Volume 2. Number 11. June 6, 1825, pp. 154-161.

• A Narrative of the Origin and Formation of the Westminster or Presbyterian Confession of Faith.--No. II. by Alexander Campbell, pp. 154-156.
• A Review of Dr. Miller's Lecture on the Utility and Importance of Creeds and Confessions by Alexander Campbell, pp. 156-158.
• A Restoration of the Ancient Order of Things--No. IV. by Alexander Campbell, pp. 158-160.
• [Introductory Note to "Precious Confession"] by [Alexander Campbell], p. 161.
• Precious Confession by Rev. Dr. Burton (from Western Herald), p. 161.

      AS THE Regular Baptist Confession of Faith is, in its doctrinal parts, but a mere transcript of the Westminster creed; and as the whole of it is founded upon the same principles of creed making--a narrative of the origin and formation of the Westminster, its grand model and parent, cannot but be highly interesting to the admirers of this creed amongst the baptist community. It is true, however, that the drafters or copyists of the Westminster creed amongst the baptists did not intend to bind it either upon churches or individuals, as the presbyterians or puritans do theirs; but only designed to show the puritans, who reviled them as damnable heretics, that their faith was substantially the same with their own. Yet many of the baptists, ignorant of the design of their own little confession, wish to have it riveted upon the congregations of their fraternity on pain of excommunication, as the system of truth taught in the holy scriptures. This occurrence in the history of the baptists serves to show how dangerous it is to traffic in the merchandize of Babylon. "Can a man take fire in his bosom and his clothes not be burnt?" But to resume the narrative.

      It has already appeared that the Westminster confession owes its origin to a political contest; that the convulsions of England forced it into being; that it is a small morsel of the religious lava that belched forth from the crater of that political volcano which made Britain tremble from north to south, from the Orkney Isles to the Straits of Dover. It is also evident that the civilians and politicians that projected its formation, although abetted by the clergy, designed to help themselves to soldiers and munitions of war by the project; that they, being Erastians, had no objections to any form of ecclesiastical policy which might be adopted; that, indeed, that form was most eligible which would best suit the exigencies of the times; and, as every thing in the civil war, then levied, depended on Scotland, that creed and form of discipline was conscientiously to be preferred which would insure the co-operation of the Scots. Besides, two monstrous errors, arising, no doubt, from the mist of the dark ages, not yet dissipated, characterize the whole proceedings of the church and state in this assembly. The first is now so palpable that all men in these United States reprobate it. It is the notion that the doctrine and worship of what is called the church, is to be regulated by acts of parliament; that the civil authority necessarily must take cognizance of the doctrine, discipline, and worship of professed congregations of christians; that the civil sword must purify the hearts of the worshippers, and regulate their devotions. The other mistake, no less absurd, though perhaps not so manifest to all, was conspicuous in the clergy and laity, who indeed fostered and matured the assumptions of the civil rulers by appealing to them, and in constituting them arbiters and judges of what was sound doctrine and true piety. They appealed to them with all the confidence and earnestness that a christian appeals to the apostles, or as the Philippian jailor appealed to Paul and Silas. The civil rulers erred most palpably in assuming such a jurisdiction over men's consciences; and the clergy and their supporters erred as absurdly in looking up to them to exercise authority in their behalf; and thus flattered them into the belief of a lie, that in decreeing what was sound doctrine and true piety they were serving God and his church.

      We had in our last number left the divines in king Henry VII's chapel, regularly summoned, systematically hired, and patronized by the long parliament, waiting for their orders. Saturday, July 1, 1643, the assembly was opened with a sermon by Dr. Twisse, both houses of parliament being present. The ordinance for their convention was then read; and the members called by name, after which they adjourned to Monday.

      Among the rules by which they were to be governed, the following oath or protestation was to be taken by every member, and, to refresh their memories, it was to be read every Monday morning:

      "I, A. B., do seriously and solemnly, in the presence of Almighty God, declare that, in the assembly whereof I am a member, I will not maintain any thing in matter of doctrine, but what I believe in my conscience to be most agreeable to the word of God; or in point of discipline, but what I shall conceive to conduce most to the glory of God and the good and peace of the church."

      The parliament would not trust them without an oath, and they succumbed to the above form. But let the reader remember the distinction between doctrine and discipline marked in this [154] vow. In doctrine they vowed to maintain what in their consciences they believed most agreeable to the divine oracles; but indiscipline they were not under the same obligation--they were to maintain what they conceived most to conduce to the glory of God and the peace of the churches. They were in fact sworn to act, if not to believe, as Erastians. The form of oath is predicated upon Erastian principles; that is, that there is no fixed form of discipline in the Scriptures, but that it was left to the civil magistrate who has the keys. Yes, they vowed to make the Bible the standard of doctrine, and their own conceptions of God's glory and the peace of the church the standard to matters of discipline. Under this vow or oath they entered upon their work.

