Volume 2. Number 10. May 2, 1825, pp. 145-154.

• Texts and Textuary Divines by Alexander Campbell, pp. 145-149.
• A Narrative of the Origin and Formation of the Westminster or Presbyterian Confession of Faith--No. I. by Alexander Campbell, pp. 149-151.
• To the Editor of the Christian Baptist by A Constant Reader (Jacob Creath, Jr.), pp. 151-152.
• Reply to the Above by Alexander Campbell, pp. 152-154.

      I DO not know whether we ought to agree with those lexicographers who make the Roman textus a term equivalent to the Grecian ploke, a weaving. Some may justify this etymological interpretation, because, they may suppose, that there is an analogy between the making of a web from thread, and the weaving of a sermon from a few detached words, called a text. I would rather derive the term text directly from the Greek verb tixto, to beget or bring forth, from which texos or textus might be ingeniously formed, and this might be translated an egg, or something pregnant with life, which by the laws of nature might become a living animal, as a text by the laws of sermonizing easily becomes a full grown sermon. But waiving this as a question for the literati, we shall proceed to our subject.

      An ingenious or an enthusiastic preacher may bring forth or create any dogma or doctrine he pleases from a text or sentence, detached from the scope or design of the writer; even from the same text sermons may be woven of the most discordant texture, as all the pulpits in the land attest. A whole system of theology has been deduced from one text, and a score of sermons have been woven from one thread. Particular election, particular redemption, effectual calling, progressive sanctification, and final perseverance, have all been deduced from, and proved by Isaiah lxii. 12. "And they shall call them the holy people, the redeemed of the Lord; and you shall be called, sought out, a city not forsaken."

      I find amongst my father's old manuscripts of twenty years, standing, the outlines of twelve or thirteen sermons upon these words, "Bind up the testimony, and seal the law amongst my disciples." On these words was raised a doctrine so comprehensive, as to include almost the whole New Testament, and it appears from the manuscript as though this text had furnished matter for a quarter of a year's discussion. Such was the good old way of our worthy ancestors. He was, half a century ago, the greatest divine, who could bring the most doctrine, and pronounce the most sermons from a clause of a verse.

      A fine orator in Belfast, a few years since, astonished a brilliant audience with an enchanting discourse upon these words.--Rev. xii. "And there appeared a great wonder in heaven, a woman." He omitted the description, and raised his doctrine on those insulated words. He amused his hearers with a rare exhibition of pulpit eloquence; though some of the ladies were not so well pleased with "the doctrinal part."

      I remember to have read, when about fourteen years old, a sermon delivered by a Scotch divine to a congregation of beer drinkers, from the word Malt. In the dignified pulpit style, after a pertinent exordium, he stated his method to be the following, as well as my recollection serves, (for I have not seen it since.)

      1. In the first place, my beloved auditors, I will explain the different figures of speech in my text.

      2. In the second place I shall attempt to exhibit the fourfold effects of malt in this life.

      3. In the next place I will detail its fourfold effects in the world to come.

      4. And in the last place, my dear hearers, I will deduce a few practical instructions and exhortations for your benefit.

      In discussing the first head his topics were also four, corresponding with the four letters of his text--M, A, L, T. He very elegantly demonstrated; 1st, that M was metaphorical; 2d, that A was allegorical; 3d, that L was literal; and 4th, that T was theological.

      The particulars under head second were also four, corresponding with the same four letters--Its effects in this life, were, 1st, M, murder; 2d, A, adultery; 3d, L, lasciviousness; and 4th, T, treason. On these he expatiated at great length.

      Under head third the items were also four, The effects of an undue attachment to Malt in the next world, were, 1st, M, misery; 2d, A, anguish; 3d, L, lamentation; and 4th, T, torment.

      His fourth head was as methodical in its [145] distribution as any of the others, and closed with four exhortations on the same four letters, 1st, M, my dear hearers; 2d, A, all of you; 3d, L, look diligently; 4th, T, both to my text, and to yourselves, and above all to abstain from a free use of M-a-l-t liquors. We were told it had the happy effect of reclaiming and converting his entire congregation from their intemperate habits.

      Whatever may have been the intention of the publisher of this sermon, it was no doubt not only orthodox, but strictly methodical, and a just satire upon the textuaries. And I doubt not that it was a better sermon, and more edifying, than nine out of every ten of the fashionable harangues. I am very certain, also, that it had as much authority from the Bible as any of them. Nothing but the grossest ignorance, the native offspring of the dark ages, could have originated this text or scrap preaching; and nothing but the indescribable influence of custom, could have reconciled a thinking and rational being to its continuance amongst us.

      But it is not only in the public assembly that the textuaries pervert the record of heaven, and impose upon the revelation of God as many meanings as there are letters in their text; but all their creeds, and treatises on theological subjects, are formed on the same principles. Now we are always prepared to show that to cite a sentence from the body of a discourse, to extract a sentiment from the scope of a speaker or writer, to confirm a position which he had not before his mind when those words were pronounced or written, is always hazarding an error, mostly wresting the author, and frequently just the same as interpolating or forging a revelation, and imposing it upon the credulous and unwary.

      The Westminster Confession, now lying before me, affords hundreds of instances of this sort. I will open it almost at random, and find in every page the best means of illustrating the views just now offered.

      The book, at my first opening, presented to my view pages 378 and 379. We shall give the whole article, commencing on page 378, (Philadelphia edition, 1797,) to our readers, and then our exposition.

      "The pastoral office is the first in the church, both for dignity and usefulness. (a) The person who fills this office, has, in the scripture, obtained different names expressive of his various duties. As he has the oversight of the flock of Christ, he is termed bishop. (b)¹ As he feeds them with spiritual food, he is termed pastor. (c) As he serves Christ in his church, he is termed minister. (d) As it is his duty to be grave and prudent, and an example to the flock, and to govern well in the house and kingdom of Christ, be is termed presbyter or elder. (e) As he is the messenger of God, he is termed the angel of the church. (f) As he is sent to declare the will of God to sinners, and to beseech them to be reconciled to God through Christ, he is termed ambassador. (g) And, as he dispenses the manifold grace of God, end the ordinances instituted by Christ, he is termed steward of the mysteries of God." (h)

      In this chapter there are nine positions or propositions distinct from each other, requiring, as the authors thought, distinct proof. Ten texts are adduced, and six referred to, in proof of those positions.

