Volume 3. Number 9. April 3, 1826, pp. 225-233.

• Christian Morality--No. I. by Alexander Campbell, pp. 225-227.
• [Introductory Note to Letter from R. B. S.] by Alexander Campbell, p. 227.
• [Letter to the Editor] by R. B. S. (Robert B. Semple), pp. 227-228.
• Reply [Letter from R. B. S.] by Alexander Campbell, pp. 228-231.
• A Restoration of the Ancient Order of Things.--No. XII.: The Bishop's Office--No. 1. by Alexander Campbell, pp. 231-233.

      THE history of the world down from its first page till the present time represents man to be precisely such a being, in respect to moral character, as the bible describes him. In his natural, or rather preternatural character, he exhibits himself to be ignorant of God, alienated from him, filled with enmity, hatred, selfishness, ingratitude, and a false ambition. However the reflex light of christianity in civilized nations, and what is called the science of morals approbated and enforced in the social compact and forms of government of Pagan nations, have imposed restraints upon these evil principles, have offered rewards to virtue, and assigned punishments to vice, still the radical principles of human depravity exhibit themselves in the children of nature, under the best human culture; and thereby prove, that, however they may be restrained, they still exist in all the bitterness of moral corruption. Hence all the crime, misery, and wretchedness, which appear in the human family. [225]

      A mind alienated from God is alienated from man. This is a truism of greater momentum in morals, than any axiom of Newton's is in physics. Hence every scheme which has been adopted for moralizing and improving the social character of man, which has not been based upon the above truism, has failed of its object. Like the universal specifics of empyrics, or the nostrums of quacks, they have proved the disgrace of their authors, and the injury, if not the ruin, of the too credulous recipients. The christian scheme of moralizing and improving the world recommends itself to the philosopher upon his own principles; while false philosophy ascribes effects to inadequate causes, and would produce results regardless of the fitness of means, true philosophy requires adequate causes, and means suitably adapted to the ends in view.--Thus the christian scheme of moralizing and felicitating the world is based upon the actual condition of the human family, and regards every symptom and exhibition of the complex case of human vileness. But it begins at the root of the disorder. Perfect moral health can be enjoyed only in the temperature of perfect love to God, and on the food of perfect obedience to his will. A comfortable degree of this health can be enjoyed in this life only by a reconciliation of the mind to God, which necessarily produces benevolence in its manifold exhibitions towards man. The christian scheme of ameliorating society in this world, and fitting man for heaven, is based upon these leading principles:--

      1. That man is alienated from God through ignorance of him, and by his wicked works.

      2. That this ignorance, alienation, and these wicked works, must necessarily eventuate in his ruin, unless he be delivered from them.

      3. That wicked works proceeding from alienation of mind, and alienation of mind proceeding from ignorance of the moral character of God, the true and rational course of procedure in the deliverance of man from this state, commences with imparting to his mind just views of the character of God, which, when apprehended, reconcile the mind to God and necessarily produce philanthropy or benevolence to man. On these principles, which the wise men of this world on other subjects call philosophical, does the christian religion proceed.

      The rudiments of christianity, or the first lessons which it imparts, are comprehended in one sentence, viz. "God is love." This does not, in its scriptural connexions, represent him as having no other perfections, natural or moral, but that of love; but it represents him in his procedure to men, in the whole origin and process of the work of reconciliation, in the amelioration of the character and condition of men, as supereminently displaying benevolence or philanthropy.

      It is the love of men, and not of individuals, which is called "philanthropy" in the New Testament. Those systems of religion which begin and terminate in one principle, viz. that God loves only one nation or a few individuals of all nations as men, divest the christian religion of God's means of reconciling human beings to himself. On this principle it becomes equally unavailing to the few who are loved as sinners, as it does to the many who are not loved as sinners. For no means are adapted to reconcile the mind of man to God but such as exhibit his benevolence to men indiscriminately. So long as the divine benevolence is represented as without any known object, as being a secret to every human being, neither those who are embraced in it, nor those who are left out of it, can derive one ray of hope from all the preacher can say about it, until they discover something in themselves which warrants an opinion that they may be amongst the special objects of it. Hence their piety originates from a religious selfishness which enters into all their thoughts and expressions on the subject of the favor of God!

      All the terrors of the Lord cannot produce love in any creature alienated from him, else those evil spirits which kept not their first estate would long since have been reconciled to him. Nothing but the exhibition of love can destroy enmity. Hence, in the word of reconciliation, which the apostles announced, the most emphatic sentence is, "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes on him may not perish, but enjoy eternal life." They never told any congregation that God loved a world which nobody knew any thing about; that he loved a few here and there; and who was or was not one of these, nobody could tell. Such a representation of God's election, or purpose, is not worthy of the name of gospel or "good news to all people," or indeed to any people. But of this again.

      To bring man to love God and one another, is the high end of the christian religion. This is happiness. The happiness of heaven is the happiness of perfect love. The intelligent christian expects to be introduced into a society of the most refined and exalted intelligences, whose love to each other will be incapable of augmentation. Hence the standard of christian perfection is graduated by love to the brethren--and just in so far as we have progressed in the cultivation of complacent affection and benevolence, so far have we obtained a taste for the society of the saved.