      The parliament, on Thursday, 6th July, sent them farther regulations, amongst which it was appointed that two assessors be joined with the prolocutor to supply his place in case of absence or sickness. Those first appointed were Dr. Cornelius Barges and John White. It was also ordered by the parliament, "that all things agreed upon and prepared for the parliament, shall be openly read and allowed in the assembly, and then offered to the parliament to act upon (as the higher house) if the majority assent; provided that the opinions of the persons dissenting, with their reasons, be annexed, if they desire it, and the solution of those reasons by the assembly."

      The rules being prescribed, and the manner of proceeding being settled, the parliament sent the assembly an order to review the thirty-nine articles of the Church of England. Before the assembly began, they petitioned parliament to appoint a fast. Of this petition Bishop Kennett said, "Impartially speaking, it is stuffed with schism, sedition and cruelty." Our limits forbid us to publish this petition. The prominent features of which are: They petition the parliament in the name of Jesus Christ, "your Lord and ours," that "they would set up Christ more gloriously in all his ordinances, and reform all things amiss throughout the land." Besides praying for the fast, they pray the parliament to "suppress all the bold venting of corrupt doctrines; to charge all ministers to catechise the children and the ignorant adults; to have a care to punish all profanation of the Sabbath and of fast days, by unlawful labor or sports; to put down by a "thorough proceeding" all blind guides and scandalous ministers; to quicken the laws against swearing and drunkenness: to take a severe course against fornication, adultery, and incest; to abolish popery," &c. &c.

      Friday, July 21, was appointed a fast, and three of the divines preached before parliament, and the fast was observed with great solemnity. Next day a committee was appointed to examine what amendments were proper to be made in the thirty-nine articles, and to report to the assembly. They spent ten weeks in debating upon the first fifteen, before the arrival of the Scots commissioners. Their design was to render their sense more express against the Arminians, whom they cordially hated, and to make them more determinate in favor of Calvinism. They appeared as solicitous to condemn antinomianism as to strengthen the churches against Arminianism, and appointed a committee to peruse the writings of Dr. Crisp, Eaton, and Saltmarsh, who drew out some of the most dangerous positions. The assembly then condemned them, and endeavored to confute them in their public preachments.

      The Scots in the mean time got up a general assembly to consider of the state of religion, as well as a political assembly, as conservators of the peace. The king gave them orders to confine their attention to their own country, and to let England alone. The parliament of England sent five dignified laymen and two distinguished divines from Westminster, with letters to each of the Scotch assemblies, desiring their assistance in the war, and some of their divines to assist those assembled at Westminster "to settle a uniformity of religion and church government between the two nations." These seven commissioners arrived at Edinburgh on the ninth of August, and were well received by the Scotch Assembly, which (in profound policy) proposed as a preliminary, "that the two nations should enter into a perpetual covenant for themselves and their posterity, that all things might be done in God's house according to his will." The Scots appointed some of their number to confer with the English commissioners on the form of this covenant. This being done, they chose delegates for the Westminster assembly, and unanimously advised the convention of states to assist the English parliament in the war, for seven reasons, viz. "1. Because they apprehended the war was for religion. 2. Because the Protestant faith was in danger. 3. Gratitude to the English for former assistances to the Scots required a suitable return. 4. Because the churches of England and of Scotland being embarked in one bottom, if one be ruined the other cannot subsist. 5. The prospect of uniformity between the two kingdoms in discipline and worship will strengthen the Protestant faith at home and abroad. 6. The present English parliament had been friendly to the Scots and might be so again. 7. Though the king had lately established their religion, yet they could not confide in his royal declarations, having so often found facta verbis contraria, i. e. his deeds contrary to his words."

      The instructions of the commissioners sent to the assembly at Westminster were to promote the extirpation of popery, prelacy, heresy, schism, scepticism, and idolatry, and to endeavor a union between the two kingdoms in one confession of faith, one form of church government, and one directory of worship. The committee for drawing up the solemn league and covenant delivered it into the Assembly, August 17, where it was read and highly applauded by the ministers and lay elders, none opposing it except the king's commissioners, so that it passed the assembly and convention in one day!! It was despatched the next morning to London, to the Westminster divines and Parliament, with a letter to the two houses, wishing that it might be confirmed, and solemnly sworn, and subscribed in both houses, as the surest obligation to make them stand and fall together in the cause of religion and liberty. The two divines, Marshall and Nye, who were sent into Scotland as commissioners with the five noble laymen, wrote, August 18, to the Westminster Assembly, "to assure their brethren that the Scotch clergy were entirely on the side of the parliament in this war against the popish and episcopalian faction; so that if the English parliament (say they) comply with the form of this covenant, they were persuaded that the whole body of the Scotch kingdom will live and die with them, and speedily come to their assistance."