      Five of these nine positions I will prove to be erroneous, untenable, and the proofs, in every instance, wrested or perverted. Three of the remaining four, are, on scripture premises, objectionable: one of them, excepting the awkwardness of the expression, is perfectly correct and fairly confirmed or proved. This is the third one. But my limits forbid that I should dwell on any of them, save those that are erroneous and untenable.

      Of the five thus classified the first is,--"As he (the bishop) serves Christ in his church, he is termed minister." 1 Cor. iv. 1. is adduced as proof. Now that this text is wrested will appear when the question is asked:--Did the apostle Paul in this sentence, or even in this chapter, speak at all of a bishop? This is the first question which a grammarian, or a logician, or a man of plain common sense will ask, who is intent on understanding such a question. Were these words spoken of a bishop, or bishops, in general, or particular? I fearlessly answer no. Suppose the pope of Rome, or the patriarch of Constantinople appropriated to himself the title of minister of Jesus Christ, and adduced this proof, which is the only one the Westminster divines adduced in support of their claims; what would a presbyterian doctor tell him? Would he not rationally and consistently say--Sir, Paul did not here speak of such ecclesiastical characters as you. He did not say--"Let a man so account of us popes, or patriarchs, as the ministers of Jesus Christ." This would be sound logic, or good sense. Well let us read the supplement to suit the Westminster appropriation. It reads thus--"Let a man so account of us bishops, as the ministers of Jesus Christ." This is as glaring as the preceding. But now read the verse with the supplement which the scope or context imperiously demands, and both the papistical and presbyterial appropriations are perfectly exploded--"Let a man so account of us apostles as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God." Now either the creed makers supposed that apostles and bishops were the self-same order, or they either ignorant or wilfully appropriated the passage to themselves. On any hypothesis the perversion here is equal to the forging of a scripture authority. And did those men really believe that what was said of the apostles, applied to every bishop in the christian church! Or were they so dull of apprehension as to suppose that Paul here spake of bishops! So far will suffice as an exposition of the perversion of scripture in general, and of this passage in particular. [146] But, say some, it is a trifling mistake, a matter of no consequence. But it is undeniable that this method of quoting scripture, regardless of the scope of the writer, may issue, in other instances, in dogmas of the most dangerous import. We assert, however, that the above perversion is no little mistake, it is no trifling matter. It is a haughty and arrogant assumption of the clergy to give themselves the title of "the ministers of Christ," and thereby to claim the honors and regards due to those properly so called. Names have an imposing influence and lead thousands captive. But there is something in this clerical appropriation of this title as unjust as for one of seven heirs to an estate to pass himself off amongst strangers as the heir of such an estate, or as it would have been, during the negotiation of Ghent, for one of the plenipotentiaries to have called himself the minister of the United States. And there is something in it as arrogant too, as it would have been for a few American consuls, in other European countries, to have called themselves the ministers of the United States.

      But in this appropriation of the title, the ministers of Christ, there is a variety of error, and of arrogance. The term diakonos, in Greek; minister in Latin, and servant in English, are expressive of the same character or standing, are titles of the same import. The term minister, a general or unappropriated title, designates any servant, and belongs to every obedient disciple of Jesus Christ. In the general sense of the term it belongs to sister Phoebe, as well as to any apostle or bishop. And, indeed, the widow who cast in her two mites, was a much greater minister or servant of God, than any of the Westminster clergy, who were servants of God and the long parliament. To call the clergy the ministers of Christ, is, therefore, a pious robbery of the obedient disciples of Christ, who are ministers of God as well as they, to speak in the most humble terms.

      But in the text taken from 1 Cor. 4. it is not diakonos, but huperetes that Paul appropriated to himself and his associates, the apostles. This term is defined, "official servants of those in authority," the office of a judicatory. It occurs, Matt. v. 25. translated officer; xxvi. 28. translated servant, but properly officers, as Dr. Campbell insists. It is applied to the servants or attendants of persons in authority, Luke xvi. 20. John xviii. 36. Acts xiii. 5. And Jesus said to Paul, Acts xxvi. 16. I have appeared to you to make you a hupereten, a servant or minister of myself--It is no where applied to a bishop, except in the writings of John Calvin, and the Westminster divines and their followers.

      Position 2. "As it is his duty to be grave and prudent, and an example of the flock, and to govern welt in the house and kingdom of Christ, he is termed presbyter or elder. 1 Pet. v. 1." The passage quoted does not prove this position. Nor is there any passage that says they were called elders for such reasons assigned. But the passage quoted proves that the term elder was sometimes applied to the first converts, to distinguish them from the novices. So Peter applies it to himself in the words quoted--I am also an elder, one of the first converts, (kai) even so old a disciple, so early a convert, as that I witnessed the sufferings of Christ--Hence Paul exhorts that a bishop should not be selected from the novices, or recent converts, but that he should be one of the elders, or first converts, lest not having experience, he might be puffed up with pride and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Hence they were fitly styled elders because of their age and experience in the school of Christ, and overseers from the nature of their office.

      Position 3. "As he is the messenger of God, he is termed the angel of the church Rev. 2:1-11. The bishop is no where called an angel of the church. Many critics have spent all their genius and talents in endeavoring to find out who the seven angels of the seven churches mentioned in the second and third chapters of the Apocalypse were, and most certainly none of them has satisfactorily found them out. Not one of them can afford any thing but a vague conjecture to support his theory. I do not so much wonder that the Westminster divines mistook here; as many of the most learned since that time have been evidently mistaken in their conjectures on the angels. My correspondent Philip was the first person and the only person, who suggested to me the true import of the term in those passages. Its simplicity and plainness constitute the chief reason, in my judgment, why the learned critics, who are always looking for mysteries where there are none, could not find it out.