      One leading design of the institution called the church, was to give its members a taste for the society of heaven; for the fact is, but very few have any taste for such a society, and for such entertainments as the intelligent and perfect christian pants after, in the upper world. Many christians talk a good deal about heaven; but from their taste, as it exhibits itself, they would like, it is true, to be in the palace of the Great King, but they would rather be in the kitchen amongst the servants, than amidst his attendants that wait upon his royal person. They think more upon being safe than upon the high enjoyments, and talk more on escaping the burning lake than on all the rational delights of pure and exalted spirits before the throne of the Almighty.

      Men have made many attempts to promote good will amongst a few--whom nature, interest, solemn pledges, climate or country had united. But these are poor substitutes for the grand scheme of consociation devised and published by the Almighty. Every tie has been broken or worn out, which men have devised as a substitute for the ties of enlightened christian affection, But what consideration can unite men in the purest affection, as the manifold cords of the christian religion?

      To the ties of nature, to all the bonds that draw the heart of man to man, christianity adds considerations infinitely more endearing. The one faith, the one hope, the one Spirit, the one Lord, open a new world of relationships. Christians are united by the highest, strongest, noblest ties that human reason knows; each of which is stronger than death, more triumphant than the grave. That we are redeemed by the same [226] blood, bought by the same Lord, purified by the same Spirit, embraced in the same love of the Father; that we are to be joint participants of the same glorious resurrection, co-heirs of the same immortality, and joint inheriters of the same triumphant kingdom: that we are to be fellow guests at the marriage supper of the Lamb, to attend the funeral of nature, and to be fellow citizens with all the pure and exalted intelligences in 'he universe in one enraptured throng forever, are considerations, if realized, which ought, one would think, to produce but one feeling towards all the household of faith, banish all discord, cover all defects, excite all sympathies, and elicit all brotherly love.

      This is that fountain, the streams of which are pure morality. That formal, stiff, forced, mechanical, and legal morality which appears detached from these principles, which grows from another root, is like the wild olive or forest grape, which, while exhibiting some of the appearances, possess not those valuable properties, on account of which, we appreciate those cultivated by man.

      We are sorry to have to remark, that there appears to be a great falling off from the morality of the Christian religion, as well as from the ancient order of things in the Christian communities. This is in a measure to be traced to the new bonds of union which have been adopted in different religious communities, and to attaching an undue importance to the little party shibboleths, which, in some societies, become at once the standard of both religion and morality. These are desultory remarks, and intended as prefatory to a series of essays on christian morality. In the course of which we are apprehensive that we shall find even amongst Christians of the present day, that the standard of christian morality is many degrees lower than the apostolic.

EDITOR.      

      THE following letter is from the pen of one of the most intelligent, pious, and worthy bishops in Virginia; whose standing in the learned world obtained for him the honorary degree of D. D. and whose piety and intelligence refused the title as a badge of popery. Believing this letter to be of importance to myself, and to the religious community at large, I here lay it before the public with my remarks in reply to the same.

ED. C. B.      

King & Queen Co. Va. Dec. 6, 1825.      