      When the commissioners arrived in London they presented the covenant to the two houses, who referred it to the Assembly of divines.--Some of the divines opposed some articles of the covenant. Dr. Featly declared he dare not [155] abjure prelacy absolutely, because he had sworn to obey his bishop in all things lawful and honest. Dr. Buries objected to several items, and it was with difficulty he was persuaded to subscribe after he had been suspended. The prolocutor and many others declared for primitive episcopacy. They refused to subscribe until a parenthesis was inserted declaring what sort of prelacy was to be abjured, viz. (church government by archbishops, bishops, deans, and chapters, archdeacons, and all other ecclesiastical officers depending upon them.)

      Bishop Burnet says the English commissioners pressed the Scots for a civil league, but the Scots would have a religious one. Sir Henry Vane put the word league into the letter, as thinking that might be broke sooner than a covenant; and in the first article inserted these words after the term reform, "according to the word of God;" but the Scots relied upon the next words, "and according to the practice of the best reformed churches:" When Mr. Coleman read the covenant before the house of Lords, in order to their subscribing it, he declared that by prelacy all sorts of episcopacy were not intended, but only the form therein described. Thus, says Mr. Neal, the wise men on both sides endeavored to outwit each other in wording the articles; and, with these slight amendments, the covenant passed the assembly and both houses of Parliament, and by an order dated September 21, was printed and published. Thus originated and progressed the solemn league and covenant, which is appended to the Old Confession of Faith, which must be identified with it because of the same character and emanating from the same source, and designed for the same end. The first two articles of which, as a specimen, we shall here insert:--

      "We, noblemen, barons, knights, gentlemen, citizens, burgesses, ministers The gospel, and commons of all sorts, in the kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland, by the providence of God living under one king, and being of one reformed religion; determined, to enter into a mutual and solemn league and covenant, wherein we all subscribe, and each one of us for himself, with our hands lifted up to the Most High God, do swear--

      "1st. That we shall sincerely, really, and constantly, through the grace of God, endeavor, in our several places and callings, the preservation of the reformed religion in the church of Scotland, in doctrine, worship, in discipline, and government, against our common enemies; the reformation of religion in the kingdoms of England and Ireland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, according to the word of God and the example of the best reformed churches; we shall endeavor to bring the church of God in the three kingdoms to the nearest conjunction, and uniform it in religion, confession of faith, form of churl government, directory for worship, catechism; that we, and our posterity after us, may, as brethren, live in faith and love, and the Lord may delight to dwell in the midst of us.

      "2d. That we shall, in like manner, without respect of persons, endeavor the extirpation of popery, prelacy, (that is, church government by archbishops, bishops, their chancellors and commissaries, deans and chapters, archdeacons, and all other ecclesiastical officers depending on that hierarchy,) superstition, heresy, schism, profaneness, and whatsoever shall be found to be contrary to sound doctrine and the power of godliness, lest we partake in other men's sins, and thereby be in danger to receive of their plagues; and that the Lord may be one, and his name one, in the three kingdoms."

      "Monday, September 25, 1643, was appointed for subscribing this covenant, when both houses; with the Scots' commissioners and assembly of divines, being met in the church of St. Margaret's, Westminster, the Rev. Mr. White, of Dorchester, opened the solemnity with prayer; after him Mr. Henderson and Mr. Nye spoke in justification of taking the covenant from scripture precedents, and displayed the advantage the church had received from such sacred combinations. Mr. Henderson spoke next, and declared that the states of Scotland had resolved to assist the parliament of England in carrying on the designs of this covenant; then Mr. Nye read it from the pulpit with an audible voice, article by article, each person standing uncovered, with his right hand lifted up bare to heaven, worshipping the great name of God, and swearing to the performance of it. Dr. Gouge concluded the solemnity with prayer, after which the House of Commons went up into the chancel, and subscribed their names in one roll of parchment, and the assembly in another, in both of which the covenant was fairly transcribed. Lord's day following it was tendered to all persons within the bills of mortality, being read in several churches to their congregations as above. October 15, it was taken by the House of Lords, after a sermon preached by Dr. Temple, from Nehemiah x. 29. and an exhortation by Mr. Coleman. October 29, it was ordered by the committee of states in Scotland to be sworn to and subscribed all over that kingdom, on penalty of the confiscation of goods and rents, and such other punishment as his majesty and the parliament should inflict on the refusers. All the lords of the council were summoned to sign the covenant, November 2, and those who did not, to appear again the 14th of the same month, under the severest penalties; when some of the king's party not attending, were declared enemies to their religion and to their king and country. November 11, their goods were ordered to be seized, and their persons apprehended; upon which they fled into England. Such was the unbounded zeal of that nation. February 2, following, the covenant was ordered to be taken throughout the kingdom of England, by all persons above the age of eighteen years; and the assembly were commanded to draw up an exhortation to dispose the people to it, which being approved by both houses, was published."