      The term angel, every smatterer in Greek knows, signifies messenger. Now John, the writer of these seven epistles, we all know, was an exile in Patmos, when he wrote; and had not the liberty of travelling to visit those seven churches. He had no way of either receiving or communicating intelligence as respected them, but by messengers. When the Lord appeared to him in Patmos he commanded him to write for seven messengers, seven epistles, to be carried to seven churches--For the messenger to Ephesus, says he, write as follows. For the messenger to Smyrna, write as follows. For the messenger to Philadelphia, write as follows, &c. A natural and correct translation of the original, according to the common signification of the terms, solves the whole difficulty, and puts to shame the guesses of those who were too learned to regard common sense. The last words of the first chapter furnish the key to this difficulty; "The seven stars, are messengers to the seven churches" Not the messengers. To and for are equally signs of the dative case in the Greek language. To write a letter for a messenger to carry, is precisely accordant to the original, and to the fact. For how, in the name of common sense, could an exile in Patmos send letters to several churches in Asia but by messengers! And what more natural than that each of these churches, not more than one hundred and fifty miles apart, would send a messenger to the distinguished exile at Patmos! If they had a spark of christian love or veneration for the aged and only surviving apostle now a prisoner of Jesus Christ, could they refrain from visiting him by a messenger!--"I was in prison and you came to me," would suggest their duty. To those, or for those messengers of these churches was John to write according to the commandment. So that the plain and most obvious translation of this passage solves all difficulties which the writers on church government for ages have been unable, in all their researches, to solve. Indeed there was no difficulty here, but what their systems made. They wished to find a bishop converted into an angel, at the close of the first century; and having before John died, made him an angel, it would be easy in a century or two to make one a "god on earth, and disposer of all earthly crowns." So the Westminster position is false, and the text again wrested to prove what is untenable. [147]

      Position 4. "As he is sent to declare the will of God to sinners, and to beseech them to be reconciled to God through Christ, he is termed ambassador." The bishop of a church is called an ambassador no where in the inspired writings, nor is the term applicable to him in any sense whatever. It would be an offence of a very high degree against truth and reason to call a modern missionary an ambassador of Christ: but still a much grosser outrage to call an overseer of one congregation of professed disciples an ambassador of Christ. It is, however, sufficient for our purpose to show that the term is, by the apostles, exclusively appropriated to themselves. The text adduced by the Westminster divines is 2 Cor. v. 20. "Now then we are ambassadors for Christ," &c. Let common sense inquire, To whom does the pronoun we belong? or of whom does the apostle speak? Surely no man with any regard to the reputation of his understanding, will say that the apostle here spake of bishops or deacons. Jesus Christ is represented as God's chief ambassador, and the apostles sent by him as his ambassadors, to whom he committed the word of reconciliation, were his substitutes. Hence, says the apostle, We, the ambassadors of Christ, in his stead, as the ambassadors of God, beseech men to be reconciled to God. Since John Calvin's time, the clergy of that school have boldly assumed the title of ambassadors of Christ. This honor they disputed with the Romanists, who contended that their priesthood were the plenipotentiaries of heaven, and were incorporated a court by a decree of heaven, with full powers to negotiate with the Deity on the behalf of men, to remit sins and do all other acts and deeds belonging to the Sovereign of the Universe, by their delegated powers. It appears altogether unnecessary to expose the absurdity of this arrogance any further; but as the clergy contend for the title with so much warmth, and as the people are argued out of their common sense, in many instances--it may be expedient to observe that the title ambassador amongst men, from whose usage of the term the apostles borrow it, exclusively belongs to those commissioned by the chief magistrate, and invested with full powers to exhibit terms of reconciliation to those at variance with the government, whose plenipotentiaries they are. Before they can be accredited as such, it is necessary that they produce their commission in the handwriting of the highest authority in the government, and the great seal of the state annexed. Our ambassadors at Ghent are referred to in illustration of this peculiarity. When the embassy is announced, the powers exhibited, and all the propositions declared, the embassy ceases. Those who afterwards descant upon, or interpret the articles of the embassy, are never called ambassadors or ministers plenipotentiary. Were the first orator in the land to travel through the world delivering lectures on the treaty at Ghent, exhorting the interested parties to a strict observance of all the items, and praying for their prosperity in so doing, he could not be called an ambassador. No men in the world can be called our ambassadors to Ghent, or to the court of St. James, but those who held that commission; nor could those commissioners themselves deliver the same authority to others. In case of indisposition or death, they cannot constitute or appoint others. The power that ordained them is the only power that can ordain others. These are common place remarks. And for the same reasons, on the same grounds, and by all the same rules, no man breathing the breath of life is an ambassador of Jesus Christ. The ambassadors are all dead, and returned to the high court that commissioned them. The articles of their embassy are all in writing delivered to the nations, the finger of God and the seal of heaven attached thereto; and no man, nor combination of men on earth have any power to subtract from, or add one item to, the whole embassy exhibited in the New Testament.

      Should different political parties arise in the state, on different interpretations of the treaty alluded to, and different orators expound and discuss the treaty, it would be no more ridiculous nor arrogant in them, to call themselves ambassadors of the government of the United States, than for those creatures of theological schools, those rabbies of modern divinity, those self-made bishops, to call themselves the ambassadors of Jesus Christ.

      So stands the fourth position we promised to expose; and such is the authority adduced to prove it. Indeed, as if ashamed to cite the passage, they refer to Eph. vi. 20, as a second proof where Paul says, "for which I am an ambassador in chains." Here I must call to my aid all the logicians, grammarians, and critics in the land, to explain by what rule, by what principle, by what authority, it may be said, that, because Paul was at one time an ambassador in chains, therefore every bishop in christendom is an ambassador of Christ in chains!!! Yet this is the logic of the Westminster divines!