Brother Campbell,

      DEAR SIR--ACCORDING to my promise to you (and I may say to God also) I commence a letter of correspondence with you.--Your preaching among us reminded me of Apollos who displayed, as we moderns say, great talents, or, as the scripture says, "was an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures." Apollos, however, with all his eloquence and might in the scriptures, submitted to be taught the way of God more perfectly, and that too, by a mechanic and his wife. After this he helped those much who had believed through grace. May I, though inferior to Aquila, &c. attempt a reformation in principle of one, not only eloquent and mighty in the scriptures, but deeply learned in all the wisdom of the Greeks and Romans. So far as I can judge by your writings and preaching, you are substantially a Sandemanian or Haldanian. I know you differ from them in some points, but in substance you occupy their ground. Now I am not about to fall out with them as heretics of the black sort. I think they have many excellent things among them, things I would gladly see more prevalent among us. But in some respects they are far from pure Christianity. Forbearance is certainly a christian grace, strongly recommended both by precept and example, in the word of God. It is an important branch of charity, without which knowledge is nothing, and the eloquence of angels nothing more than a tinkling cymbal. Without christian forbearance, no church fellowship can be maintained; at least, so I think. The Haldanians, I am persuaded, are greatly deficient on this head. I do not say they are wholly without forbearance, but they limit its exercise to too narrow bounds. In all church decisions, say they, there must be an unanimity, all must think alike. However desirable this may be, it is impossible--men will differ in opinions honestly; hence, unless allowance be made for ignorance, for humors, and even for obstinacy, there will be little peace; or, however, peace cannot subsist long. The strong must bear the burdens of the weak, and not please themselves. I name this one case out of many in which they use too little forbearance. You will ask, are there no limits? Doubtless the same apostle who in one place says, "please all men in all things," in another says, "do I seek to please men?" The essence of the gospel must be maintained at the expense of even life itself, and to do this more effectually, we must use forbearance in minor things. Gentleness of spirit becomes a servant of the Lord, and especially towards those who oppose truth as being the most likely to bring them to repentance. But among the Haldanians (judging from writings) a gentle spirit is rarely to be found. Harsh and bitter sarcasms are the weapons with which they fight their opponents. This too I am the more disposed to think applies to them as a sect, because I have known some of their party who have appeared, in private conversation, to be mild and gentle indeed, and every way pleasant; but when brought out in writing or public speaking, seemed to have another kind of temper. If you will bear with me, I will suggest that this seems to be the case with the editor of the Christian Baptist. As a man, in private circles, mild, pleasant, and affectionate; as a writer, rigid and satirical, beyond all the bounds of scripture allowance. I have taken the Christian Baptist now from its beginning, i. e. I have read them from their first publication, and my opinion has been uniformly the same.--That, although sensible and edited with ability, it has been deficient in a very important point, a New Testament spirit. It will not do to say there are hard sayings to be found in the scriptures. True; but that is far from being the general tenor of them. These hard expressions are to be found only at the end of long forbearance, and then they are not contrary to the spirit of Christianity. This, may I say, is the most serious objection to the Debate on Baptism. The book exhibits baptism in a most lucid point, sufficient, I should think, to convince every Paido-baptist that may ever read it. But the bitterness of the expression universally blinds their minds with resentment so as to stop up the entrance to truth. You will say it was but a retort to more bitter things from the other side. I answer, truth requires no such defence. Hence the persecutions of every age have been on the side of error. But truth, holy truth, with God on its aide, requires no such support. 'Tis a tender plant that dwindles under such rough culture. So much for forbearance, gentleness, &c. Your opinions on some other points are, I think, dangerous, [227] unless you are misunderstood, such as casting off the Old Testament, exploding experimental religion in its common acceptation, denying the existence of gifts in the present day, commonly believed to exist among all spiritual Christians, such as preaching, &c. Some other of your opinions, though true, are pushed to extremes, such as those upon the use of creeds, confessions, &c. &c. Your views of ministerial support, directed against abuses on that head, would be useful: but levelled against all support to ministers (unless by way of alms) is so palpably contrary to scripture and common justice, that I persuade myself that there must be some misunderstanding. In short, your views are generally so contrary to those of the Baptists in general, that if a party was to go fully into the practice of your principles, I should say a new sect had sprung up, radically different from the baptists as they now are. But I have almost gotten through my paper with finding fault, an article too, that I have not heretofore dealt much in. Shall I close by telling you that we all feel much interest in your welfare personally, that your mild and sociable manners, &c. procured among us not respect only, but brotherly love and Christian affection, and that much of your preaching was admired for its eloquence and excellency, and that if you would dwell upon these great points chiefly, such as faith, hope, charity, &c. you would chiefly, viewed by us as having a special command from Him whom we hope you love, to feed his lambs and his sheep. By way of apology for you, and a small compliment to our folks, I was really struck while you were among us, that the acrimonious treatment that you had received from others had pushed you to certain severities and singularities, which, if you dwelt among us, you would relinquish. This letter is designed as a private correspondence, but if any good should arise from its publication, I should have no objection, provided it came out wholly.

	Yours affectionately,
	R. B. S.

      P. S.--I was writing this, from first to last, two or three weeks. I yesterday got your December C. B. with which I am much pleased.

      VERY DEAR SIR:--BEING very sensible that sundry items in your letter are matters of general importance, and of general interest, after due deliberation on its contents, I considered it my duty to lay it before the public. And had it not been that you wished, in case of its publication, that it should wholly appear, I would have suppressed certain complimentary expressions, which, however kind the motives which dictated them, are more flattering on your part, than deserving on mine. The benevolent Christian spirit which appears in every sentence, while it explains and seasons your commendations, gives weight and emphasis to your censures. The latter, however, are those to which I am most concerned, and in which most will agree in opinion with you. To myself, indeed, they are the more acceptable; having long since learned that the rebukes of a friend are faithful, while the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.

      I have no design to plead not guilty to the whole of your corrections, nor to say that I do not need some of your reproofs and admonitions; but I have some explanations to offer, and misunderstandings to correct, which, I believe, will be as acceptable to you, as they are necessary for the sake of others.

      To pay due regard to the sundry items in your letter, I shall follow the order in which they appear; and, in the first place, you say, "So far as can judge by your writings and preaching, you are substantially a Sandemanian, or Haldanian." This is substantially affirmed of me by many who have never seen nor read one volume of the writings of Sandeman or Haldane: and with the majority it has great weight, who attach to these names something as heretical and damnable as the tenets of Cerinthus and the Nicolaitans. I have not myself ever read all the works of those men, but I have read more of them than I approve, and more of them than they who impute to me their opinions, as heresy. I was some fourteen years ago a great admirer of the works of John Newton, I read them with great delight, and I still love the author and admire many of his sentiments. He was not a staunch Episcopalian, though he died in that connexion. In an apology to a friend for his departure from the tenets of that sect in some instances, he said, "Whenever he found a pretty feather in any bird, he endeavored to attach it to his own plumage, and although he had become a very speckled bird, so much so that no one of any one species would altogether own him as belonging to them, he flattered himself that he was the prettiest bird among them." From that day to the present I have been looking for pretty feathers, and I have become more speckled than Newton of Olney; but whether I have as good a taste in the selection, must be decided by connoisseurs in ornithology.

      Concerning Sandeman and Haldane, how they can be associated under one species, is to me a matter of surprise. The former a Paido-Baptist, the latter a Baptist; the former as keen, as sharp, as censorious, as acrimonious as Juvenal; the latter as mild, as charitable, as condescending as any man this age has produced. As authors I know them well. The one is like the mountain-storm that roars among the cliffs; the other like the balmy zephyrs that breathe upon banks of violets. That their views were the same on some points, is as true as that Luther, Calvin, and Wesley agreed in many points.