      Here we shall leave the Westminster assembly for the present, engaged in forming exhortations to induce all persons from eighteen years and upwards to swear to extirpate popery and prelacy, and to maintain presbytery themselves and their children forever.

EDITOR.      

      THIS lecture was delivered at the opening of the summer session of the Theological Seminary of the Presbyterian church, Princeton, July 2d, 1824, by Samuel Miller, D. D. Professor of Ecclesiastical History and Church Government in the aforesaid Theological School. It is therefore a precious document, as it affords a fair specimen of the theological views of this great school of the Presbyterian prophets, and as it brings to a focus all the lights of this learned body of divines on this much disputed subject. It has been in circulation for a few months and has received the approbation of all the admirers of the [156] Westminster Creed in this country, as far as we have learned. The editors of the West, as well as those of the East, extol it as a prodigy of genius, learning, and sound doctrine. As it brings down to July 2, 1824, all the discoveries and improvements of fifteen centuries in defence of human creeds, by a Master in this Israel and a Professor of Ecclesiastical History, we may naturally expect much light from it on the topic on which it treats; and that as it is the last, so it is the most able defence of human creeds.--As such we are bound to consider it, and as such we shall offer a few remarks upon it.

      In our series of essays upon the restoration of the ancient order of things, we had begun and resolved to prosecute an investigation of the merits of the arguments in favor of those creeds; but as we have got them all offered to us at once, and by so able a hand, from such a dignified chair, we are exonerated from the labor of gathering them from many sources, and shall therefore consider ourselves in possession of the most important in possessing the defence of Dr. Miller. We shall therefore detach from those Essays on the Restoration the subject of human creeds, and in detail examine their merits per se, as the Doctor presents them.

      After a fashionable exordium, such as Horace would approve, in which Dr. Miller teaches the young prophets to consider themselves like Jesus of Nazareth, as "set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel," he proceeds to his subject, which he states to be "the importance of creeds and confessions for maintaining the unity and purity of the visible church." He next gives his reasons for calling his candidates for the holy office of the Presbyterian ministry to this subject; amongst these the chief "that latitudinarians and heretics" are animadverting too severely on this subject--for, with the Doctor, they who oppose human creeds are almost exclusively either latitudinarians or heretics.--No doubt in this he is correct; for Paul himself, when he ceased to argue in defence of the traditions and dogmas of the theological seminary in Jerusalem, became an incorrigible heretic, and a wild latitudinarian; and no wonder if his followers should still be considered and called heretics by all Gamaliels.

      But that the reader may be able at one view to see the whole phalanx of arguments which have been gathered and condensed for one thousand two hundred and threescore years, in support of the utility and importance of these standards, we shall present in one view the sevenfold reasons of the Doctor:--

      "Now I affirm that the adoption of such a creed is not only lawful and expedient, but also indispensably necessary to the harmony and purity of the visible church. For the establishment of this position, let me request your attention to the following considerations:

      "1. Without a creed explicitly adopted, it is not easy to see how the ministers and members of any particular church, and more especially a large denomination of christians, can maintain unity among themselves.

      "2. The necessity and importance of creeds and confessions appear from the consideration, that one great design of establishing a church in our world was, that she might be, in all ages, a depository, a guardian, and a witness of the truth.

      "3. The adoption and publication of a creed, is a tribute to truth and candor, which every christian church owes to the other churches and he world around her.

      "4. Another argument in favor of creeds, publicly adopted and maintained, is, that they are friendly to the study of christian doctrine, and of course to the prevalence of christian knowledge.

      "5. It is an argument of no small weight in favor of creeds, that the experience of all ages has found them indispensably necessary.

      "6. A further argument in favor of creeds and confessions may be drawn from the remarkable fact, that their most zealous opposers have generally been latitudinarians and heretics.

      "7. The only further argument in support of creeds on which I shall dwell, is, that their most zealous opposers do themselves virtually employ them in all their ecclesiastical proceedings."

      After the amplification and elucidation of these seven strong "arguments" or affirmations of the Doctor, he meets and refutes five objections, viz:--

      "1. And the first which I shall mention is, that forming a creed, and requiring subscription to it as a religious test, is superseding the bible, and making a human composition instead of it a standard of faith.

      "2. Another objection frequently made to church creeds is, that they interfere with the rights of conscience, and naturally lead to oppression.

      "3. A third objection often urged against subscription to creeds and confessions is, that it is unfriendly to free inquiry.

      "4. A fourth objection frequently brought against creeds is, that they have altogether failed of answering the purpose professed to be intended by them.

      "5. The last objection which I shall consider is, that subscription to creeds has not only failed entirely of producing the benefits contemplated by their friends, but has rather been found to produce the opposite evils--to generate discord and strife."