      The last position we shall notice, is,--"As he dispenses the manifold grace of God, and the ordinances instituted by Christ, he is termed steward of the mysteries of God." This is perfect popery. This assumption of the clergy is haughty beyond expression. A steward is one entrusted with the property of another, the dispensation or management of which, is under his control, for the time being, as though he were the proprietor; nor is he accountable to any, but to him who appointed him to his stewardship.--Such were the apostles. They were entrusted with the dispensation of the gospel, with the mysteries of God, and were to him alone accountable for their stewardship--The ministry of reconciliation was committed to them, and to none else. The dispensation of the gospel was theirs, and a wo from heaven awaited them, if they were not faithful in his work: for had they kept it back, or kept it a secret, and not fully made it known, the salvation of men by Jesus Christ would have been frustrated. When he repaired to heaven and left them on earth, inspired by his Spirit, all depended upon their fidelity. They, however, were faithful; dispensed the gospel; showed the mysteries fully; published them with their tongues and pens, and committed them to the church, the repository of the truth. They made their knowledge of these mysteries public property, revealed them plainly and announced them to all men. They did not lock them up in the bodies of the clergy, they did not secretly communicate them to theological schools, they did not delegate their authority to others, or sell the gift of God for money.

      But in what light do the Presbyterian clergy present themselves to our view, in the above appropriation of the title, "stewards of the mysteries of God," and "dispensers of the manifold grace of God?" They expressly declare that they have the care and management of the manifold grace of God, and his ordinances entrusted to them, as the steward of an English lord has his estate put under his management during the absence of his master!! Amenable to their [148] masters alone, they can communicate or not, dispense or retain the manifold grace of God by official right!! And worse than all, they will not do it without money! So that in fact these stewards, while paid by their master, make their official duties a source of revenue to themselves, But these donations are the perquisites of office! These stewards have, in too many instances, afforded the people sufficient evidence that they have no manifold grace to themselves, much less a stock to communicate or dispense to others. And, instead of having one new mystery of God to exhibit, they are daily striving to make mysteries of their own, and do not understand the mysteries of God, unfolded by the apostles. I am as much the steward of the emperor of Russia, as any one of them is a steward of the mysteries of God. The texts they have cited are just like those already reviewed. Luke xii. 42, was a parable addressed to the apostles by their master, who was preparing them for the stewardship. Their quotation of 1 Cor. iv. 1, has already been considered; and their adding this general maxim, "Moreover it is required in stewards that a man be found faithful," will apply to the keeper of lord North's park more pertinently than any Presbyterian pastor in the commonwealth.

      These strictures will show what reliance should be placed in the textuaries, whether employed in making creeds or sermons. They will also furnish matter worthy of consideration to those who wish to look through a black coat and the titles of office to the spirit of the priesthood. We shall find many pages in the Westminster Confession more exceptionable than that noticed.--It is one of the best creeds, too, in the land.--But they are all "like to a bow that shoots deceitfully."

EDITOR.      

      IT will be necessary, before any notice is taken of the Westminster Assembly of Divines, to state a few historical facts relative to those times.

      Charles I. had dispensed with the call of parliaments, and had acted the tyrant in church and state for twelve years previous to the sitting of the long parliament. During these twelve years the puritans, or non-conformists to the English hierarchy, had suffered much from the Court of High Commission, the Star Chamber, and especially from the arbitrary, cruel, and tyrannical proceedings of Archbishop Laud, who was at the head of the English church. The insolence of the archbishop, supported and patronized by the king and court, terminating in the famous et cetera oath decreed in his convocation for preventing innovations in doctrine and church government, had arrived to a degree beyond the endurance of a great proportion of the king's subjects in England and Scotland. Tumults and insurrections in Scotland, together with the embarrassed state of the king's finances, obliged the king to call a parliament once more.

      This parliament which assembled A. D. 1640, kept their seats for about eighteen years. It was as anxiously looked up to by the church for a redress of grievances as it was by the state for a redress of hers. As we are more concerned at present with the religious views and proceedings of this parliament, than with its political, we shall advert to these.

      The king, if he had any conscience at all, was hampered, says Neal, with conscientious attachments to the divine right of diocesan episcopacy; but the parliament, almost to a man, excepting the bishops, were Erastians. "Erastians maintained that Christ and his apostles had prescribed no particular form of discipline for his church in after ages, but had left the keys in the hands of the civil magistrate, who had the sole power of punishing transgressors, and of appointing such particular forms of church government from time to time as were most subservient to the peace and welfare of the commonwealth." Indeed these were the sentiments of our church reformers, from Archbishop Cranmer down to Bancroft. And though the Puritans in the reign of Queen Elizabeth wrote with great eagerness for the divine right of their book of discipline, their posterity in the next reign were more cool upon this head, declaring their satisfaction if the present episcopacy might be reduced to a more primitive standard. This was the substance of the minister's petition to the parliament, in the year 1641, signed by several hundred hands. And even those who petitioned for pulling down the hierarchy, root and branch, were willing to submit to a parliamentary reformation till the Scots revived the notion of divine right of presbytery in the assembly of divines."

      A few historical facts, characteristic of the views and spirit of the parliament and of the times, will be of importance in this narrative.

      All the members of parliament took the sacrament from the hands of Bishop Williams, in the episcopalian order, shortly after their meeting.

      They appointed committees to receive petitions on grievances in religion.

      They resolved that, without act of parliament, a convocation of clergy could make no canons binding on the clergy and laity of the land.

      As the parliament increased in popularity and power, the Puritans stiffened in their demands, and accommodation between them and the episcopal bishops became more and more impracticable.

