this fact--no other interrogation was proposed. They took him on his solemn declaration of this belief, whether Jew or Gentile, without a single demur. He was forthwith naturalized, and formally declared to be a citizen of the kingdom of Messiah. In the act of naturalization which was then performed by means of water, he abjured or renounced spiritual allegiance to any other prince, potentate, pontiff, or prophet, than Jesus the Lord.--He was then treated by the citizens as a fellow citizen of the saints, and invited to the religious festivals of the brotherhood. And whether he went to Rome, Antioch, or Ephesus, he was received and treated by all the subjects of the Great King as a brother and fellow citizen. If he ever exhibited any instances of disloyalty, he was affectionately reprimanded; but if he was guilty of treason against the king, he was simply excluded from the kingdom. But we are now speaking of the constitutional admission of citizens into the kingdom of Jesus Christ, and not of any thing subsequent thereto. The declaration of the belief of one fact, expressed in one plain proposition, and the one act of naturalization, constituted a free citizen of this kingdom. Such was the ancient order of things, as all must confess. Why, then, should we adopt a new plan, of our own devising, which, too, is as irrational as unconstitutional.

      Let me here ask the only people in our land who seem to understand the constitution of our kingdom and the laws of our King in these respects, Why do you, my Baptist brethren, in receiving applicants into the kingdom, ask them so many questions about matters and things which the apostles never dreamed of, before you will permit them to be naturalized? Although you do not, like some others, present a book for their acknowledgment, you do that which is quite as unauthorized and as unconstitutional.

      Your applicant is importuned in the presence of a congregation who sit as jurors upon his case, to tell how, and why, and wherefore, he is moved to seek for admission into the kingdom. He is now to tell "what the Lord has done for his soul, what he felt, and how he was awakened, and how he now feels," &c. &c. After he has told his "experience," some of the jurors interrogate him for their own satisfaction; and, among other abstract metaphysics, he is asked such questions as the following. "Did you not feel as though you deserved to be sent to hell for your sins? Did you not see that God would be just in excluding you from his presence for ever? Did you not view sin as an infinite evil? Do you not now take delight in the things which were once irksome to you?" &c. &c. If his responses coincide with the experience and views of his examiners, his experience is pronounced genuine. He not unfrequently tells of something like Paul's visions [140] and revelations, which give a sort of variety to his accounts, which, with some, greatly prove the genuineness of his conversion.² Now what is all this worth? His profession is not that which the apostles required; and the only question is, whether the apostolic order or this is the wiser, happier, and safer. When the eunuch said, "Here is water, what does hinder me to be baptized?" Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." He replied, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God?" Philip then accompanied him into the water, and immersed him. None of your questions were propounded--no congregation was assembled to judge of his experience. Philip, as all his contemporaries did, took him on his word. Now I think, brethren, that you cannot say I assume too much when I declare my conviction that the apostolic method was better than yours. You object that a person's saying he believes what the eunuch believed does not afford you sufficient evidence to disciple him. Well, we shall hear you. But let me ask, If he heartily believe what the eunuch believed, is he not worthy of baptism? "Yes," I hear you respond. Now for his saying he believes. What have you but his saying that he feels or felt what he described as his experience? You take his word in that case when accompanied with manifest sincerity, why not, then, take his word in this case when accompanied with manifest sincerity? Yes, but say you, any person can learn to say that he believes what the eunuch believed. Admitted. What then? Cannot any person who has heard others catechised or examined for his experience, learn too to describe what he never felt? So far the cases are perfectly equal. The same assurance is given in both cases. You take the applicant on his own testimony--so did they. We both depend upon his word, and we grant he may deceive us, and you know he has often deceived you. But we could easily shew, were it our intention, that you are more liable to be deceived than we. But we leave this, and ask for no more than what is abundantly evident, that the apostolic plan affords the same assurance as yours. We have the word of the applicant, and you have no more. These considerations shew that the apostolic plan is the wiser and the safer. It is more honorable to the truth too. It fixes the attention of all upon the magnitude of the gospel faith--upon the magnitude of the fact confessed. It exalts it in the apprehension of all as the most grand, sublime, and all-powerful fact. It makes it to the disciple, in his views, what the Saviour is in all the counsels of God--the Alpha and the Omega. It shews its comprehensive and fundamental import, which in fact transcends every other consideration. Moreover, the disciple thus baptized is baptized into the faith, but in the modern plan he is baptized into his own experience. It is then most honorable to the saving truth.

