Volume 3. Number 6. January 2, 1826, pp. 205-213.

• Review of "Remarks on the Rise, Use and Unlawfulness of Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the church of God--By John M. Duncan, Pastor of the Presbyterian Church, Tammany street, Baltimore."--Part Second by Alexander Campbell, pp. 205-208.
• On the Rights of Laymen.--No. I. by A Berean, pp. 208-209.
• A Restoration of the Ancient Order of Things.--No. X.: The Fellowship by Alexander Campbell, pp. 209-211.
• Communication by Aquila, pp. 211-212.
• [Remarks on "Communication"] by Alexander Campbell, p. 212.
• Messrs. Duncan and M'Lean by Alexander Campbell, pp. 212-213.

      THE more deeply we drink into the spirit of the New Testament, the less we relish the dry and lifeless dogmas of human creeds. As we ascend in clear and comprehensive views of the Holy Oracles, human formularies descend in our estimation. Hence we invariably find an ardent zeal for human systems, accompanied with glaring ignorance of the revelation of God, and true veneration for the records of God's grace, is always attended with intelligence and liberality.

      The following extracts from Mr. Duncan's work, so fully confirm these sentiments; so exactly correspond with many pieces published in this work, that we cannot deny ourselves the pleasure of presenting them to our readers.--Their value will apologize for their length; and, indeed, we have done violence to the author in garbling his pages, and have rather detracted from the force and beauty of his remarks by selecting only a few sentences of many which ought to appear together in the order he has given them. We wish our readers to have some tolerable idea of the work, and hope that many of them may be induced to add this book of Mr. Duncan's to their library. These selections are made from page 184 to page 208.

ED. C. B.      

      "Our second principle is, that the bible being the word of God, it must necessarily be precisely suited to human beings as sinful and fallen; and therefore it embraces in its provisions [205] all that is peculiar, either in their character or condition."

      "And what is the Bible, for which we plead so ardently? It is not merely a high wrought eulogy upon the character of Jehovah; but it is his condescension to men upon earth. It is not a stern display of abstract righteousness; but it is the mingling together of justice and peace, of mercy and truth. It is not the impracticable requisition of absolute purity, made with an unpitying eye and an oppressive hand; but it is the proclamation of "the righteousness of faith," that glorious principle of which angels and the redeemed shall talk together throughout eternity. It is not the statute of an indescribable sovereignty, which no prayer can relax and which no tears can soften; but it is the opening of the prison doors, it is a universal call, it is an indiscriminate overture;--whosoever will, may come; and whosoever comes, shall in no wise be cast out; and all its agents act upon its own liberal commission. "The Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that hears, say Come. And let him that is athirst, Come. And whosoever will, let him take of the water of life freely" None of our Calvinistic brethren, as they may be pleased to denominate themselves, will halt at the foregoing statement. If they do, let them pause and reflect whether, under the guise of Calvinism, they have not sunk into a system of the most haughty, joyless, and chilling fatalism?

      "Again, the Bible is intended to be a system of practical morals. It reveals not doctrines for the sake of doctrine, but as they may serve to fulfil practical purposes; or it never was designed to establish theory independent of practice.--God did not send his only begotten Son into our world merely to display the brightness of his glory; he veiled all that glory that men might look at it, and sent his Son "in the likeness of sinful flesh," that men whose moral perceptions were very low by reason of the "weakness of the flesh," might have an "express image of his person," which they could adore with a degree of intelligence consistent with their infirmities. The Holy Spirit has not come down merely to astonish by his own mysterious movements; his official work is to build up a temple on earth for the habitation of God--a spiritual house, resting on Jesus as a living stone, and into which he inserts, as living stones, all whom he sanctifies. The gospel, even when angels have tuned their harps to its lofty strains, is not simply, Glory to God in the highest; but it is, Peace on earth and good will toward men."

      The simplicity of the Bible, or its happy adaptation to the circumstances of mankind, is one of the most striking proofs of its divine original. That the blind should receive their sight and the lame walk, that the lepers should be cleansed and the deaf hear, and that the dead should be raised up, form an irresistible demonstration in favor of any thing they can be brought to prove; but when the Redeemer stated all these things in testimony of his own pretensions, he did not think the train of evidence complete, and added, "the poor have the gospel preached to them." The heavenly visions which he had seen with his Father, and the particulars of which he came down from heaven to reveal on earth, are made plain and distinct to the human mind; level to the comprehension, not only of the divine, the philosopher and the scholar, but to the poor. They are like Habakkuk's message, made plain upon tables, so that he who runs may read. It is this very thing which reveals the author of the bible with peculiar glory; for infinite wisdom is ever displayed by the perfect adaptation of means to an end. Instead, then, of needing any of those perplexing summaries, which different religious denominations have given us as the product of their own wisdom, the bible, by its own plainness, evinces its own perfection, and recommends itself to the most uninformed, as a sure guide to everlasting life. If in it "there are depths where an elephant might swim," there are to it also "shoals where a lamb may wade." If it administers strong meat to those who are of full age, it serves the babe with milk. If it prescribes perfection to its reader, it begins by communicating first principles; and he who has learned rightly to divide it, has learned how to give to each his portion of meat in due season."