      Two petitions of great note were sent up to the parliament; the one called the Root and Branch Petition, signed by fifteen thousand citizens and residents of London, praying that the whole hierarchy might be destroyed. The ministers' petition, signed by seven hundred beneficed clergy and an incredible number of citizens from different counties in England, prayed that the hierarchy might be reformed. Nineteen petitions, signed by one hundred thousand hands, of which there were six thousand nobility, gentry, and benefited clergy, prayed that the hierarchy might be continued as it was. In these nineteen petitions it was stated, "that there can be no church without bishops; that no ordination was ever performed without bishops; that without bishops there can be no presbyters, and consequently no consecration of the Lord's Supper; that a bishop has a character that cannot be communicated but by a bishop; and that the church had been governed by bishops for fifteen hundred years." The tacking of one hundred thousand names of freeholders to such petitions only prove that the honest countrymen acted too much with an implicit faith in their clergy.

      Loud complaints were made to parliament of unfair means of obtaining names to petitions. The Puritans are said to have drafted a petition for remedying some palpable grievances, which obtained thousands of names to it, and afterwards cut off the names and prefixed another petition to them praying for a destruction of the hierarchy. This is affirmed by Lord Clarendon, vol. 1. p. 204. But, be this as it may, when the House of Commons appointed a committee to examine into these matters, so many faults of [149] this kind appeared on both sides, that the affair was dropped.

      The parliament resolved "that whosoever would not swear to support their liberties and the Protestant religion, was unfit to bear office in the church or commonwealth."

      That the Puritans, afterwards called the Presbyterians, did not at first think of contending for presbyteries, or indeed for presbyterial church government, is evident from the plan of church government which they proposed to this parliament for their ratification, at an early period of its session. This plan was pretty similar to Archbishop Usher's. The outlines of this plan were as follows:--

      1st. "That every shire (or county) should be a distinct diocese or church."

      2d. "That in every shire or church twelve or more able divines should be appointed in the nature of an old primitive constant presbytery."

      3d. "That over every presbytery there should be a president, let him be called bishop, or overseer, or moderator, or superintendant, or by any other name, provided there be one in every county for the government and direction of the presbytery, in the nature of the speaker of the House of Commons, or chairman of a committee."

      Accordingly it was resolved, July 10, 1640, "that ecclesiastical power for the government of the church be exercised by commissioners." July 31, "Resolved, that the members of every county bring in the names of nine persons to be ecclesiastical commissioners, on whom the power of church government shall be devolved, but that no clergyman be of the commission." This shews that the Puritans of those times did not intend the presbyterian government, but only a reduction of episcopacy to a more moderate standard.

      The parliament willing to reform faster and farther than the king, and to limit and circumscribe the prerogative beyond the desires of the king and bishops, became obnoxious to the king's displeasure, and finally the king left his palace and retired to York; and his queen, a bold and resolute Catholic, having absolute dominion over him, together with some of the English bishops and members of the court, drove the king into a war against his own parliament; so that the nation was divided--one part for the king and the other for the parliament. It were tedious to go farther into a detail of the causes of this civil war, which brought so many calamities on the nation and the king to the scaffold, and it is unnecessary to our present object.

      The king, in the prosecution of this war, was reduced to the necessity of accepting the service and affection of the Papists; and on the other hand the parliament took all possible care to cultivate friendship with the Scots, and to secure that nation to their interests. The king rejected a mediation, offered by the Scots, to effect a reconciliation between him and the parliament, because the Scots insisted upon the abolishing of episcopacy, and a uniformity of presbyterian government in the two nations. The members of parliament, being Erastians, as before observed, were under no conscientious scruples about a change of discipline, believing that the civil magistrate had the keys, and might establish whatever form might be conducive to the public good, readily complied with any propositions made by the Scots, readily accepted the mediation, and wrote to the Scots assembly, which was soon to meet, desiring their advice and assistance in bringing about such a reformation as was desired.

      August 3, 1642, the Scots parliament wrote to the English parliament expressing their desires "for unity of religion, that there might be one confession of faith, one directory of worship, one public catechism, and one form of church government." The Scots parliament say, "that they were encouraged to enter upon these labors by the zeal of former times, when their predecessors sent a letter into England against the surplice, the tippet, and corner cap, (worn by the clergy) in the year 1566, and again 1583, and 1589. They therefore advise to begin with a uniformity of church government; for what hope can there be of one confession of faith, one form of worship and catechism, till prelacy be plucked up root and branch, as a plant which God has not planted? "Indeed," add they, "the reformed kirks hold their form of government by presbyteries to be jure divino and perpetual, but prelacy stands by jure humano?"

      The English parliament bowed to all these overtures, as they well knew they needed the Scots' assistance to carrying on the war, and as they wished to engage them on their side against the king. Lord Clarendon observes very justly, says Mr. Neal, vol. 2. page 571, that the parliament were sensible they could not carry on the war but by the help of the Scots, which they were not to expect without an alteration of the government of the church, to which that nation was violently inclined. But then to induce them, says Mr. Neal, to consent to such an alteration, it was said the Scots would not take up arms without it; so that they must lose all, and let the king return as conqueror or submit to the change. From this source sprang the Westminster Creed. The policy of war, the fears of conquest, and the hopes of victory, gave birth to the meeting of the divines. In fact the meeting of the divines at Westminster, and their proceedings, at the instance of the English and Scots parliaments, was as perfect a political measure as was the queen's pledging the crown jewels on the continent in order to raise gunpowder and firearms for her husband to fight his subjects into a belief that the hierarchy of England was of divine origin, and that the king reigned absolutely by jure divino, or by a divine right.