      When your applicant appears before your assembly, say of one hundred disciples, and has satisfied them all, they lift up their hands or otherwise express their approbation of his experience, and their consent to his naturalization. Now admit that his profession were sincere, that he felt all that he described, still he may not be a disciple in truth. He may, indeed, have been in doubts himself whether his experience were genuine. But in your judgment he has some confidence, or he would not sincerely appear before you. He has then, in your decision, the concurrence of one hundred persons approving his experience as genuine. This emboldens him. He now feels himself somewhat assured that he is a true convert, for a hundred converts have approbated his experience and stamped it as genuine as their own. He may be deceived. And you must admit it, or else contend that all such approbated ones, who speak what they have felt, are genuine disciples. I argue that there is, on your plan, a possibility of deceiving or of confirming an applicant in self deception. On the apostolic plan no such possibility exists. For admitting in this case, as in the former, that he sincerely believes what he professes, then he is a true disciple. And they who receive him on this ground, only express their approbation of the faith he has professed. They assure him, by their concurrence, that believing what he professes, he is a disciple.--This, then, fixes his attention upon the truth professed. In the one case the faith he has professed is only attested by the brethren as of paramount importance, which is so in fact; and in attesting which, there is no possibility of deceiving, whether his profession be feigned or sincere. In the other case his experience is attested by the brethren, as of paramount importance, which it may not be in fact; and in attesting which, there is a possibility of deceiving, whether his profession be sincere or feigned.

      But, says one, you may soon get many applicants in this way. Stop, my friend, I fear not so many. You will, if you interrogate the people, find many to say they believe what the eunuch believed, but you cannot persuade them to do as the eunuch did. They will confess with their mouth this truth, but they do not wish to be naturalized or to put themselves tinder the constitution of the Great King. Their not moving in obedience proves the truth does not move them. But when any person asks what the eunuch asked, he, ipso facto, shews that his faith has moved him, and this authorized Philip to comply with his desires, and should induce us to go and do likewise. When the ancient order of things is restored, neither more nor less will be demanded of any applicant for admission into the kingdom, than was asked by Philip. And every man who solicits admission in this way--who solemnly declares that, upon the testimony and authority of the holy apostles and prophets, he believes that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the living God, should forthwith be baptized without respect to any questions or dogmas [141] derived either from written deeds or church covenants. But I have wandered far from my investigation of the merits of the arguments in favor of creeds--so far that I cannot approach them until my next.

EDITOR.      

      THE following epistle will serve as a specimen of the many received relating to the contents of this work, and will, perhaps, be of some use to its numerous and diversified readers. Prejudices which existed against this paper, and the panic which its first numbers produced, have greatly subsided, and its circulation has increased with unusual rapidity. It is high time that the religious community should awake to a just sense of the circumstances, and to the signs of the times, and we are peculiarly happy to witness the spirit of inquiry and investigation which at present threatens the downfall of those establishments projected in ignorance and enthusiasm and consummated by superstition.

      DEAR SIR,--I HAVE been a constant reader of your periodical work from its commencement, and have been entertained and I think much edified; but I find some difficulties in comparing your views with the New Testament.

      In your Sentimental Journal, page 58, you say, "evidence alone produces faith, or testimony is all that is necessary to faith," and, section sixth, same page, you say, "no person can help believing when the evidence of truth arrests his attention." Here I wish an explanation. Were there not many attended on Pentecost besides the three thousand who believed on that occasion? I ask, Why did they not all believe, for I presume they all heard and saw all that the three thousand saw and heard. The same may be said of the event that took place in the temple when Peter and John performed the miracle of healing the crippled man. There were many others who saw and heard. But five thousand believed--others persecuted. I wish here to refer you to a few passages of scripture that seem to me a difficulty to reconcile to your view of faith. John x. 24-28. John vi. 37 and 39. and John viii. 30. to the end of the chapter. Did not those persons hear the word of truth and see the miracles wrought in attestation of the truth? Did it not arrest their attention, and what sort of faith was theirs? Did not Judas Iscariot see the miracles and hear the words of Jesus for a length of time, and on various occasions, and what sort of faith was his?