      He then concludes with sundry warm exhortations to the young candidates for the sacred office to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered by a synod and parliament to the militant kingdoms of England and Scotland, as necessary to the unity and purity of a visible church militant.

      After thus surveying the bounds and limits of this defence, we may take it up in piecemeal, and examine each fold of this sevenfold shield. But that the reader may be able to take as general a view of the ground we occupy as of that occupied by the Doctor, we shall, by way of preparation, suggest what we must call the two grand sophisms on which his defence rests.

      1st. The Doctor, by some fatal accident to his scheme, identifies the church or congregation of Jesus Christ with the visible Presbyterian congregation or church. Now we will readily agree with the Doctor that some of his arguments are conclusive, admitting this sophism to be a truth For his first argument shows that "it is not easy to see how the ministers and members of any particular church, and more especially a large denomination of christians, (that is, a Presbyterian or Episcopalian denomination,) can maintain unity among themselves without a human creed." I agree with the Doctor here, that a human creed is essential to the unity of a political or worldly establishment, such as the Presbyterian or Episcopalian denomination. And I think it would require better eyes than the Doctor's or mine "to see" how the ministers and members of the large denomination of Presbyterians could maintain unity without a human creed. Any human establishment requires [157] human contrivances to keep it together. I do not believe that Free-Masons could maintain their unity and harmony without a creed, and formula, and catechism. I will agree with the Doctor that it is not easy to see how either the large and respectable denomination of Free-Mason Christians, or the large and respectable denomination of Presbyterian Christians could maintain their unity of spirit without a written creed deduced from the bible. And I will add that I am assured, were it not for the Presbyterian Confession of Faith, the Presbyterian church would soon become extinct, as others before it have done, built upon human creeds. A human creed is the very rock on which a sect or denomination is built. "If the foundation be destroyed what can the builders do?" Indeed the creed of Westminster is called "The Constitution of the Presbyterian church in the United States." Now who does not know, that if the constitution be destroyed, the social existence of those confederated by it, is destroyed!--The misfortune, then, is that the Doctors able defence only proves that human creeds and confessions are necessary to preserve sectarians, or to unite one denomination in a league defensive and offensive against all others. For this he reasons, and demonstrates, and proves, as a Doctor ought, when employed in drilling young recruits for the ranks and wars of their sect. They will march forth in this panoply, invincible in fight. That human creeds are necessary to the existence of sects of human contrivance, the Doctor has well proved; but the sophism is here, that he argues that human creeds are therefore necessary to the unity of the church of Christ. This is the deception, this the sophistry of six of the seven arguments. A greater blunder we do not remember to have seen committed by any Doctor since the days that the Jesuits wrote in favor of themselves, as a brotherhood confederated by divine authority, than that which Dr. Miller has unhappily committed in arguing that, because a human creed is necessary to the unity of one sect, or for the maintenance of one division in what he calls the church of Christ, therefore a human creed is necessary to the unity of that church. In plain English, that which makes and keeps up one division, is necessary to the unity of the whole.--This is Princeton logic, and Presbyterian divinity! But after all, the Doctor may have meant, by the unity of the church, the unity of the Presbyterians. And, indeed, this appears to be the design of his whole defence, for in his exhortation he rather censures the Presbyterian ministry for not being sectarian enough. His words are--

      "We are so ready to fraternize with all evangelical denominations that we almost forget that we have a denomination of our own, to which we are peculiarly attached. Now this general spirit is undoubtedly excellent; worthy of constant culture, and the highest praise. But may it not be carried to an extreme? Universal active benevolence, is a Christian's duty; but when the head of a family, in the ardor of his exercise, feels no more concern or responsibility respecting his own household, than he does about the households of others, he acts an unreasonable part, and, what is worse, disobeys the command of God. Something analogous to this, I apprehend, is the mistake of that Christian, or that minister, who, in the fervor of his Catholicism, loses sight of the fact, that God, in his providence, has connected him with a particular branch of the visible church, the welfare and edification of which he is peculiarly bound to seek. If his own branch of the church has any thing of peculiar excellence in his estimation, on account of which he prefers its which is always to be supposed,--can it be wrong for him to desire that others should view it in the same light? And if he be justifiable in recommending these peculiarities from the pulpit--as all allow--is he not equally justifiable in recommending them from the press, especially by means of accredited publications?"

      Now this is in brief--it is good to be charitable to all, but see that you keep up your own sect. Keep up the presbyterian denomination, as every good father keeps up his own house. Be good neighbors, but remember the interests of your own house.

      Such is the sophism that constitutes the basis of six of his seven arguments. And they are plausible if we admit that the presbyterian denomination is exclusively the church, but on any other principle they are ridiculous and absurd. And let it be remembered that there is no controversy between us and the doctor upon the necessity and utility of his confession of faith to the existence of his own sect. But this we shall, until we obtain new faculties, consider a subject as distinct from the unity of the disciples of Christ, as the union of the Turks against the Greeks is distinct from the American union on the grand principles of civil and religious liberty.