      The necessity of receiving assistance from Scotland in carrying on the war, and the condition on which the Scots parliament agreed to lend that assistance, obliged the English parliament to pass an ordinance for the assembling of divines to determine on a uniformity of doctrine and discipline for the two nations, or to establish a system of doctrine and discipline for the church of England that might assimilate it to the views of the kirk of Scotland. The ordinance bears date June 12, 1643, and is thus entitled, "An ordinance of the Lords and Commons in Parliament, for the calling of an assembly of learned and godly divines and others, to be consulted with by the parliament, for settling the government and liturgy of the church of England, and for vindicating and clearing the doctrine of the said church from false aspersions and interpretations."²

      The ordinance ordered one hundred and twenty reverend gentlemen, ten peers, and twenty commoners of illustrious birth, whose names are all mentioned in the ordinance, and now lying before me, to assemble at Westminster, in the chapel called king Henry VII's chapel, on the 1st of July, 1643. Forty of those persons were to be sufficient for doing business, or to compose a competent quorum for the purposes [150] of parliament. They were prohibited from introducing any topic of discussion from among themselves, and were to be confined "to such matters and things concerning the liturgy, doctrine, and discipline of the church of England, as shall be proposed by either or both houses of parliament, and no other." They were "not to divulge their opinions or advices touching the matters aforesaid, either by printing, writing, or otherwise, without consent of parliament. If any difference of opinion arose, they were to represent it to parliament, with their reasons, that the houses might give further directions. Four shillings per day were allowed for each one during his attendance. Dr. William Twisse of Newbury was appointed prolocutor; and, in case of sickness or death, the parliament reserved to themselves the choice of another." The ordinance concludes with the following proviso: "Provided always, That this ordinance shall not give them, nor shall they in this assembly assume or exercise any jurisdiction, power, or authority ecclesiastical whatsoever, or any other power than is herein particularly expressed." The divines were chosen out of such lists as the knights and burgesses brought in out of their several counties, from each of which the parliament chose one, or at most two.

      "Before the assembly sat, the king, by his royal proclamation of June 22, forbade their meeting, for the purpose therein mentioned, and declared that no acts done by them ought to be received by his subjects. He also threatened to proceed against them with the utmost severity of the law. Nevertheless, sixty nine assembled in king Henry VII's chapel the first day, according to summons, not in their canonical habits, but chiefly in black coats, and bands in imitation of the foreign Protestants. Few of the episcopal divines assembled; and those who did, after some time withdrew for these reasons: First, "Because the assembly was prohibited by the royal proclamation." Second, "Because the members of the assembly were not chosen by the clergy, and therefore could not appear as their representatives." Third, "Because there was a mixture of laity with the clergy, because the divines assembled were for the most part of a puritanical stamp, and their business, as they apprehended, was to pull down that which they would uphold."

      Very different characters are given to these divines by ecclesiastical writers. Perhaps they are all exaggerated. We shall, however, give the statement of one on each side. Lord Clarendon says, "About twenty of them were reverend and worthy persons, and episcopal in their judgments; but as to the remainder, they were but pretenders to divinity. Some were infamous in their lives and conversations, and most of them of very mean parts and learning, not of scandalous ignorance, and of no other reputation than of malice to the church of England." Mr. Baxter, on the other hand, affirms, that "they were men of eminent learning, godliness, ministerial abilities and fidelity." As politicians, we may say, from their works, that they did not understand the principles of civil liberty, for "they would allow no toleration to those whom they called sectaries;" and had they understood the christian religion they would never have assembled in king Henry VII's chapel to help the parliament to make a creed that would be the means of attaching the Scotch parliament to the English in carrying on a war against their king; nor, indeed, would they ever have been induced to meet for the purpose of establishing any creed or form of discipline for any community holding the apostolic writings as of divine origin. We shall resume this narrative in our next. Every thing we have stated or may state on this subject is derived from the most authentic source. We pledge ourselves for the accuracy of every fact stated on historical ground, the vouchers being of the highest reputation as historians.

EDITOR.      

      DEAR SIR--OUR friend Dr. Fishback, of Lexington, has proposed a plan of reformation in Transylvania University which is exciting a considerable interest in our state. As you have had an opportunity of much experience and observation in reference to universities and seminaries of learning in Europe and America, will you be so good as to give us your opinion on the subject?

      The plan of reformation proposed seems to be to exclude all sectarianism in reference to religion from the institution, and to make the scriptures the only school book on that subject; to be read and learned by the students until they become acquainted with the principles, evidence, design, and character of the christian religion, as deduced from the bible. This is the religion of the country, in which all sects and denominations agree.

      It is also proposed that the different christian denominations be admitted to an equal participation of the management and superintendency of the concern, in the board of trustees, and in the academical faculty, as far as practicable; and thereby to effect and cherish a unity of spirit in the bonds of peace, with an undivided confidence in all, in behalf of the institution. At the same time, to adopt a wise system of economy in the dress and expenditures of the students, so as to give to every man who is not rich an opportunity to educate his sons.

      Would it be proper to exclude scholastic theology and natural religion, as they are called among the learned, from the course of instruction, which you know are taught in colleges? or are they true?

      In Transylvania are taught, I observe from a catalogue, in the senior year, philosophy of mind, including the first principles of theology, by the President--I suppose without the bible.

      Would or would not the above system, if adopted, in a great measure supersede the necessity of theological schools, except when established for sectarian purposes, and secure to parents and guardians, and to the country at large, instruction to the educated young men in the most important of all sciences--the science of spiritual things, which has been heretofore in a great degree neglected? My observation proves to me, that, if young men who are determined to fill situations in life which make education a prerequisite, do not bestow a particular, a critical attention upon the principles, nature, and evidence of the christian religion, in their course of previous education and academical study, they live for the most part their life time altogether ignorant of that religion; for as soon as they end their studies in college, they become immediately engrossed by others which exclude it from their minds, perhaps already barred by ignorance, pride, and prejudice, against any degree of attention to "the wisdom that comes from above," which is necessary for understanding it. This is the reason why we have so much infidelity and ignorance in the christian religion, dissolute morals, too, among the learned [151] professional men in Christendom. This is the reason, too, why christianity is regarded by so many of that description of men as a system of inconsistencies and contradictions. Am I right, or am I wrong?