      I was once much puzzled on the subject of Harvey's Dialogues, I mean his Theron and Aspasio. I appropriated one winter season for examining this subject. I assembled all the leading writers of that day on these subjects. I laid before me Robert Sandeman, Harvey, Marshall, Bellamy, Glass, Cudworth, and others of minor fame in this controversy. I not only read, but studied and wrote off in miniature their respective views. I had Paul and Peter, James and John, on the same table: I took nothing upon trust. I did not care for the authority, reputation, or standing of one of the systems a grain of sand. I never weighed the consequences of embracing any one of the systems as affecting my standing or reputation in the world. Truth (not who says so) was my sole object. I found much entertainment in the investigation. And I will not blush, nor do I fear to say, that, in this controversy, Sandeman was like a giant among dwarfs. He was like Sampson with the gates and posts of Gaza on his shoulders. I was the most prejudiced against him, and the most in favor of Harvey, when I commenced this course of reading. Yet I now believe that not one of them was exactly on the track of the apostles. I have also read Fuller's Strictures on Sandemanianism, which I suppose to be the medium of most of the information possessed on that subject in this country This is the poorest performance Andrew Fuller ever gave to the world [228] I have not read it for a long time: it is on the shelves of my library, but I will not at this time brush the dust off it. If I remember right, he concedes every thing in the first two or three pages, which he censures in the rest of his work, except it be the spirit of the system. And the fact is (which, indeed, he indirectly acknowledges) that Andrew Fuller was indebted more to John Glass and Robert Sandeman, than to any two men in Britain, for the best part of his views--I will not here pause to inquire whether he wrote those strictures to save himself from the obloquy of being called a Sandemanian, as some conjecture, or whether he wrote them to give a blow to Archibald M'Lean, of Edinburgh, who had driven him from the arena some years before: but I will say it is a very poor production, and proves nothing that either Robert Sandeman or Archibald M'Lean felt any concern in opposing.

      But, my dear sir, while I am pretty well acquainted with all this controversy, since John Glass was excommunicated by the high church of Scotland, for preaching that Christ's kingdom is not of this world, which is now more than a century ago; and while I acknowledge myself a debtor to Glass, Sandeman, Harvey, Cudworth, Fuller, and M'Lean; as much as to Luther, Calvin, and John Wesley; I candidly and unequivocally avow, that I do not believe that any one of them had clear and consistent views of the Christian religion as a whole. Some of them, no doubt, had clear and correct views of some of its truths, nay, of many of them, but they were impeded in their inquiries by a false philosophy and metaphysics, which fettered their own understanding in some of the plainest things. For instance, with the exception of Fuller and M'Lean, they all contended for the popish rite of baby baptism or sprinkling. As to James Haldane, I am less indebted to him than to most of the others. I was much prejudiced against his views and proceedings when in Scotland, owing to my connexion with those who were engaged in a controversy with his brother Robert, and against the system in general. I have, since my arrival in this country, read some two or three pieces from his pen:--one in favor of infant baptism, and one against it, and some others I do not recollect. I have heard a great deal of him and his brother Robert, from members of their connexion, who have emigrated to this country; and while I do not believe that there lives upon the earth a more godly, pious, primitive, christian, than James Haldane of Edinburgh; and few, if any, more generally intelligent in the christian scripture, you express my views of that system generally. Being possessed of a very large estate, and connected by marriage with some of the most illustrious families of North Britain; these two brothers, especially the elder, had much in their power. From the best information I have gathered, Robert Haldane has expended something like four hundred thousand dollars, in what he deemed to be the cause of the Redeemer; and, no doubt, will have his reward. He now sees, and acknowledges, that much of this money, though benevolently appropriated, was misapplied--He had, at one time, a great notion for training poor and pious young men for "the gospel ministry," and I think, in a few years he had some fifty or sixty educated, boarded, and equipped for the Field, at his own expense. Many of those, without the spirit of their master, became just such spirited men as you describe. Some of them, too, excellent men, caught the spirit of Robert Sandeman, and became fierce as lions in the garb of lambs, Hyper-Calvinists, Separatists, with whom "tenth or ten thousandth broke the chain alike." No matter if an agreement existed in nine hundred and ninety-nine opinions, if in the thousandth there was a difference, the chain was severed, and they were to one another as heathen men and publicans.

      While I thus acknowledge myself a debtor to those persons, I must say, that the debt, in most instances, is a very small one. I am indebted, upon the whole, as much to their errors as to their virtues, for these have been to me as beacons to the mariner, who might otherwise have run upon the rocks and shoals. And, although it is a catachresis to say, that a sailor is indebted to those who have fallen upon rocks, on which he might have been wrecked, had not others before him been unfortunate in this way; yet, I must acknowledge, that the largest amount of my debts is of this kind, though, in some instances, I have been edified and instructed by their labors.