      The second sophism which constitutes the second pillar of the Doctor's superstructure is, that those who discard human creeds as important and useful to the church of Christ, reject all creeds. His seventh argument is predicated entirely up on this, and some of his remarks upon the other partially. Now this is making a man of wax and blaming him for not speaking. While we contend that human creeds are every way unscriptural and destructive to the unity and purity of the church of Christ, we contend that his church has, and must have a creed, and that he has himself drawn it out and committed it to writing by his apostles. If he had thought, as he knew all that would come to pass in the dark ages, that any other creed or formula was necessary for present exigencies, he would have given directions and authority to some persons to have formed it; but as he has not done this we are sure it is unnecessary, just because he thought so. Having taken this general view of Dr. Miller's lecture, and of the sophisms on which it is based, we dismiss it for the time being, reserving particulars until another opportunity.

EDITOR.      

      THAT the word of the apostles shall be the only creed, formula, and directory of faith, worship, and Christian practice, when the ancient order of things is restored, we have offered some evidence to show. The constitution and law of the primitive church shall be the constitution and law of the restored church. As the constitution and law then admitted all the faithful disciples of the Lord to an equal participation of all privileges; so when the same is again adopted, the same privileges will be extended to every orderly citizen of the kingdom. Without any of our modern creeds in substance or in form the church was once united, complete, and happy, and will be so again. For the same cause will always produce the same effect. When the disciples shall return to the Lord he will return to them.

      In receiving members or citizens into the kingdom, or in naturalizing foreigners, it appeared, in our last essay, that nothing was [158] required of them but an acknowledgment of the word or testimony of the witnesses concerning the King, Jesus of Nazareth. A hearty declaration, or confession with their lips, that they believed in their hearts, that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah, the Son of the living God, the King and Lord of all, qualified them as applicants for naturalization. In the act of immersion into this name, they renounced every other Messiah, Lord, King, or Saviour; they put off their former religion, and renounced every religious obligation to any other system or authority, and put on Jesus, as their Lord and King. From a consideration of the ancient order it appeared, that the apostles did not command men to be baptized into their own experience, but into the faith then delivered to the saints. It was affirmed that the ancient order was wiser, safer, and more honorable to the saving truth, than the modern way of receiving members into a baptist society, and some proof was presented.

      In the present essay we shall make a few remarks upon another important preliminary to the restoration of the ancient order of things. There must be, and there shall be, an abandonment of the new and corrupt nomenclature, and a restoration of the inspired one. In other words, there must be an abandonment of the Babylonish or corrupt phraseology of the dark ages and of modern discoveries, in the fixed style of the christian vocabulary. This is a matter of greater importance than may, at first sight, appear to all. Words and names long consecrated, and sanctified by long prescription, have a very imposing influence upon the human understanding. We think as well as speak by means of words. It is just as impossible for an adult to think as to speak without words. Let him that doubts make the experiment. Now as all correct ideas of God and things invisible are supernatural ideas, no other terms can so suitably express them as the terms adopted by the Holy Spirit, in adapting those supernatural truths to our apprehension. He that taught man to speak, would, doubtless, adopt the most suitable terms in his language to reveal himself to his understanding. To disparage those terms, by adopting others to preference, is presumptuous and insolent on the part of man. Besides, when men adopt terms to express supernatural truths, it is not the truths themselves, but their ideas of them they communicate. They select such terms as suit their apprehensions of revealed truth, and hence the terms they use are expressive only of their conceptions of divine things, and must just be as imperfect as their conceptions are. It is impossible for any man, unless by accident, to express accurately that which he apprehends imperfectly. From this source spring most of our doctrinal controversies. Men's opinions, expressed in their own terms, are often called bible truths. In order, then, to a full restoration of the ancient order of things, there must be "a pure speech" restored. And I think the Lord once said, in order to a restoration, that he would restore to the people "a pure speech." We know that the ancient order of things, amongst the Jews, could not be restored, after their captivity in Babylon, until the law of the Lord, containing the primitive institutions of the Jews' religion, was read and understood by the people, and the dialect of Babylon abandoned, as far as it corrupted the primitive simplicity of that religion. Hence the scribes read them the law from morning to evening, gave them the sense and made them understand the reading. This became necessary because of the corrupt dialect they had learned in Babylon, on account of which their revelation was unintelligible to them, until the language of Canaan was purged from the phraseology of Ashdod. It will, we apprehend, be found precisely similar in the antitype, or in the return of the people of God from the captivity of Babylon the great, the mother of abominations.