      "And what, we ask, would become of the mass of mankind--what of the majority of professing christians--what of our children, whose very praise in the presence of the Redeemer may be that from childhood they knew the Holy Scriptures which are capable to make even them wise to salvation, if the bible was not thus modified to meet the imbecility of human powers?"

      "It is manifest that the scriptures must be plain to the human mind, or they can be of no use to the poor; and the mass of mankind could have no divine book which they can profitably read. It must be a volume suited to the illiterate and the busy, the bond and the free; fitted to the tottering old man, bowed down with years, who has no time to waste on our speculations, and to the young child that cannot comprehend them. It must be a book which the mother can explain to her little ones, and from which the father can read to them, under the sanctions of divine authority, a morning and evening lesson. Say it is otherwise, and then the fact that to the poor the gospel is preached, is no longer a proof of the divine authenticity of the scriptures, seeing they cannot be put to that use as a system of moral truths. To them its page is unintelligible; its very doctrines mysterious, its propositions unformed; its promises irrelevant; and, by a reference to a human creed, imposed upon them as the meaning of the scriptures, their faith must stand in the wisdom of men."

      "If, then, we are right in saying that God has in the bible given us moral truth in the best form it could wear, considering the character of the being for whom it has been prepared--and who can say we are not right? Then, under what principle have synods and councils undertaken to alter that form? For our creeds and confessions of faith do take the truth which God has revealed out of its scriptural connexions; and they do modify it according to the conceptions of the men who make them, or the prejudices and feelings of the age which creates and enforces them. And why do they this? It certainly becomes them to give the best of all reasons for so eccentric an adventure. Can they make truth more tangible? Have they the promise of the Spirit to superintend their deliberations, when they undertake to revise and correct God's institutions? Have they any divine promise to guarantee a good result? Or do they suppose they have a sufficient warrant to take such a step, from the fact that they have a sectarian object to accomplish, or that the interest of a voluntary association may require it? Then they must remember that they have the very same argument to meet in application to these voluntary associations; and to justify themselves for so dividing the church of the living God, and altering her external form. And we really do [206] not wonder that these two things are put together; for as Paul argues with the Hebrews, "The priesthood being changed there is of necessity a change also of the law."

      "But perhaps it may be denied that our creeds do alter the form in which truth is brought to bear upon the conscience. We must then make our assertion good. Are not our creeds professed summaries? And what is a summary? Is it the same thing with that which it abridges, or is it a different thing? If the original and the abstract be drawn out by different hands, will they present the same intellectual image? Is this summary needed? Did the Master give us one, or empower us to make one, because his bible was a deficient instrument of operation upon the human spirit? Every man at a glance may perceive that he has not framed the scriptures upon the same principle on which our theological systems are constructed. The bible is not a collection of abstract propositions, systematized into regular order, nor is it a schedule of difficult metaphysical subjects, arranged under general titles, such as the attributes of God, the divine decrees, the perseverance of the saints, &c. On the contrary, it is a transcript of social transactions; it is an exhibition of human life; it is that species of composition which all the world knows is most interesting to the mass of mankind. It is true some lofty speculators, some profound thinkers, who are capable to reason both matter and spirit out of God's creation, might prefer a volume of mental abstractions; but then the reader must remember that the bible was written for the poor; that it was intended to throw a beam of the life that shall never end upon the infant mind; to cheer the humble, the lowly, and the contrite spirit; and, while the dews of its blessing are falling upon the dying old man, to stretch the bow of the covenant of grace across the firmament of truth, that his closing eyes may be opened upon the cloudless light of an eternal day. Had such an epitome or compend of moral truths, as our creeds profess to be, been the best form of revelation by which the human mind could be spiritually enlightened, doubtless God himself would have adopted that form; for he declares that he has done for man all that he could do for him; and indeed, he has too much pity and compassion for this fallen child of his love to leave any thing undone which could have been done. If he had intended to write a book for a race of philosophers, instead of rejecting such for being wise to their own conceits; and if philosophers really know how to make systems, or are themselves best instructed in that way, doubtless he would have given them his revelation in a more logical form. Most certainly, however, he has not done it; and the inference fairly is, that our systems are constructed on false views of human nature, or that our creeds are not at all fitted for man in his present state. There is a better way of teaching mankind the science of morals: for Jehovah himself, who needs not that any should tell him what is in man, has adopted another way. Surely we may safely follow where God leads, and to imitate his example never can jeopard the prosperity or peace of his church."