      For the last ten years I have not looked into the works of any of these men; and have lost the taste which I once had for controversial reading of this sort. And during this period my inquiries into the christian religion have been almost exclusively confined to the holy scriptures. And I can assure you that the scriptures, when made their own interpreter, and accompanied with earnest desires to the author of these writings, have become, to me, a book entirely new, and unlike what they were when read and consulted as a book of reference--I call no man master upon the earth; and although my own father has been a diligent student, and teacher of the christian religion since his youth; and, in my opinion, understands this book as well as any person with whom I am acquainted, yet there is no man with whom I have debated more, and reasoned more, on all subjects of this kind, than he--I have been so long disciplined in the school of free inquiry, that, if I know my own mind, there is not a man upon the earth whose authority can influence me, any farther than he comes with the authority of evidence, reason, and truth. To arrive at this state of mind is the result of many experiments and efforts; and to me has been arduous beyond expression. I have endeavored to read the scriptures as though no one had read them before me; and I am as much on my guard against reading them to-day, through the medium of my own views yesterday, or a week ago, as I am against being influenced by any foreign name, authority, or system, whatever.

      You say that "those people have many excellent things among them--things you would gladly see among us." So say I. You think "they are very detective in forbearance." This may be still true for any thing I know; but one thing I do know, that several congregations in this connexion are far more "forbearing" than the Baptists in Virginia; for several of them receive unbaptized persons to the Lord's table, on the ground of forbearance. The congregation to Edinburgh in connexion with James Haldane, and that in Tubermore in connexion with Alexander Carson, two of the most prominent congregations in the connexion, do actually dispense with baptism on the ground of "forbearance." I believe there are some others who carry "forbearance" thus far. These people have been much slandered at home and abroad by an interested priesthood, and I do know that many things reported of them in this country are false. [229] They say that when a Paido-Baptist gives evidence that he is a christian and cannot be convinced that infant baptism is a human tradition, he ought to be received into a christian congregation as a brother, if he desires it, irrespective of this weakness. They were once more tenacious of their peculiar views than at present.

      But on the subject of forbearance I have to remark that there is no greater misapplication of a word in our language that I know of, than of this one. In strict propriety it does not apply at all to the subject in relation to which it is commonly used. No man can be said to forbear with another, except in such cases as he has done him an injury. Now when Christians differ in opinion upon any subject, unless it can be made appear that the opinion of A. is injurious to B. the latter cannot forbear with the former. There is no room nor occasion for forbearance; for B. is not injured by the opinion of A. To say that Christians must exercise forbearance with one another because of difference of opinion, is admitting that they have a right to consider themselves injured, or that one christian has a right to consider himself injured because another differs in opinion from him. It is precisely the same mistake which is committed by those who ask the civil authorities to tolerate all or any religious opinions. The mere asking for toleration recognizes a right which no civil government possesses, and establishes a principle of calamitous consequences, viz. that opinions contrary to the majority, or the national creed, are a public injury, which it is in the power of government to punish or tolerate, according to their intelligence and forbearance. Civil rulers have no right to tolerate or punish men on account of their opinions in matters of religion. Neither have Christians a right to condemn their brethren for differences of opinion, nor even to talk of forbearing with one another in matters of opinion. The scriptures speak of the forbearance of God, and teach that Christians in certain cases should forbear with one another in cases of injury sustained; but never, that I can see, on account of matters of opinion. A person might as well be said to forbear with his natural brother because he was only ten years old, or five feet high, or because he had grey eyes; as to forbear with his christian brother because he differed from him in some opinions. I know that we all use the term forbearance in a very unwarrantable sense, and that it is difficult to find a term every way appropriate to communicate correct ideas on this subject. To bear with, or allow a brother to exercise his own judgment, is no doubt all that you intend by the term, and this is certainly inculcated in the apostolic writings. And I am willing to carry this principle to its greatest possible extent; though, as you say, there is and must be a stopping place. So long as any man, woman, or child, declares his confidence in Jesus of Nazareth as God's own Son, that he was delivered for our offences, and raised again for our justification; or, in other words, that Jesus is the Messiah, the Saviour of men; and so long as he exhibits a willingness to obey him in all things according to his knowledge, so long will I receive him as a christian brother and treat him as such.

      What you say of the "Christian Baptist," as being deficient in one important point, "a New Testament spirit," next merits my attention. This may be true; and I am thankful to you for your kind remarks upon this topic. One thing, however, I can say, that I am conscious of the most benevolent intentions and kind feelings towards the persons of those very men on whose conduct and measures I have animadverted with the most apparent severity. But I will not say that what I have written exhibits this spirit to the best advantage. I can, I acknowledge, with the utmost good nature and benevolence, say and write many things that may appear, and that to strangers do appear, to be dictated by a very different spirit. I know that what you say of the general spirit of the New Testament is true; but there is one thing on which I have thought a good deal, which I think escapes the observation of many, viz. that if the apostles were on earth now, and were to write upon the present state of things in Christendom, their writings would appear to be very different in spirit from those which they wrote when first declaring God's philanthropy in the gift of his Son. They then spoke and wrote in the full spirit of this benevolence. But when a defection began to appear, and apostacy began to shew its face, the apostle began to "change his voice," and to exhort others to carry on a good warfare against those seducing spirits, and to reprove, rebuke, and that with sharpness too. Judging from what they said when false teachers began to appear, both of them and to others concerning them, I am of the opinion that the same spirit of benevolence which appears in their public annunciation of the gospel, would lead them now to speak in a style similar to that in which the epistle of Jude and the second epistle of Peter was written. These things I do not advance as an excuse for myself in all respects, for I know that few will apprehend that the "Christian Baptist" is written in the spirit in which I am conscious it is. But I think that the New Testament spirit is a spirit of meekness, of mildness, of benevolence, and of decided hostility to all and every corruption of the gospel. The physician is not less benevolent when, as a surgeon, he amputates a limb, than when he administers an anodyne.--Yet there would be a manifest difference in his spirit and temper in the judgment of a spectator who did not enter into his views and motives in these two actions. There is one fact which will not be out of place to state here. It is this:--There are many topics which would lead to the exhibition of what would appear in the fullest sense, and in your own sense of the words, "a New Testament Spirit," which I would have gladly introduced into this work; but owing to its circumscribed dimensions and the force of opposition, I have had to withhold or to cause them to yield to those topics which are the least conducive to what, in the estimation of the majority, is the spirit you would wish to see more strikingly exhibited. Hence so much of one species of composition gives a general character, both to the matter and manner of the work. So much for a "New Testament spirit." I will conclude this item by observing that I hope to profit from your remarks on this subject.