      But we shall go on to specify a sample of those Babylonish terms and phrases which must be purified from the christian vocabulary, before the saints can understand the religion they profess, or one another as fellow disciples. I select these from the approved standards of the most popular establishments; for from these they have become current and sacred style. Such are the following: "Trinity. First, second, and third person in the adorable Trinity: God the Son; and God the Holy Ghost. Eternal Son. The Son is eternally begotten by the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son. The divinity of Jesus Christ; the humanity of Jesus Christ; the incarnation of Jesus Christ. This he said as man; and that as God. The common operations, and the special operations of the Spirit of God. Original sin, and original righteousness. Spiritual death; spiritual life. Covenant of works, covenant of grace, and covenant of redemption; a dispensation of the covenant of grace, and administration of the covenant. Effectual calling. Free will. Free grace. Total depravity. Eternal justification. Eternal sleep. Elect world. Elect infants. Light of nature. Natural religion. General and particular atonement. Legal and evangelical repentance. Moral, ceremonial, and judicial law. Under the law as a covenant of works, and as a rule of life. Christian sabbath. Holy sacrament. Administration of the sacrament. Different kinds of faith and grace. Divine service; the public worship of God," &c. &c.

      These are but a mere sample, and all of one species. It will be said that men cannot speak of Bible truths without adopting other terms than those found in the written word. This will be granted, and yet there will be found no excuse for the above species of unauthorized and Babylonish phraseology. It is one thing to speak of divine truths in our own language, and another to adopt a fixed style of expressing revealed truths to the exclusion of, or in preference to, that fixed by the Spirit, and sometimes, too, at variance with it. For instance, the terms Trinity, first and second person of--Eternal Son, and the eternal procession of the Spirit, are now the fixed style in speaking of God, his Son Jesus Christ, and of the Spirit, in reference to their "personal character." Now this is not the style of the oracles of God. It is all human, and may be as freely criticised as one of the numbers of the Spectator. Yet because of the sanctified character of these terms, having been baptized, or authorized by the orthodox and pious for centuries, it is at the risque of my reputation for orthodoxy, and at the expense of being charged with heresy, that I simply affirm that they are terms that the wisdom of this world teaches, and not the Spirit of God. I would not be startled to hear that I have denied the faith and rejected the revealed character of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, because I have said that the fixed style in speaking of them in the popular establishments is of human origin and of the language of Ashdod, and not of the language of Canaan. This, however, only proves that the terms of human philosophy are held more sacred, than the words of the Holy Spirit. [159]

      These terms originate new doctrines. Thus the term "trinity" gives rise to the doctrine of the trinity. And what fierce controversies have originated out of this doctrine! How many creeds and martyrs has it made! Courteous and pious reader, would it not be as wise, as humble, and as modest, too, for us, on such topics, to prefer the words of the Holy Spirit, and to speak of God, his Son, and Spirit, as the apostles did. Moreover, these terms do not help our conceptions of God at all. They rather impede than facilitate our understanding the divine oracles. It is more difficult to conceive of an eternal Son eternally begotten, and of a Spirit eternally proceeding, than to understand anything God has ever spoken to men. And see on what a slender thread those distinctions hang! Because Jesus Christ told his disciples that he would send them the Spirit, which Spirit would or was to proceed from his Father, or to be sent forth by his Father as well as by himself; therefore the schoolmen affirm that the Spirit eternally proceeded, or was eternally coming from the Father!! This is the whole thread on which this "doctrine" hangs. I only instance this, and cannot now pause on the others.

      But besides this species of sophistry there is another more dangerous, because more specious. This is really as foreign and as barbarous a dialect as that we have noticed, though in Bible terms. It consists in selecting Bible terms and sentences and in applying to them ideas totally different from those attached to them by the Holy Spirit. Of this sort are the following: "The natural man, spiritual man; in the flesh, in the spirit; regeneration, washing of regeneration; ministration of the Spirit, demonstration of the Spirit; power of God, faith of the operation of God, the grace of God; the letter, the spirit; the old and new covenant; word of God; the ministry of the word; truth of the gospel; mystery, election, charity, heretic, heresy, blasphemy, church communion, baptism, faith," &c. &c. &c. The former dialect rejects the words of the Holy Spirit, and adopts others as more intelligible, less ambiguous, and better adapted to preserve a pure church. The latter dialect takes the terms and sentences of the Spirit, and makes them convey ideas diverse from those communicated by the Spirit. We shall in this, as in the former dialect, specify one instance. Take for this purpose the sentence, "Through faith of the operation of God." This the populars use to designate a faith wrought in the human heart by the operation of the great power of God. But the Spirit of God intended by this phrase to shew that christians in baptism had represented to them their resurrection with Christ to a new life, through a belief of the great power of God, exhibited in raising Christ from the dead. So the wisest teachers, and so all the learned translators of the last century understood it, amongst whom are, Pierce, Tompson, Macknight, and others. Macknight reads it thus: "Being buried with him in baptism, in which also we have been raised with him through the belief of the strong working of God who raised him from the dead." Now in relation to these two dialects there is one easy and safe course. The first is to be totally abandoned as transubstantiation and purgatory are by Protestants, and the other is to be tried by the context or design of the writer.