      "The practical result of our creeds confirms our argument. Can children understand the abstract propositions contained in the Shorter Catechism? Have not scientific men long since learned that every thing must be simplified, and, if possible, illustrated by example in order to interest, impress, and benefit the infantile mind? Are they not descending from their own lofty eminence, and, taking these little immortals by the hand, leading them up step by step? And shall we leave their moral nature uncultivated, or fatigue their tender spirits by the incessant repetition of things which they do not understand? Are our grown up christians better treated by this system of perplexed legislation? Do not these creeds drag away the christian mind from scriptural exposition to dwell upon polemic propositions! Do they not make it necessary for us to contend with those whom we ought to love; and even to divide families, as if the husband and the wife, the parent and the child, worshipped different Gods? Do they not present truth in philosophical forms, about which men are every where at liberty to reason according to their own apprehensions? Do they not teach men to feel comparatively irresponsible about religious things, because they consider themselves to be reasoning with man about his notions, and not with God against his institutions? Let the reader judge for himself whether we do not recite facts. As Calvinists, we almost intuitively shrink away from being thought Arminians; and as Arminians we are equally frightened by a charge of Calvinism.--The past age has made a controversy between these two sets of opinions exceedingly popular, and our creeds have served to perpetuate strife! He is thought to be a clergyman of secondary consideration, and to possess talents of a very inferior order, who cannot perspicuously arrange and skilfully discuss the five points; while on the other hand, Whitby and the Lime-street Lectures have obtained immortal honor. Neither party seems to know that if they would cease to contend, and declare what they are honestly convinced is in the bible, they would blend in most perfect harmony, as soon as long established habits, running throughout society, could admit so happy a revolution. But they have formed their opinions; they have chosen their theological system; they have entered into their ecclesiastical connexions; and of all things that are inimical to harmony, these voluntary associations are the worst--because by them all society is thrown into commotion. It is really admirable to hear how controversialists, belonging to different voluntary associations, will treat a scripture text which they have abstracted from its own relations, and how clearly they will demonstrate it to utter their own opinions. Who does not feel some concern when he hears a minister of the gospel endeavoring to establish a doctrine which every one knows is employed to evolve a sectarian, rather than a scriptural principle? And who, that has even thought dispassionately upon the subject, would not prefer to have the bible explained to him as other things are explained, than hear the most eloquent discussion on a sectarian tenet? Surely the study of the scriptures, and an effort to make men feel truth as spoken by divine wisdom, and enforced by divine authority, would entirely change the complexion of such ministrations, and impel the human mind into trains of thinking and habits of application much more spiritual and edifying. We say again, let the reader judge for himself; the whole subject is presented to him in real life; it is pressed out to its very extreme; and he may even hear, as an argument in favor of theological strife, that division is necessary to unity. A lovely paradox! An unexpected, but happy union of contraries! Its framers are fairly entitled to all the credit of its ingenuity. We dare not envy them their happy talent for invention." [207]

      THE Synod of Baltimore have again proved that they make and hold the confession and formulary as authoritative rules of faith and practice, and as terms of communion between Christ and his disciples. The following is positive proof thereof.

      "The Rev. John M. Duncan, of Baltimore, and the Rev. Charles M'Lean, of Gettysburg, in this state, have both declined the jurisdiction of the Presbyterian church in the United States, on the ground that they object to creeds and confessions as terms of christian or ministerial fellowship; and the Synod of Baltimore have accordingly declared their congregations vacant, and have put them under the care of the respective presbyteries of Baltimore and Carlisle."--Pittsburgh Mercury, Nov. 30.

      So Messrs. Duncan and M'Lean are to be viewed and treated as heathen men and publicans, because they aver that there is but one authoritative rule of christian faith and practice, and that this is the Bible. But behold they have declared their congregation vacant! This is another acceptation of the word "vacant." They have vacant territories in their church, with only two hundred thousand inhabitants on them; vacant churches, because the pulpit is sometimes empty; and vacant congregations when their pulpit is every day filled with a good man who happens not to be orthodox in this article of the fallible rule of faith and practice.

      They have annihilated Messrs. Duncan and M'Lean, as well as paganized them. Great are their tender mercies for those transgressors, and inexpressible their sympathies for their dear and precious congregations. We have it from good authority in Baltimore, that Mr. Duncan's congregation was as unanimously determined to adhere to the sentiments in his book as any congregation of orthodox christians in the country is determined to hold fast its form of sound words imported from Scotland on board the ship Enterprize, and guarded by two frigates laden with soldiers and munitions of war.

ED. C. B.      

      FOR more than half a century past, no theme has been more popular, no topic has been more fully discussed, than the rights of men. The result has been, that very generally, in the New World at least, it is conceded that all men are born to equal rights. But our theme is not the rights of men, but the rights of laymen.

      Some, no doubt, will inquire, What is a layman? We answer, a man is the creature of God, but a lay-man is the creature of priests. God made men, but priests made laymen. In the religious world we often hear of clergy and laity. These are terms of Grecian extraction. The term clergy denotes the Lord's lot, or people; the term laity denotes the common herd of mankind, or the clergy's lot or people. We shall attend first to the inalienable rights of the laity, and secondly to the inalienable rights of the brethren in Christ.