      There is another difficulty that occurs to me in comparing some of your views (as I understand them) with the scriptures. If I understand you, your views are that no divine influence is necessary in order to faith, nor is any afforded to any, more than is contained in the divine record. I would then ask why one person embraces the gospel gladly and another rejects it, and what we are to understand when we are told that the Lord opened the heart of Lydia that she attended to the things spoken by Paul; and what made the good ground or who gave the good and honest heart named in the parable of the sower. I think there is a text somewhere that says, "the preparation of the heart in man and the answer of the tongue is from the Lord;" and we know that we farmers do not prepare our ground by sowing our seed on it; neither can we understand that the Saviour meant that the sowing of the seed prepared the ground, or made the good and honest heart, or it would have had the same effect on the stony places, or amongst the thorns.

      Permit me to make one more request: Do give me a short explanation of a part of the epistle is the Romans, beginning at the 28th verse of the 8th chapter and ending at the 11th chapter. If this will be too much, confine yourself to two words that occur so often in the New Testament. They are these, "called," or the called, and "elect," or elected, or election. In complying with these requests you will confer a particular favor on an inquirer after truth.

      MY DEAR SIR,--COULD I satisfactorily remove all the philosophical difficulties presented in your friendly epistle, and answer to your conviction every inquiry, I dare not do it for one substantial reason, viz. the next mail would bring me perhaps five hundred questions as difficult as they, and thus we should have in a little time a catechism as long and as metaphysical as the Westminster. I need not tell you of my unfeigned respect for you, nor of my sincere desires to render you all possible satisfaction, as I think you have already assurances as unambiguous as any which I could afford. Besides, in the prosecution of this work it will appear that not the bible but the schoolmen have raised those difficulties; and if it has not already appeared, I trust it will yet be manifest that those difficulties neither stand in the way of the salvation of the soul nor of the body.

      Difficulties that arise from my remarks on faith in the passages quoted, may be easily solved by attending to the fact, that, in those remarks, we were speaking simply of faith itself, as existing in the human mind, independent of the theory of remote causes. A tree, a bird, and a fish, are easily distinguishable from one another by essential attributes or properties evident to all. There are many questions, however, about the remote causes of their existence, their attributes, and properties, which might be proposed, the solution of which would be as puzzling and curious as unprofitable. The unlettered swain who is possessed of an apple, a bird, and a fish, can easily distinguish them; and when eaten they are as conducive to his health and vigor as though he could comprehend and explain every principle and item that enters into their constitution. Faith, hope, and love, are just as distinct and distinguishable; with this difference, perhaps, that mental things not being subjected to the scrutiny of the external senses, require more reflection than those things submitted merely to the eye or hand. Now faith is neither more nor less than the belief of some testimony. This is what, in all ages, and amongst all people, is called faith. Faith without testimony is impossible; and nothing more nor less than testimony believed constitutes faith. I might be asked why such testimony was exhibited--who gave it--who caused it to be given--why I heard it--why I did not hear it sooner--or why I did not attend to it when heard,--and a thousand things besides; but still faith remains the same thing let these questions be answered as they may. And whether one man think that a man can, by the mere testimony of the witnesses, believe, or that God works faith in the heart by his Holy Spirit, still faith, however it comes into existence, is the belief of testimony. And such is the constitution of the human mind, that a man is as passive in believing as he was in [142] receiving his name, or as the eye is in receiving the rays of light that fall upon it from the sun; consequently no man can help believing any testimony when the evidence of its truth arrests his attention.