      On my "casting off the Old Testament, and exploding experimental religion, in its common acceptation; denying the existence of gifts in the present day, commonly believed to exist among all spiritual Christians, such as preaching," which you think "are dangerous," unless I am misunderstood, I have not room to say much at present. On the subject of "experimental religion" some remarks will appear in the next number under another head; and with reference to "casting off the Old Testament," I will just observe that I know not of one sentence in the Christian Baptist that holds out such [230] an idea. As to divine authority, I have at all times viewed it and represented it as equal to the New. But that christians are not under it, but under the New, I have contended, and must still contend. And as to the present existence of "spiritual gifts" in the church, in the New Testament sense of these words, I do not believe that any such exist. But if you mean to call preaching, teaching, praying, praising, exhorting, and ruling, spiritual gifts, I do believe that such gifts do exist, and that there is sufficient room for a very liberal exhibition of them in the present day. I have thought that my essays on the work and office of the Holy Spirit had sufficiently exhibited my views on this subject, so as to preclude misapprehension. Any objections, candid or uncandid, against the views exhibited in these essays, I will minutely consider whenever presented to me in an intelligible form.

      But I hasten to your remark on ministerial support. You say--"Your views of ministerial support, directed against abuses on that head, would be useful; but levelled against all support to ministers, (unless by way of alms,) is so palpably contrary to scripture and common justice, that I persuade myself that there must be some misunderstanding." Now, my dear sir, the words "ministerial support" are so vague and so latitudinarian, that I do not believe that I could be understood by any person who uses them in the common acceptation, if I speak in the style of the New Testament. On this subject I have said but little, except by way of allusion to existing customs, and have generally condemned, and must condemn the popular course. I have said something on the word minister, which I believe to be of importance in this question. But I have not arrived in my course of essays on "the Restoration" to that place which would lead me to exhibit what I deem the views of the New Testament on the bishop's office, call, ordination, and support. That any man is to be paid at all for preaching, i. e. making sermons and pronouncing them; or that any man is to be hired for a stipulated sum to preach and pray, and expound scripture, by the day, month, or year, I believe to be a relic of popery.

      The difference between a hireling "minister" and a bishop, I will endeavor to illustrate in my next essay on the "Ancient order of Things," to which I would refer you for the present. I do know, for I inquired when in your vicinity, that you have never esteemed gain to be godliness, and that although you have labored much as a bishop and as a preacher, you have never made it, sought it, or found it to be a lucrative calling. And I am sure that you do not object to any thing you have seen in the Christian Baptist on this subject, because it either has operated, or was feared to operate, against you. In the words of the apostle, "You have not thus spoken that it should be so done to you." I say I am convinced of this, and that you speak in behalf of others, and for the sake of consistent views of the Christian religion.

      Your last observations in your table of corrections I come now to notice. It is this: "In short, your views are generally so contrary to those of the Baptists in general, that if a party was to go fully into the practice of your principles, I should say a new sect had sprung up," &c. This is neither a commendation nor a reprobation of the "Christian Baptist," until one or two questions are answered.

      In the first place, Are the Baptists generally now following in the steps of the primitive church? Are they up to the model of the New Testament? Upon the answer given to this query your last remark conveys praise or blame. If they are in the millennial state, or in the primitive state of the church, then every thing that would change their order and practice is to be reprobated and discountenanced by every christian. But if not, every well meant effort to brim them up to that state, as far as scripture an reason approbate, ought to be countenanced, aided, and abetted by every one that loves the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity.

      Again it may be asked for the sake of variety, Would not a congregation of saints, built exactly upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, and walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blamelessly, appear like a new sect arising amongst the Baptists, or any other sect in this country?

      And, in the third place, Ought not every christian who prays for the millennial state, or a restoration of the ancient order of things, to labor to promote so desirable an event by all the means in his power?

      On the view taken of these questions, and the answer given to them, depends the import and weight of your last remark. In the mean time I must come to a close, referring you on this last topic to my reply to "An Independent Baptist" in the next number, for a more luminous expose of the principle embraced in it; assuring you at the same time that I will maturely weigh and candidly attend to any remarks you may please to favor me with on any topic embraced in this reply, or on any other embraced in this work. I hope always to possess, and to be able to exhibit, the spirit and temper of a disciple of him who taught his followers to love and obey the truth, and who gave us an example in his own person, that the most exalted, glorious and happy course of life, is to do the will of our Heavenly Father.