      In the first place, a layman has a right to consider himself as possessed of five senses, viz. seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, and feeling. If misfortune or vice has not deprived him of the use of any of them, he is always to bear in mind that his Creator gave him eyes, ears, a mouth, nose, and hands, and that he designed he should use them all. These five senses completely adapt man to this present world. As an animal, he has no use for a sixth sense. His eye feasts upon light, his ear upon sound, his mouth, tongue, and palate, upon tastes, his nose upon odors, and his hands inform him of the heat and cold, roughness and smoothness, hardness, and softness, and all such properties of the bodies around him. These all serve him as guards and defences, as well as minister to his enjoyments. As in a world of matter his whole body is liable to many inconveniences, his Creator has transfused through his whole system the sense of feeling, which exists most exquisitely in his hands. In one sentence, there is not a single property in any material thing of any use to man, that is not distinguishable by some one or all of these senses. Now a layman is endowed with all these senses as well as a priest. Therefore he is to use them, and believe their testimony in preference to any thing a priest tells him. For example: If a priest tell him that he can turn wine into blood, and bread into flesh, the layman must taste them, and if this blood have still the taste of wine, and this flesh of bread, he must believe his senses in preference to the priest's tongue. For God gave him those senses, and they are to be relied on more firmly than the words of any man. Again, when a priest tells him that he immerses or washes a person in water, when he only besprinkles his face or his hands, he must believe the testimony of his eyes, and not the lips of the priest, for his eyes are more to be trusted than the lips of a thousand priests. Now it is the inalienable right of every layman to exercise his five senses, and never to be argued out of them or to believe any thing contrary to them.

      But let it be remembered that those five senses give a man no other intelligence than what concerns the material world around him. They cannot introduce him to an acquaintance with a world of spirits, or a future state. But in order to fit him for this, God has given him another class of faculties which exist in his spirit, as those senses exist in his body. These faculties are all comprized in one sentence, which affirms man to be a reasonable being. But each of the faculties which constitute a reasonable being, are as distinct from one another as are his five senses. The eye and the ear are not more distinct than perception and reflection, than memory and judgment. These being within the man, are not so easily apprehended as his senses which are without. The spirit of a man dwells within him, and as through windows, views, through the five senses, the objects around him. What it cannot perceive through one of those windows, it can discern through another. Besides this, it can look upon itself and become conscious of its own actions. But these are not so obvious to all mankind. The mass of men attend much more to what is passing without than to what is passing within them, and therefore know more, of the former than of the latter.

      But of all the faculties with which the spirit of man is endowed, none exalt him so high, none put him in possession of intelligence so important as the faculty of believing. Whether this faculty be a combination of other faculties, or one distinct from all others, is not worthy of a moment's investigation, as every man knows that he can believe, and does believe human testimony when it possesses certain attributes. Indeed, all that we do know, and all that we are assured of beyond the narrow sphere of our own experience and observation, all that we know of the past, the present, and the future, beyond the limits of our horizon, we have acquired by this faculty of believing. [208]

      As men spoke before they wrote, and as intelligence respecting facts is reported before it can be written, the ear is the first medium through which testimony reaches the spirit of man. Consequently our conviction, or assurance of things reported, commonly called faith, "comes by hearing," or by the ear. Through this window of the ear the spirit of man sees incomparably more objects and acquires incalculably more information than by the other four windows or avenues of information.

      Reading what is written is a sort of hearing by the eye. If the assurance of things unseen be acquired from reading, it derogates nothing from the rational and biblical truth, that "faith comes by hearing;" for writing is a substitute for speaking, and reading is but a substitute for hearing. I would not spend time in illustrating a matter so plain, were it not, that some of the priests, in order to enhance their services, have boasted that faith comes by hearing, and not by reading. By hearing them too, rather than by reading Paul!¹

      But as the eye of man would be of no use to him if there was no sun or no light, so the faculty or power of believing testimony would be of no consequence if there was no testimony to be believed. And although he may have testimony concerning things present and visible, which is of much importance in the present life; yet, if the exercise and use of this faculty is to be confined to human testimony respecting present objects, still he is completely in the dark as respects the unseen and future world, and but little elevated above a bee, a beaver, or an elephant. Now of the unseen and future world he can have no human testimony, properly so called; for no man has returned from the unseen world and testified any thing about it; and if we have no testimony from God concerning the unseen and future state, the faculty of believing is of no more consequence than the sense of seeing, as regards the world of spirits.

      And if, upon the hypothesis of the truth of "natural theology," a man could arrive at the knowledge of the being, and of some of the perfections of God, yet still every thing concerning his will, and the future destinies of man, is unknown and unknowable. But the Bible is to man the sun and light of the world of spirits, or of the unseen and future state. The testimony of God is addressed to, and fitted for, this faculty of believing, with which he has endowed man, and of which he cannot be divested so long as he is rational, except by his own depravity as by an abandoned course a man may destroy, or sear his own conscience until it is past feeling, so he may abuse his faculty of believing, so far as to believe a lie and reject the truth.