      But here we are asked, Why does not the same evidence arrest the attention of all? Why to not all believe the same testimony! The fact exists that all do not believe the same testimony, either human or divine. The evidence, then, does not arrest the attention? Why does it not? Prejudices, indisposition, antipathies, predilections, &c., shut the eyes and harden the heart. But here curiosity is not yet satisfied. It inquires again, Why is one more prejudiced than another, or why is one more indisposed than another? It is answered that the constitution of mind and body, habits, and the growth of certain passions, make the difference. This will not suffice. Another and another why is proposed. Why were these things so? It is answered, It was so decreed. Then comes why was it so decreed? It is answered, Because God so pleased. This is not yet satisfactory. It is asked, Why did it so please him? Because it was most conducive to his glory. Why was it most conducive to his glory? Because it was. And why, and why, and why? and so it ends with a why, just where we began.

      But the parable of the sower presents a difficulty of the same kind. Why four kinds of ground? It is a fact that there exist four kinds, and that the seed did not alter the ground--did not change its nature. The ground was the same before and after the seed was cast. What then made the difference in the ground?--was it naturally or supernaturally so? If naturally, why four and not two kinds? If supernaturally one was good, why were three not so? If supernaturally three were bad, why was but one good? Many such questions the scholastic divines have given birth to. But when solved they contribute nothing to our happiness.

      The parable of the sower and the other scriptures referred to in your letter, were not pronounced with a reference to settling such questions. In the parable of the sower the Saviour acquainted his apostles with the reception his word would meet with from the Jews when promulged to them. Some of them who believed the ancient revelations, like Lydia, and whose hearts were thereby opened or honestly disposed towards the hope of Israel, received the glad tidings of his advent without prejudice, and brought forth fruit in different degrees, according to a variety of circumstances. Others received the word, but the anxieties and the lusts of other things rendered it unfruitful. Others soon apostatized, and went back to the Jews because of tribulation; and on others it tools no effect. Thus they were apprized before they set out of the result of their mission, and the fact proved the Saviour's prophecy to be correct. Both amongst the Jews, religious proselytes, and the Gentiles, it so came to pass. He did not intend in this parable to teach that some men's hearts were either naturally or supernaturally disposed to believe, and that others were not. He did not make excuses for men's infidelity by teaching them that the reason why they could not believe was because they were not the elect; nor did he flatter the pride of any who considered their natural powers and good dispositions were the cause of becoming his disciples. No such questions were before him; and to apply this parable to other purposes than those in reference to which it was pronounced, is wresting the scriptures.

      Solomon's maxim that "the preparations (or Hebrew, disposings) of the heart and the answer of the tongue are both from the Lord," has been quoted by many divines to prove what Solomon never intended. Solomon was not speaking of the salvation of Jesus Christ in these words, but of the general management of the hearts and tongues of men. The answer of the tongue, as much as the disposing of the hearts, in some men, is from God.

      While we thus contend, my dear friend, that "the sense of scripture is not manifold, but one;" that every period must be interpreted subordinately to the scope or design of the writer, thus endeavor to understand the revelation without any human system before our eyes, I am not to be understood as asserting that there is no divine influence exercised over the minds and bodies of men. This would he to assert in contradiction to a thousand facts and declarations in the volume of revelation--this would be to destroy the idea of any divine revelation--this would be to destroy the idea of any divine government exercised over the human race--this would be to make prayer a useless and irrational exercise--this would be to deprive Christians of all the consolations derived from a sense of the superintending care, guidance, and protection of the Most High. But to resolve every thing into a "divine influence," is the other extreme. This divests man of every attribute that renders him accountable to his Maker, and assimilates all his actions to the bending of the trees or the tumults of the ocean occasioned by the tempests.

      There are many things which are evident, yet altogether inexplicable. Some animals, even of those domesticated, are naturally, we say, kind and obliging, good natured and affectionate; while others of the same species are just the contrary. These sometimes, too, are moved by a divine influence. The dove returning with the olive branch, the raven with the food for the prophet, the fish with a stater in its mouth for tribute, another bringing Jonah to shore, and an ass preaching to a wicked prophet, were moved by "a divine influence." Until we know more of God than can be revealed or known in this mortal state, we must be content to say of a thousand things a thousand times, we cannot understand how, or why, or wherefore they are so.