      With sentiments of the highest respect and affection, I remain your fellow servant in the hope of immortality.

EDITOR.      

      A BISHOP without a charge or cure, is like a husband without a wife, a contradiction in sense, if not in terms. There must be sheep before there can be a shepherd, and there must be a congregation before there can be an overseer. There must be work to be done before there is occasion for a workman. From all which it is plain there must exist a congregation of disciples before there is any office, officer, call, ordination, or charge concerning them. A bishop without a congregation, a president without a people, a teacher without pupils, is like an eye without a head, a tongue without a mouth, a hand without a body. From these incontestable dictates of common sense, if there were not a hint in the Oracles of Heaven upon the subject, it would appear that the existence of bishops or overseers was, in the order of nature, in the order of reason, in the order of God, posterior to the existence of churches or congregations. But the apostolic writings are as plain as the dictates of common sense upon this subject. They teach us that the office of bishops was the last thing instituted, or, in other words that the apostles and evangelists, had fulfilled their commission, i. e. had proclaimed the gospel, made disciples, baptized them, convened them, and taught them [231] the Christian doctrine, before they suggested to them the necessity, utility, and importance of the office of a bishop. Thus we find the apostles in their subsequent or last visits to the congregations which they had planted, instituting, appointing, and giving directions concerning the bishop's office.

      From these premises it must follow that, as the enlisting of soldiers is previous to their training; the making of disciples, to teaching them; the gathering of congregations, to setting them in order; necessarily the bishop's work is different from that of a missionary, a preacher, an evangelist, in the New Testament import of these terms. That the work of a bishop is different from every other work requisite to forming a congregation is self-evident from one fact, viz: That this work or office did not originate until congregations existed.

      How congregations first came into existence, is one question; how they are to be brought into existence now, is another question; and what is a Christian bishop, or his work, is a question essentially distinct from both. To arrive at clear and distinct views on any subject, we must simplify, not confound; we must take one topic at a time; we must view it in all its bearings, and still keep it separate and distinct from every other.

      We are now on the bishop's office, as presented to us in the primitive congregations, and not the question how these congregations were gathered then, nor how congregations are to be gathered now. On these questions we have dropped some hints already, and may hereafter be more diffuse. We begin with a congregation such as that in Antioch, or that in Ephesus. The apostles and evangelists had converted, baptized, and convened the disciples in those places, had opened to their minds the Christian doctrine. In process of time they had so far progressed in this doctrine, as to be able to edify one another; some, as in all societies, progressed faster and farther than others. Some were better qualified to preside, to rule, and to teach, than others; and the constitution of man as an individual, and of men in society, is such as to require, for the sake of intelligence, order, peace, harmony, and general good, that there be persons set apart or appointed to certain functions, which are necessary to the good of the whole associate body. The exigencies of the congregations required this, both with regard to themselves and to others. Thus originated the bishop's office.

      The nature of the bishop's office may be learnt either from the exigencies of the congregations, or from the qualifications by which the apostles have designated bishops. The qualifications which the bishop must possess show what was expected from him. These qualifications are of two sorts, such as respect the work to be done by the bishop and, secondly, such as respect the dignity of character which his prominence in the Christian congregation behoves him to possess. The former are those which some call gifts, or talents, of the intellectual order; the latter are endowments purely moral or religious. Those with which we are at present concerned are of the intellectual order. These are comprized under two general heads, viz. teaching and presiding. He must be qualified to teach, and be able by sound teaching both to convince and exhort those who oppose the truth. He must feed the flock of God with all those provisions which their exigencies require, or with which God has furnished them in the Christian institution. He must preside well. He is from office the standing president of the congregation; and it being requisite that he should be one that presides well in his own household, plainly imports what is expected from him in the Christian congregation.

      In our ordinary meetings, according to the prevailing order in our congregations, we have no need of a president--we only desire and need an orator. Hence we have often been asked, what are we to understand by a bishop's ruling or presiding well? I have generally replied, (perhaps rather satirically,) that the ancient congregations were not so well bred as the modern; that they were apt to ask questions and propose difficulties; and some arose to address their brethren in the way of admonition and exhortation; but that we Americans were a well bred people, had studied the etiquette of gentility in our meetings; and that our bishops needed not the qualifications of a president of a family, tribe, or community, no more than the president of the United States wanted a lifeguard in these peaceful times, or a shepherd a staff to guard his sheep when wolves and dogs were extinct.

      In what are called "meetings of business," once a month, or once a quarter, there is some apprehension that a president or "moderator" may be necessary, and the first thing done is to elect or appoint one; never considering or viewing the bishop as any more president from office than any other member, a positive and explicit proof that even the idea of presiding well is not so much as attached to the bishop's office in these times, amongst the Baptists too.

      A congregation of disciples, which is modeled upon the New Testament, will find that presiding well, is just as indispensable as teaching well, and that the prohibition of novitiates, or young inexperienced disciples, from the bishop's office; is as wise a provision as any other in the Christian institution.