      But in making a Bible, the author of it has indirectly given us some of the best lessons in the world upon this faculty of believing. By attaching to it, and stamping upon it, and working into it certain evidences of its origin, he has taught us what a being like man requires, in order to giving full credence to testimony, human or divine. In adapting this book to fallen men, be has shown us what this faculty of believing now is, and not what it once was. And he has given so much of this sort of evidence as to render every man inexcusable who continues in unbelief.

      To conclude this item, we would add, that by our reasoning faculties we are to try and determine whether the book called the Bible came from heaven or from men; and having determined that God is its author, we are then to receive its instructions and implicitly to follow them. It is, then, in the second place, the inalienable right of all laymen to examine the sacred writings for themselves, and to exercise this faculty with which God has endowed then, and not to believe what the church believes, nor how the church believes, because the church believes it; but to judge and act for, and from themselves.

A BEREAN.      

      H KOINWNIA, koinonia, translated fellowship, communion, communication, contribution, and distribution, occurs frequently in the apostolic writings. King James' translators have rendered this word by all those terms. A few specimens shall be given. It is translated by them fellowship, Acts ii. 42. "They continued steadfastly in the fellowship." 1 Cor. i. 9. "The fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ." 2 Cor. vi. 14. "What fellowship has light with darkness." Gal. ii. 9. "The right hand of fellowship." Philip. iii. 10. "The fellowship of his sufferings." 1 John i. 3. "Fellowship with the Father." 2 Cor. viii. 4. "The fellowship of the ministering to the saints."

      They have sometimes translated it by the word communion, 1 Cor. x. 16. "The communion of his blood."--The communion of his body." 2 Cor. xiii. 14. "The communion of the Holy Spirit."

      They have also used the term communicate or communication, Heb. xiii. 16. "To communicate," or "Of the communication be not forgetful, for with such sacrifices God is well pleased."

      Where it evidently means alms giving in other places, they have chosen the term distribution, 2 Cor. ix. 13. "For your liberal distribution to them, and to all."

      They have also selected the term contribution as an appropriate translation, Rom. xv. 26. "For it has pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor saints at Jerusalem."

      It is most evident, from the above specimens, that the term KOINWNIA imports a joint participation in giving or receiving; and that a great deal depends on the selection of an English term, in any particular passage, to give a particular turn to the meaning of that passage. For instance, "The right hand of contribution" would be a very uncouth and unintelligible phrase. "The contribution of the Holy Spirit," would not be "much better." Again, had they used the word contribution when the sense required it, it would have greatly aided the English reader. For example--Acts ii. 42. "They continued steadfastly in the apostles, doctrine, in the breaking of bread, in the contribution, and in prayers," is quite as appropriate and intelligible, and there is no reason which would justify their rendering Rom. xv. 26 as they have done, that would not equally justify their having rendered Acts ii. 42, as we have done. In Rom. xv. the context obliged them to select the word contribution, and this is the reason why they should have chosen the same term in Acts ii. 42. The term fellowship is too vague in this passage, and, indeed, altogether improper: for the Jerusalem congregation had fellowship in breaking bread, and in prayers, as well as in contributing; and as the historian contradistinguishes the koinonia (or [209] "fellowship," as they have it) from prayer and breaking bread, it is evident he did not simply mean either communion or fellowship as a distinct part of the Christian practice or of their social worship.

      Thompson has chosen the word community. This, though better than the term fellowship, is too vague, and does not coincide with the context, for the community of goods which existed in this congregation is afterwards mentioned by the historian apart from what he has told us in the 42d verse--There can be no objection made to the term contribution, either as an appropriate meaning of the term KOINWNIA, or as being suitable in this passage, which would require an elaborate refutation, and we shall, therefore, unhesitatingly adopt it as though king James' translators had given it here as they have elsewhere.

      As christians, in their individual and social capacity, are frequently exhorted by the apostles to contribute to the wants of the poor, to distribute to the necessities of the saints: as the congregation at Jerusalem continued steadfastly in this institution; and as other congregations elsewhere were commended for these acceptable sacrifices, it is easy to see and feel that it is incumbent on all Christians as they have ability, and as circumstances require, to follow their example to this benevolent institution of him who became poor that the poor might be made rich by him.

      That every christian congregation should follow the examples of those which were set in order by the apostles, is, I trust, a proposition which few of those who love the founder of the christian institution, will question. And that the apostles did give orders to the congregations in Galatia and to the Corinthians to make a weekly contribution for the poor saints, is a matter that cannot be disputed, see 1 Cor. xvi. 1. That the Christian congregations did then keep a treasury for those contributions, is, I conceive, evident from the original of 1 Cor. xvi. 1, which Macknight correctly renders in the following words:--"On the first day of every week let each of you lay somewhat by itself, according as he may have prospered, putting it into the treasury, that when I come there may be then no collections."