      We cannot at present be more particular; but of these terms and sentences we shall not be forgetful hereafter. It is enough at one time to suggest them to the consideration and examination of our readers.

      The adoption and constant use of this barbarous dialect, was the cause of making divisions, and is still one existing cause of their continuance. This style furnishes much matter, and many a topic to the gloomy Doctors who delight in metaphysical subtleties, and gains them much credit for their skill in mysteries, which they exhibit in their weekly attempts to unravel the webs which themselves and their worthy predecessors have woven. Let it be remembered that, as these terms were not to be heard in the primitive church, in restoring the ancient order of things they must be sent home to the regions of darkness whence they arose.

EDITOR.      

      MANY objections have been made against king James' translation. The Greek New Testament which the king's translators used was that of Robert Stephen's. It was the third and fourth editions of R. Stephen's Greek New Testament, published 1550 and 1551. In the fourth edition of R. Stephen's Greek New Testament the text was, for the first time, divided into verses. The translators followed Stephen in his chapters and verses, and thus the first edition of the English Bible was as mangled and as unintelligible as the present. Dr. Macknight, in the general preface to his translation of the Apostolical Epistles, presents the common objections to the present version in one section, which reads as follows:--

      "To this edition of the bible it has been objected, 1st. That it often differs from the Hebrew to follow the seventy, if not the German translation, particularly in proper names. 2d. That the translators followed the Vulgate Latin, have adopted many of the original words without translating them, such as hallelujah, hosannah, mammon, anathema, &c. by which they have rendered their version unintelligible to a mere English reader. But they may have done this in compliance with the king's injunction concerning the old ecclesiastical words, and because, by long use, many of them were as well understood by the people as if they were English. 3d. That by keeping too close to the Hebrew and Greek idioms, they have rendered their version obscure. 4th. That they were a little too complaisant to the king in favoring his notions of predestination, election, witchcraft, familiar spirits, &c. But these, it is probable, were their opinions as well as the king's. 5th. That their translation is partial, speaking the language of, and giving authority to one sect. But this, perhaps, was owing to the restraint they were laid under by those who employed them. 6th. That where the original words and phrases admitted of different translations, the worse translation, by a plurality of voices, was put into the text, and the better was often thrown into the margin. 7th. That notwithstanding all the pains taken in correcting this and the former editions of the English bible, there still remain many passages mistranslated, either through negligence or want of knowledge: and that to other passages improper additions are made, which pervert the sense, as Matt. xx. 23. where, by adding the words, "it shall be given," it is insinuated that some other person than the Son will distribute rewards at the day of judgment.

      "Such are the objections which have been made to the king's translation by the Protestants. They are mentioned here as historical facts. How far they are just, lies with the reader to consider. The objections made by the [160] Papists were the same with those which were made to the former translations, and particularly that several texts are mistranslated, from the translators' aversion to the doctrine and usages of the church of Rome."

      Such are the most common objections to the translation made by king James' authority, as Dr. Macknight has briefly stated in his prolegomena to his translation of the Apostolic Epistles. Besides this, the divisions of the scriptures of the New Testament into chapters and verses by Romanists of small learning, and less intelligence in the meaning of the inspired writings, in imitation of the Jewish Rabbies' division of the Old Testament, has been long complained of by all the judicious and intelligent scripturians of the last century. It was indeed impossible for Robert Stephens, a monk, while making a tour through some of the richest provinces of the Roman church, to make a judicious division of the New Testament into verses, and yet this is the division still used by all Protestants.

      To remedy those evils, so long and so justly complained of, we have issued proposals for publishing a new translation of the New Testament, made by Doctors Campbell, Macknight, and Doddridge, decidedly the best that has appeared in our language. As the plan and character of this most valuable work is already before the public in the form of a prospectus and proposal, we deem it unnecessary to say much about it on the present occasion.

EDITOR.      

      THE following is an extract from the sentiments delivered by the Rev. Dr. Burton, at an association of the congregational clergy, at Thetfort, in the state of Vermont, and published by the Rev. Ignatius Thompson, who was present at the association. It may be depended upon as authentic:--

      "The Calvinistic sentiments never will prevail till the colleges are under our influence. Young men, when they go to college, generally have not formed their religious sentiments. We ought to have a president and instructors who have the address to instil the Calvinistic sentiments without the students being sensible of it then, nine out of ten, when they leave the college, will support the Calvinistic doctrine--they will go out into the world, and will have their influence in society. In this way we can get a better support, without law, than we ever had with it. And besides, when once all our colleges are under our influence, we can manage the civil government as we please."

[Western Herald.      

[TCB 154-161]