      The bishop of a Christian congregation will find much to do that never enters into the idea of a modern preacher or "minister." The duties he is to discharge to Christ's flock in the capacity of teacher and president, will engross much of his time and attention. Therefore the idea of remuneration for his services was attached to the office from its first institution. This is indisputably plain, not only from the positive commands delivered to the congregations, but from the hints uttered with a reference to the office itself. Why should it be so much as hinted that the bishops were not to take the oversight of the flock "for the sake of sordid gain," if no emolument or remuneration was attached to the office? The abuses of the principle have led many to oppose even the principle itself. We have said much against the hireling system, and see no ground as yet to refrain; so long as the salvation of the gospel, the conversion of the world, and heaven itself, are articles of traffic, and in the market, like other commodities, accessible to the highest bidder. The motto over the spiritual warehouses is, "The highest bidder shall be the purchaser." And we are persuaded by a hundred venal prints, that if the church had the bank of the United States, that of London, and Paris, it could, in twenty years, convert the whole world, with the exception of a few millions of reprobates. I say while such is the spirit breathed from the pulpit and from the press, there exist ten thousand good reasons for lifting up our voices like a trumpet, crying aloud, and sparing not.

      But to discriminate on this subject, and to exhibit where, and when, the hireling system [232] begins; to graphically define, bound, and limit, beyond the power of cavil, on the one hand, and abuse on the other, has appeared to be a desideratum. While on the subject we shall make one effort here, subject to future and farther amendments, as circumstances may require.

      A hireling is one who prepares himself for the office of a "preacher" or "minister," as a mechanic learns a trade, and who obtains a license from a congregation, convention, presbytery, pope, or diocesan bishop, as a preacher or minister, and agrees by the day or sermon, month or year, for a stipulated reward. This definition requires explanation. That such, however, is a hireling, requires little demonstration. He learns the art and mystery of making a sermon, or a prayer, as a man learns the art of making a boot or a shoe. He intends to make his living in whole, or in part, by making sermons and prayers, and he sets himself up to the highest bidder. He agrees for so much a sermon, or for fifty-two in the wholesale way, and for a certain sum he undertakes to furnish so many; but if a better offer is made him when his first contract is out, (and sometimes before it expires,) he will agree to accept a better price. Such a preacher or minister, by all the rules of grammar, logic, and arithmetic, is a hireling in the full sense of the word.

      But there are other hirelings not so barefaced as these, who pretend to be inwardly moved by the Holy Spirit to become ministers, and who spurn at any other qualification than the impressions and suggestions of the Holy Spirit, who are under an awful wo if they do not preach; and yet agree merely in the capacity of supplies, or preachers, to act the preacher for some small consideration. Upon the whole, I do not think we will err very much in making it a general rule, that every man who receives money for preaching the gospel, or for sermons, by the day, month, or year, is a hireling in the language of truth and soberness--whether he preaches out of his saddlebags, or from the immediate suggestions of the Holy Spirit.

      The christian bishop pleads no inward call to the work, and never sets himself to learn it. The hireling does both. The christian bishop is called by the brethren, because he has the qualifications already. The minister says he is inwardly called, and prepares himself to be called and induces others to call him. The former accepts of the office for the congregation of which he is a member, and takes the oversight of them, and receives from them such remuneration as his circumstances require; and as they are bound in duty to contribute to him, not for preaching the gospel at all, for this they have already believed, enjoyed, and professed; but for laboring among them in teaching and watching over them, in admonishing them, in presiding over them, in visiting them in all their afflictions, and in guarding them against seduction, apostacy, and every thing that militates against their growth in knowledge, faith, hope, and love, and retaining their begun confidence unshaken to the end. The latter goes about looking for a flock, and when he finds one that suits his expectations he takes the charge of it for a year or two, until he can suit himself better. The former considers himself the overseer or president of the one congregation only who called him to the office, and that when he leaves them he resigns the office and is no longer president. The latter views himself as a bishop all his life. He was one before he got his present charge, and when he abandons it he is one still. He has been called by God as Aaron was, and remains a priest for ever. The christian bishop was chosen and ordained from his outward and visible qualifications which the apostles described and required. The "minister" is licensed because of some inward impressions and call which he announces; or because he has been taught Latin, and Greek, and divinity, and because he can make a sermon, speech, or discourse, pleasing to the ears of a congregation or presbytery. Thus they differ in their origin, call, ordination, and work. Money is either the alpha or the omega, or both, in the one system. The grace of God and the edification of the body of Christ, are the alpha and omega of the other. Money makes, induces, and constitutes the one, unites him and his charge, dissolves him and his charge, and reunites him with another; again dissolves the union, and again and again originates a new union. Hence in the hireling system there is a continual tinkling of money, writing of new contracts, giving new obligations, making new subscriptions, reading of new calls, installing of old bishops, and a system of endless dunning. In the other, the love of God, the grace of Jesus Christ, who gave himself for the church, the eternal ties of christian affection, the superior blessedness of giving to receiving, of supplying our own wants, of laboring with our own hands when it would be oppressive to others, either to relieve us or others, the example of Jesus who made himself poor, are the darling topics and the constant themes. That the bishop who thus labors in the word and teaching is worthy of double honor, and justly entitled to the supply of his wants, whether of food, raiment, or money, or all. Paul himself declares, and reason itself teaches; and those christians deserve not the name, who would suffer such a bishop to be in need of any necessary good thing which they had in their power to bestow. If he wave his right to receive it, he is the more worthy; but the right exists whether he uses or waves it; whether it is or is not recognized by others. So says the christian institution, so says reason, and so say I. But of the bishop's office again.

EDITOR.      

[TCB 225-232]