      Some who profess to follow the institutions of Jesus Christ, as found in the New Testament, do not feel it incumbent on them to make a weekly contribution for the poor, and urge in their justification, among other excuses, the two following: 1st. "In these United States we have no poor;" and, in the second place, "It was only to some churches, and with reference to some exigencies, that those injunctions were published." The Saviour said, "The poor you have always with you;" but it seems we have lived to see the day when this is not true, in the bounds of the New World. "But," says another, "the poor clergy exact from us all we can contribute, and all the cents which our mourning bags every week collect, are lost in this vast abyss!!" "Two wrongs will not make one right!"

      That some churches, on some particular occasions, were peculiarly called upon to contribute every week for one definite object, is no doubt true, and that similar contingencies may require similar exertions now as formerly, is equally true. But still this does not say that it is only on such occasions that the charities of Christians must be kept awake, and that they may slumber at all other times. Nor does it prove that it is no part of the Christian religion to make constant provision for the poor. This would be to contradict the letter and spirit of almost all the New Testament. For, in truth, God never did institute a religion on earth that did not look with the kindest aspect towards the poor--which did not embrace, as its best good works, acts of humanity and compassion: In the day of judgment, the works particularized as of highest eminence, and most conspicuous virtue, are not, You have built meeting-houses--you have founded colleges, and endowed professorships--you have educated poor pious youths, and made them priests--you gave your parsons good livings; but, You visited the sick, you waited on the prisoner, you fed the hungry, you clothed the naked Christian.

      But some excuse themselves by shewing their zeal for sound doctrine. "We," say they, "do not build colleges nor give fat livings to priests." No, indeed, you neither contribute to rich nor poor; you do not give to things sacred, or profane; you communicate not to the things of God, nor the things of men. You keep all to yourselves. Your dear wives and children engross all your charities. Yes, indeed, you are sound in faith, and orthodox to opinion. But your good works are not registered in the book of God's remembrance, and there will be none of them read in the day of rewards.

      But this is not my design. The contribution, the weekly contribution--the distribution to the poor saints, we contend is a part of the religion of Jesus Christ. Do not be startled at this use of the term religion. We have the authority of an apostle for it. James says, "Pure and undefiled religion in the presence of God, even the Father, is this--viz. to visit (and relieve) the orphans and widows in their afflictions, and to keep unspotted by the vices of the world."--There is a sacrifice with which God is well pleased, even now, when victims bleed no more.--James has told it here, and Paul reminded the Hebrew Christians of it. And when any one undertakes to show that our present circumstances forbid our attending to a weekly contribution for the poor, whether in the congregation or out of it, we shall undertake to show that either we ourselves are proper objects of Christian charity, or we are placed in circumstances which deprive us of that reward mentioned in Matthew xxv. And if there is need for private and individual acts of charity, there is more need for a systematic and social preparation for, and exhibition of, congregational contributions. But let it be remembered, that it is always "accepted according to what a man has, and not according to what he has not."

      I shall close these remarks with an extract from one of the best fragments of antiquity yet extant, which was first published when Christians were under the persecutions of Pagan Rome It is from an apology of one of the first bishops, which being addressed to a Roman emperor, shows the order of the Christian church before it was greatly corrupted. It is equally interesting as respects the weekly breaking of bread and the weekly contribution. Justin Martyr's Second Apology, page 96--"On Sunday all Christians in the city or country meet together, because this is the day of our Lord's resurrection, and then we read the writings of the prophets and apostles. This being done, the president makes an oration to the assembly, to exhort them to imitate, and do the things they heard. Then we all join in prayer, and after that we celebrate the Supper. Then they that are able and willing give what they think fit; and what is thus collected is laid up in the hands of the president, who distributes it to orphans and widows, and other Christians as their wants require." [210]

      Would to Heaven that all the congregations in these United States approximated as nearly to the ancient order of things, as did those in behalf of whom Justin Martyr addressed the Roman Emperor, not more than fifty years after the death of John the apostle!

EDITOR.      

Bishop A. Campbell--

      DEAR SIR,--IN reading your "Christian Baptist" of October last, on "Christian Union, No. 3," my attention was particularly arrested and drawn to a few statements on the doctrine of the "Son of God." The author, after having given us the history of the dispute between Alexander and Arius, and the unhappy result of that dispute, proceeds to state one of the most uncharitable sentiments I ever saw or heard. This appears to me the more strange, as proceeding from the pen of one professing such liberal principles, and so ably advocating the doctrine of christian union. I am heartily sorry that this, and a few other remarks of the writer, ever found a place in your pages. The sentiments to which I allude are as follows:--