      Ought Baptists to support and advocate the plan of reformation as suggested in the above sketch? I wish for information, because, from what I can learn, petitions will probably be circulated for subscription to the next legislature on the subject.

April 7, 1825.      

      DEAR SIR--YOUR favor of the 10th ult. came to hand at too late an hour to be attended to in the April number. The subjects on which it treats are of great importance, both in a political and religious point of view. Seminaries of learning, for ages immemorial, have had a very great influence upon the political, moral, and religious character of society. And so long as the men who govern society owe their distinction to their education, and are elevated to these places that give them a formative influence on the views and habits of their contemporaries by means of their literary acquirements, literary institutions must be viewed with peculiar solicitude by the political, moral, and Christian philanthropist. Whether christianity ever was at all indebted to colleges and universities, either directly or indirectly; or if indebted, whether it is more indebted to the popish or protestant literary establishments are not the questions now to be discussed. That they have done much evil to mankind admits of no disputation, but that they may do good, and that the evil done is accidental and not essential to them, is equally as indisputable.

      That a course of instruction might be adopted and faithfully pursued, or that the present system might be reformed in the very best institutions, in such a way as to make them of incomparably more advantage to society, is, I presume, to all who are conversant in such matters, a very plain and evident proposition. Indeed, the attempts of the present century to new-modify literary institutions, and the progress made in reformation in several seminaries, is proof positive that they are yet, in the judgment of the best informed, in an imperfect state, and that great advances towards perfection may yet be made. That Transylvania University, for whose prosperity you seem to be much concerned, may be elevated not only to still higher reputation at home and abroad, but that she may be rendered of incomparably more benefit to Lexington, Kentucky, and the whole Union, is, with me, a matter demonstrably evident.

      The plan proposed by Dr. Fishback, while it merely alludes to some of the more glaring defects in almost all the seminaries of the union, recommends to the consideration of the community a system of reformation, which if adopted in substance or in the principle, if not in the whole form, would not only place the institutions adopting it on a basis superior to all the colleges in the union on the present establishments, but would also divest those institutions of some, if not of all those blemishes which present themselves so forcibly to the eye of the sagacious and benevolent members of the community.

      One of the greatest blemishes in the character, and one of the greatest defects in the system of most of our literary institutions, is that they are religiously sectarian, and politically aristocratic in their constitution and administration. They are even in many instances much more so, strange as it may appear, in the American republic than they are in the British empire. This is perhaps more owing to the boards of trustees entrusted with the management of those institutions, and to the mighty spirit of emulation which seems to actuate religious sectaries in the contest who shall be greatest. The constitution and laws of the United States, founded upon the grand principles of civil and religious liberty, having placed all denominations on the same race-course, and having given to every one a fair start, presents the goal equally accessible to all, and the palm of distinction to that which runs fastest by its own strength--has indirectly contributed to that emulation which makes each one of the coursers willing to take hold of all the literary institutions he can grasp, in order to outrun, in this struggle for popularity, his competitors. It is perhaps owing to this that almost all our colleges are converted into sectarian schools, and are really more sectarian than under the English monarchy. For a similar reason they are more aristocratic too. In this country we have no noble nor ignoble blood--it has all come down from Adam and Eve; but in Britain and throughout Europe there is noble and ignoble blood--how it originated is unknown to us, but the fact is that it is one of the most dangerous realities in the world. Noble blood makes noble men, and royal blood makes kings; but Latin and Greek make lords in America--and Hebrew and Chaldee, with natural religion, make kings. Hence, when the nobility of Europe condescend to visit our ignoble blooded Americans, they can hold cast amongst us only by repairing to our colleges and universities where they find our noblemen. I have said that our literary institutions are more sectarian and aristocratic in this country than in Britain, and the natural causes or philosophical reasons for this fact are to be found in these hints.

      In the University of Edinburgh, at the date of my last advices, there were two thousand two hundred and fifty students; and in Glasgow university, forty miles distant, there were two thousand two hundred, of all religious persuasions. Every parent and guardian commits the object of his greatest solicitude to those seminaries without the least apprehension or fear of any stratagem, or scheme, or undue influence to bias his understanding or to proselyte him. The work of making sectaries and of confirming them belongs to the divinity chairs, which every student is free to choose for himself after he has finished his academical course. The students are not even obliged to attend the sermons delivered in the chapels of these universities. On presenting a certificate that he attends any religious assembly in the city or suburbs, he is just in the same standing as those who frequent the chapel worship.

      The rapid advances made by the Belfast Seminary upon Trinity College, Dublin, and upon Manooth College, furnish ample proof of the correctness of the principles contended for by Dr. Fishback. Trinity College, in the metropolis of the kingdom, existing for centuries, and devoted to the Church of England; Manooth too, of respectable antiquity, in the midst of a dense Roman Catholic community, and devoted to that religion, are outrivalled by an institution of twenty years standing, and comparatively fundless with regard to the others. Belfast, not sectarian in its character, has, in twenty years, [152] equalled, and if I mistake not, excelled them both in the number of its students. Yet all these seminaries need reformation; but in proportion as they are not sectarian, in other respects, ceteris paribus, they are more popular and respectable.

      Dr. Fishback's plan of giving to the board of trustees all the variety of sectarian feeling, by affording to every religious sect in the state a representation equal to its numbers, and by giving, as far as practicable, to its academical faculty the same variety of feeling and character, most obviously divests the institution of a sectarian character, makes it so far republican, and would no doubt, if adopted, elevate Transylvania as far above herself as above all the institutions in the western states. That one or two sects composed of a few congregations in the state, should have a majority of members in the board, and have thereby the direction of a state seminary, will not suit the genius of our country, and much less the enlightened republican spirit of Kentucky. Reason, common sense, and republicanism, without a jarring voice, declares that, in a state institution, the members of that state, whether natural religionists or sectaries under the profession of christianity, should, in so far as that institution is likely to affect their consciences, have a control in its management proportioned to their numbers.