      But he would be a foolish husbandman who, going forth with precious seed to cast upon his field, would cease to scatter it because a philosopher had asked him some questions about its germination and the influences requisite to its vegetation, which he could not explain. As foolish would a hungry man be who would refuse to eat bread because he could not explain the process of digestion, nor tell how it conduces to the preservation of life. And just as foolish he who refuses to meditate upon the revelation of God and to practise its injunctions, because there are some why's or wherefore's for which he cannot give a reason.

      My limits forbid me at present to be more particular. The scriptural import of some terms and phrases in your letter will be attended to hereafter. I wish to avoid all philosophical questions which have been introduced into the Christian system, because they are utterly unprofitable, vain, and endless. For instance, were I to discuss philosophically the dogma founded on John vi. 37, "All that the Father gives me shall come to me," I should soon be [143] asked to solve a difficulty founded on John xvii. 13. "I have lost none of them you gave me, except one, the son of perdition." When I should have solved a difficulty on John x. 24, "You believe not because you are not of my sheep," I should have another upon these words, "You believe not because you seek honor from men," &c.

      I am not to be understood that there are difficulties really existing upon these passages, for they are plain in their context; but systems have made them difficulties as respects other systems. But those "texts" when torn out of their scope, are like the human eye when torn from the head and placed in the palm of the hand--it is useless, except as a subject of dissection and amusing speculation.

      Hoping that your faith, and love, and hope, grow exceedingly, I remain your affectionate brother in the hope of immortality.

EDITOR.      

Mason county, Kentucky, February 16, 1825.      

Brother Campbell,

      YOUR last number of the "Christian Baptist" has just arrived; and I must say, in justice to my own conscience, and in accordance with the sentiments of all those who have expressed themselves, that it is unusually interesting. Your readers are well pleased with your piece on the Spirit; but they are better pleased with your piece on the subject of the incorporation of the Danville University. I would say, for your information, as you seem, from your remarks in the last number, not to know, that the legislature had passed the act of incorporation, which you intimated or insinuated would be anti-republican, and which seems to be the universal opinion of all disinterested persons. How this is reconcilable with the equal and unalienable rights of mankind, and with the genius of our government, (when, as I have been informed, Congress has refused to incorporate religious institutions in the manner in which our legislature has done;) remains for them to explain to us. Although I do not cordially approve of every sentiment advanced in your publication; yet I am constrained to say, that it is better calculated "to restore the ancient order of things," to elicit an earnest, diligent, accurate, and thorough investigation of facts generally, and scripture particularly, to expose and dismember those illegal, dangerous, and antiscriptural confederacies, hierarchies, and aristocracies, which are so often, and so cunningly formed, and which are so sedulously sought, and so assiduously maintained, at the expense of us laity, truth and righteousness; and for the aggrandizement, the sole aggrandizement, of domineering, ambitious, not to say, designing and licentious clergy, than any publication I ever saw: and I do not hesitate to allow, that I do most conscientiously believe that it is doing more good than any publication in the western country. Moreover I do most earnestly wish it could have a more extensive circulation, even throughout the whole United States; and particularly in the middle and southern states, where the abominable abuses, irregularities, and usurpations, are the most prevalent and powerful. Your paper has well nigh stopped missionary operations in this state. I hope it will destroy associations, state conventions, presbyteries, synods, and general assemblies; all of which are as assumed and as anti-scriptural as the infallibility and pontificate of the pope of Rome. I have long been a member of associations; and to the best of my knowledge, all the rivalships, divisions, schisms, jealousies, and antipathies, which have existed in our state for the last fifteen or twenty years, have been generated, nourished, and measurably matured, it associations. By adopting the same rule by which associations and conventions are formed, we might have a national convention of all the kindreds, tongues, people, tribes and nations under heaven, to meet once in every ten or twenty years, in London, Constantinople, Pekin, or Philadelphia. Let each nation send one ambassador, plenipotentiary, messenger, priest, high priest, pontiff, or king, just as the urgency of the case may require. I have thought that Satan would have to go to work afresh, before long, in order to forge names suitable to modern maneuvers. I am no priest, but if you will allow a suggestion from a plain man, I would say that the time of which Paul speaks in 2d Thess. ii. 3-5, has arrived, when there shall be a falling away from the ancient order of things, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped. So that he as God, sitting in the temple of God, shows himself that he is God. Hoping that you will persevere in pulling down this man of sin, and wishing you all success,

	I remain yours respectfully,
	A READER OF THE C. B.