      "It is impossible for those who entertain a reverential regard for the Great God, not to be struck with the presumption of sinful, ignorant, erring mortals, who would dare to investigate a subject of such awful import as the modus of the divine existence, and who would presume to go farther in the discovery of God, than he has revealed himself." Have not the presbyterians--have not the regular baptists--have not most of the different sects--have they not "dared to investigate the modus of the divine existence?" Have they not "presumed to go further into the discovery of God than he has revealed himself?" Most certainly it is acknowledged. For they assert in their creeds, that "God exists in three persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; that the Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, and the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son." This is not merely an attempt to investigate, but to explain the modus of divine existence. This is certainly going further into "the discovery of God, than he has revealed himself." But for this must they all be considered as having no reverential regard for God? If they had, they would not dare--they would not presume to do it! Nay, more; they would be struck to see another dare or presume to do it. The attempt to investigate the modus of divine existence, and to go beyond revelation, I cordially disapprobate; but feel unwilling to proscribe all who have dared it. Your writer tells us, that "in the western states a very unprofitable controversy has existed on this subject. If men could be content with the scripture statements of the nature and character of Christ, and could realize the fact that he was worshipped as God by inspired apostles and christians, for which they suffered death, and which was, indeed, the first cause of their persecution, it would end all controversy, and we should soon see a union of sentiment. Without the agreement that Christ is really an object of worship, and is of course divine, there can never be christian union between them."

      And is this, sir, the end of all your labors to destroy authoritative creeds and confessions, and unite christians on the broad, unerring base of the bible? Must we adopt this writer's creed, an authoritative creed too? for, without it, "there can never be christian union?" Permit me, sir, to take a view of this creed, and make a few strictures on it."

      1. Men must be content with the scripture statements of the nature and character of Christ.

      2. They must realize the fact that he was worshipped as God by inspired apostles and christians.

      3. That the apostles and christians for worshipping Christ as God, suffered death.

      4. That their worshipping him as God was the first cause of their persecution.

      5. That believing these things would end all controversy, and produce union of sentiment.

      6. That, without the agreement that Christ is really an object of worship, and is of course divine, there can never be christian union. Article 1. Men must be content with the scriptural statements of the nature and character of Christ. With this I agree; but your writer has, in the following articles, fixed the doctrine of his nature and character, as being God and divine; and this in the supreme sense; for, on the same page, he says, "the worship of Christ always supposes and includes his godhead, in which the eternal, original, and essential dignity of his person consists." He also informs us on the same page, that this divine person, this person of eternal, original, and essential dignity, called the Logos, was made flesh, or conceived in the Virgin Mary, and therefore called the Son of God, by which name he was never called, till born of Mary. Now, sir, who can subscribe this article? Unitarians of every class reject it. Trinitarians will never receive it, for they never will admit the soul revolting, the heart chilling idea of the God supreme being conceived and born of a woman. Can men, thinking men, with the bible in their hands, be content with your writer's statement of "the nature and character of Christ?" Impossible! "It is presuming to go further in the discovery of God than he has revealed himself."

      Art. 2. They must realize the fact that be (Christ) was worshipped as God by inspired apostles and christians. This, though stated as a fact, we think, needs proof; and until this can be brought from the bible, we humbly deny it as a fact. We admit that he was worshipped by inspired apostles and christians, not as the only true God, but as the Son of the only true and living God.--Him, who was obedient to the death of the cross, has God highly exalted, and given a name above every name, that every knee should bow, of things in heaven, in earth, and under the earth, and every tongue confess him Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Phil. ii. 6. Here is an object of worship, and one, too, worshipped not only by inspired apostles and christians, but also by all in heaven. Can any one believe that this was the only true and living God? I think not. Again, in Rev. i. 5. 6. To him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and has made us kings and priests to God, and his Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen. Here Christ is evidently an object of worship; and it is equally evident that this object is not the only true God. Again in, Rev. v. 9. And they sang a new song, saying, You are worthy to take the book and loose the seals thereof, for you were slain and have redeemed us to God by your blood, out of every kindred, and tongue, and nation; and have made us to our God kings and priests. v. 12. Worthy is the Lamb that was slain, to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing. v. 12. Blessing, glory, [211] honor, and power, be to him that sits on the throne and to the Lamb, forever and ever. This worship is given by all in heaven, earth, and sea. None can doubt that the Son of God is the object as well as his Father. Were it necessary, I could produce abundantly more evidence to the same effect; but these are conclusive that Christ was worshipped, not as the only true God, but as his Son. We cannot subscribe this article.

      Art. 3. That the apostles and christians, for worshipping Christ as God, suffered death. This article is positively denied, and we believe the writer cannot produce any evidence to establish the affirmation.

      Art. 4. That their worshipping him as God, was the first cause of their persecutions. This we as positively deny. Proof is again called for. We believe it is called for in vain, for it can never be produced.

      Art. 5. That believing these things would end all controversy, and produce union of sentiment.

      This we presume not fully to deny; for if all men could believe these things, there would be thus far a union of sentiment, and on these points controversy would cease of course. But are not Calvinists and Arminians generally agreed on the main points in the articles above! and is there an end of controversy between them? Is there a union of sentiment?

      Art. 6. That without the agreement that Christ is really an object of worship, and is of course divine, there can never be christian union between them.