      Our colleges in the middle states are generally mere sectarian schools--most of them mere Presbyterian cradles, called by the clergy "the streams that make glad the city of their God." Hence they are fed by reviving showers, and, like rickety children, grow and languish at the same time, but always thrive disproportionally. But by these means the Presbyterian courser runs faster than his competitors. The Methodists and Baptists have "tried their luck" too by getting hold of colleges, but their systems do not so well correspond with those institutions. Instead of riding faster, they are only in danger of breaking their bones. Their skill in managing their steeds being inferior to their better disciplined brethren, they are likely in most instances to get thrown off into the mud.

      You know that I discard the idea of qualifying a man to teach the christian religion by studying heathen mythology, dead languages, and natural religion, and, therefore, when I speak of advantages resulting to society from literary institutions, it is not in this way that I expect any, but in the general benefits of education communicated to society, and afterwards to be appropriated, like every other blessing of heaven, by the directions of the Holy Spirit speaking in the bible. When any community becomes intelligent, and when the advantages of education are generally diffused, the christian church will have her share of the benefits. To train any young man, purposely to make him a teacher of christianity, I am always ready to show, to be ridiculous and absurd; contrary to reason and revelation.

      When I speak of divesting literary institutions of a sectarian character, it is with a reference solely to the public good; and as a measure of policy, I know of none that would contribute more to the reputation of any university, and consequently to increase its usefulness, by enlarging the number of its students, than to adopt such a course. Besides, as those political states will profit most from the South American independence, who were the first to acknowledge their independence; so those colleges will profit most from this policy who first adopt it.

      But while I contend that no sectarian creed should be directly or indirectly taught in colleges, with all the same arguments, and for the same reasons, with, perhaps, a few more, I would contend that this phantom of the schools, called natural religion, alias, deism, should be discarded equally as any other sectarian project.--While I would not have presbyterianism or any other anti-christian ism taught, I would not have deism inculcated. The exclusion of this chimera from all our schools would be a reformation as great as was the expulsion of the Aristotelian predicaments and jargon from the colleges; and would be as benignant to christianity, as the expulsion of the Aristotelian logic was to science in general. And here you see I would as cordially agree with the second grand item of reformation suggested in the Doctor's plan, as with the first. A seminary of learning ought neither to be sectarian nor deistical. We know, too, there are sects and sectarians among Deists as among christians. And it is a fact, the reasons of which, too, can be as easily explained, that the natural religion of John Calvin is as deistical in its tendency as the natural religion of lord Herbert. A more elegant display and vindication of natural religion on John Calvin's principles, we do not recollect to have heard in any seminary, than that which I had the pleasure of hearing, last November, from the lips of Dr. Caldwell in the Transylvania University, in his introductory lecture to the medical class. I regret the loss of the notes which I had taken of this learned and elegant lecture. Yet I am able to show, as I conceive, that if the principles adopted in that lecture are tenable, the sooner we get rid of the bible, the better. I know that the learned lecturer spoke, too, in commendation of the bible, but in this he was inconsistent with himself. Though I presume he borrowed nothing from John Calvin; yet, the old Reformer stood at his back with both his shoulders. On those principles, the bible might be of some little use to the stupid herd of mankind who cannot reason well; but to the philosopher who can look up "through nature's works to nature's God," it is as superfluous as a third wing to an eagle. It is, I have said, inconsistent for a natural religionist to commend the bible, seeing it flatly contradicts his whole system. It declares, "The world by wisdom, or philosophy, knew not God." It declares that it is by faith and not by reason that men can know the world was created. It declares, that we must believe that God exists--and that we cannot reason ourselves into a knowledge that God exists. Though I have not leisure nor room at present for this investigation, it is, I conceive, demonstrably evident, on the principles of reason, too, that without a revelation from God, no man can know that he exists. We are aware of many objections to this proposition, but we are prepared to show that they are as light as a feather, and that it is as true as the bible itself.

      It is, to every rational and sober mind, a matter of the deepest regret, that almost all our young men return from college, graduates in extravagant and vicious habits. They are most generally sceptics, except those who are destined for the priest's office before they enter; these are generally firm believers in the religion which they intend to teach. Now that the course of instruction tends this way, needs no other proof than the fact just stated. And, indeed, I never could see how it was possible for it to issue otherwise on natural principles.

      On religious, moral, and political principles, it [153] is necessary that the evidences of the christian religion should be fairly, fully, and forcibly taught in every seminary in our country. This no sectary can object to.--In the next place this proposition should be as fully, fairly, and forcibly taught as the preceding, viz. That Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, the Son of the living God, and the only Saviour of men. This is what distinguishes the Christian from the Jewish religion as now professed in the world, but is not peculiar to any religious sect, but common to all among us. This is all the teaching of religion that appears consistent with the plan and design of literary institutions. Indeed, "Paley's Evidences" contain, perhaps, the best outlines of a course of instruction of this kind to be met with. This far is necessary to save our young men from the sceptical tendency of the other parts of an academic course; and I know of no people in our state, or in any other, who could object to such a course, whether deist or christian.

      So far I have just simply adverted to the queries in your letter, without doing more than to express a naked opinion or two. It may become necessary to be more full on some topics in your communication, but this is impossible at present. The plan of reform in those grand outlines already noticed, I conceive to be so evidently beneficial, and, indeed, liable to no serious objection from any sectary in religion or politics, as not only to deserve, but to command the co-operation of not only baptists, but paido-baptists in carrying it into effect. I know of but one objection that can be made to it, viz. Those who have the control already, in this, or any other establishment, and those who wish to make it subservient to their own particular interest, and are intent thereon, will say, it is better that we and our friends should have its control as we think we can manage it better to our own interest, than if all the community were to have a part in its management; in that case we could not expect to be either the sole, or the chief gainers. Believe me, my dear sir, in this is a very strong argument, and one that is always difficult to refute.

	I remain respectfully yours,
	EDITOR.

[TCB 145-154]