      "IN the reign of queen Mary [1555] the exiles at Geneva undertook a new translation, commonly called the Geneva Bible; the names of the translators were, Coverdale, Goodman, Gilby. Whittingham, Sampson, Cole, Knox, Bodleigh, and Pullain, who published the New Testament first in small twelves, 1557, by Conrad Badius. This is the first that was printed with numerical verses. The whole bible was published afterwards with marginal notes, 1559, dedicated to queen Elizabeth. The translators say, "They had been employed in this work night and day, with fear and trembling--and they protest from their consciences, that, in every point and word, they had faithfully rendered the text to the best of their knowledge." But the marginal notes having given offence, it was not suffered to be published in England till the death of archbishop Parker, when it was printed [1576] by Christopher Barker, in quarto, cum privilegio, and met with such acceptance, that it passed through twenty or thirty editions in this reign.

      "Cranmer's edition of the bible had been re printed in the years 1562 and 1566, for the use of the churches. But complaint being made of the incorrectness of it, archbishop Parker projected a new translation, and assigned the several books of the Old and New Testament to about fourteen dignitaries in the church, most of whom being bishops, it was from that time called the Bishop's Bible, and was printed in an elegant and pompous folio, in the year 1568, with maps and cuts. In the year 1572, it was reprinted with some alterations and additions, and several times afterwards without any amendments.

      "In the year 1582, the Roman Catholic exiles translated the New Testament for the use of their people, and published it in quarto, with this title, "The New Testament of Jesus Christ, translated faithfully into English, out of the authentic Latin, according to the best corrected copies of the same, diligently conferred with the Greek and other editions in divers languages; with arguments of books and chapters, annotations, and other necessary helps for the better [144] understanding of the text; and especially for the discovery of the corruptions of divers late translations, and for clearing controversies in religion of these days. In the English college of Rhemes. Printed by John Fogny." The Old Testament of this translation was first published at Doway in two quarto volumes, the first in the year 1609, the other 1610, by Lawrence Kellam, at the sign of the Holy Lamb, with a preface and tables; the authors are said to be cardinal Allen, sometime principal of St. Mary Hall, Oxford, Richard Bristow, fellow of Exeter College, and Gregory Martyn, of St. John's college. The annotations were made by Thomas Worthington, B. A. of Oxford; all of them exiles for their religion, and settled in Popish seminaries beyond sea. The mistakes of this translation, and the false glosses put upon the text, were exposed by the learned Dr. Fulke and Mr. Cartwright.

      At the request of the Puritans in Hampton court conference, king James appointed a new translation to be executed by the most learned men of both universities, under the following regulations.

      1. That they keep as close as possible to the Bishop's Bible.

      2. That the names of the holy writers be retained according to vulgar use.

      3. That the old ecclesiastical words be kept, as church not to be translated congregation, &c.

      4. That when a word has divers significations, that be kept which has been most commonly used by the fathers.

      5. That the division of chapters be not altered.

      6. No marginal notes but for the explanation of a Hebrew or Greek word.

      7. Marginal references may be set down.

      The other regulations relate to the translators comparing notes, and agreeing among themselves; they were to consult the modern translations of the French, Dutch, German, &c. but to vary as little as possible from the Bishop's Bible.

      The king's commission bears date 1604, but the work was not begun till 1606, and finished 1611. Fifty four of the chief divines of both universities were originally nominated; some of whom dying soon after, the work was undertaken by forty seven, who were divided into six companies; the first translated from Genesis to the first book of Chronicles; the second to the prophecy of Isaiah; the third translated the four greater prophets, with the Lamentations and twelve smaller prophets; the fourth had the Apocrypha; the fifth had the four Gospels, the Acts, and the Revelations; and the sixth had the canonical epistles. The whole being finished and revised by learned men from both universities, the publishing it was committed to the care of bishop Bilson and Dr. Miles Smith, which last wrote the preface that is now prefixed. It was printed in the year 1611, with a dedication to king James, and is the same that is still read in all the churches."

NEAL.      

[TCB 137-145]