      That Christ is really an object of worship, and that he is divine, none of us deny. We could readily subscribe this article; but as the writer has defined them, we dare not do it. Uniformity of sentiment is yet contended for, and without it, no christian union.

      If these be your sentiments, you will need a new confession of faith, by which to receive members into your societies and communion. If this be your object, to exclude all other creeds to make way for one of your own make, I have been deceived in you. But I think you do not agree with the sentiments of your writer. I had thought, and yet think, that your object was to admit the bible only as authoritative--the only rule of faith and practice--and that the only terms of admission into the church was to believe with all the heart that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and a holy, obedient conformity to his word through life.

      It is the desire of a number of your patrons that you publish this short tract in your next number.

	Respectfully, your friend,
	AQUILA.

      THERE appears, at first sight, a much greater discrepancy between "Christian Union" and "Aquila" than there really is. In the first instance, they both disapprobate any attempt "to investigate the modus of the divine existence, or that would go farther in the discovery of God than he has revealed himself." And both agree that Presbyterians, Baptists, Calvinists, and Asians have made such attempts. And, indeed, every one of those metaphysical doctors, who have written most largely on this controversy, was wont to accuse his opponent with "too much presumption," and the want of "a reverential regard for the Great God." I think, too, that both "Aquila" and "Christian Union" are unwilling to proscribe all who have dared it.

      There is too, in the quotation which "Aquila" has made from page 120, a much greater agreement than his strictures upon it would seem to import. But one unscriptural phrase is the cause of all this controversy. Had "Christian Union" not introduced the Andover school divinity into his essay, nor this phraseology into his style--had he contented himself with the words which the Holy Spirit teaches in speaking of the Lord whom all christians worship and adore as God's only begotten Son--I say, had he been as fortunate in avoiding the language of Ashdod in this instance as he has been on other occasions he would not have been so obnoxious to the criticisms of "Aquila." And while these two christians contend that men should be content with the scriptural statements of the nature and character of Christ, they should themselves watch their pens, lest they should offend against their own principles; for we all know that it is much easier to lay down good rules than it is to walk up to them; and I think I can find in both their essays, what I dare say they may both find in my remarks, departures from the style which we all commend. I do not enter into the merits of either of those pieces; they are both before the public; and from my knowledge of both the writers, I am pretty confident their views are very similar on the topics of this letter. But appearing in the regimentals and with the dialect of foreigners, they are likely to mistake one another. That the first christians were persecuted for worshipping Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as Lord of all, and that none can be called or esteemed christians, or unite in christian worship, who do not so believe in him, and so worship him, is what I am convinced both these writers believe. I heard of a man who undesignedly killed his own brother in an engagement with the enemies of his country, in consequence of his brother having put on a red coat.

EDITOR.      

      AFTER almost all the political papers in the western country had noticed the withdrawal of these gentlemen from the Presbyterian sect, the editor of the Pittsburg Recorder, the "only religious paper in nine states and three territories," announced the fact; and, by way of comment, added the following very sensible anathema:--"It is said these ministers disown and oppose the Confession of Faith and Form of Government of the Presbyterian Church in the United States, and are acting on a disorganizing plan, tending to anarchy, and to open a way for the corruption of the church by the ingress of the most pernicious errors."

      Faithful centinel! True to yourself and to your cause! But tell me how comes it to pass, that when any one affirms that there is but one infallible rule of faith and practice, and that there is no use in adding to it a fallible one, that, in so doing, he becomes a heretic, a disorganizer, an anarchist, a demon? And how is it, tell me, sage, divine, and sagacious watchman! that when any one affirms that we ought to have a fallible and imperfect rule of faith and practice he then becomes orthodox--sound--a friend of order and good rule--a saint? Does every one who says the scriptures are of divine authority, a revelation of God, and, like their author, perfect and complete--does every such one open the way for the corruption of the church, and introduction of "the most pernicious errors?" But if your fallible rules are your wall of fire, your bulwark, and strong tower, why did they not keep such monsters as Messrs. Duncan and M'Lean from invading your dominions and [212] drawing away so many disciples after them; men who are so wicked as to say that the bible is from Heaven, and your confession from--Edinburgh; men who are so impious as to affirm, even within your sacred walls, and before your awful tribunal, that it is worse than farcical trifling to add to a perfect and infallible rule, an imperfect and fallible one; men who are so obdurate as to say that your creeds began in error, were consummated by ignorance and superstition, and terminated in discord, division, hypocrisy, and persecution. Tell me these things, or rather tell the world, that they may see how wise, and good, and just you are, in consigning to infamy and perdition those unfortunate malefactors who had resolution to think correctly, and honesty and firmness to avow their convictions. When you have done these things, be assured we will join you in holding up to public scorn and contumely the above named gentlemen and all who espouse their sentiments. Till then you will have to pardon us for viewing your efforts as exactly in the spirit, and up to the model, of the Romanists against the Protestants, or of the Jewish Sanhedrim against the first promulgers of the christian faith.

EDITOR.      

[TCB 205-212]