Volume 4. Number 1. August 7, 1826, pp. 259-265.

• Prefatory Remarks by Alexander Campbell, pp. 259-260.
• A Restoration of the Ancient Order of Things.--No. XIV.: The Bishop's Office.--No. III. by Alexander Campbell, pp. 260-261.
• Remarks on the Communion of Churches by Alexander Campbell, pp. 261-262.
• [Query on Decrees of an Association] by Alexander Campbell, pp. 262-263.
• Acts of Incorporation by Old Virginia, p. 263.
• [Reply to "Acts of Incorporation"] by Alexander Campbell, pp. 263-264.
• Christian Morality.--No. III. by Alexander Campbell, p. 264.
• Scripture Quotations by Alexander Campbell, p. 265.

      "ON the subject of religion I am fully persuaded that nothing but the inspired scriptures ought ever to have been published. On all sciences and arts merely human, and pertaining to the things of this life, author may succeed author, and volume be added to volume, keeping pace with the expansion of human intellect and the accumulations of human experience--But what is the reason? The answer is ready. No author is perfect; and no volume absolutely complete; no science has arrived to absolute perfection; and no art has been carried to a consummation beyond which ingenuity cannot reach. Hence we conclude that authors and their works on all subjects merely human may with propriety and advantage be multiplied manifold. And because God is the author of the sacred volume, a perfect teacher of one science and of one art; that science and that art, incapable of any improvement from human intellect, requires not another author than himself, nor another volume than the bible. The great God has condescended to teach but one science and that is the science of religion, or the knowledge of himself, and of man in all his relations, as his creature. He has taught but one art, and that is the art of living well in relation to all the high ends and destinies of man. Now the bible contains this science and teaches this art in the same perfection which its author exhibits in all his works. From this I infer that no treatise on religion, that no rules of practice can be introduced, but at the expense of impeaching the character of the author of this volume. Such efforts say--in language loud and daring;--indeed their proper title is, "A new improvement on the science of religion, and the art of living well, in which this science and art are exhibited, in relation to some, if not to all the divine ends, to much better advantage than they are by God in his writings; by the public's most wise and benevolent friend--A Fellow Erring Mortal." I say this is the language, meaning, and the proper title of every such volume and its author.

      No tongue could express, no heart conceive, no power of numbers calculate the advantages which the world would this day have enjoyed had not one volume, on the science and art before mentioned, been announced to the world save the oracles of God. For such a globe as that which we inhabit there is no occasion for two suns even of divine architecture; and much less for one of human formation. As little need is there for another treatise on this subject than God's own volume.

      "Why then do you, Mr. Editor, propose and commence another volume!" I was anticipating this from the first sentence, and am prepared to answer your question. So many systems other than God's own system, and so many rules besides his, have appeared, confounding, dividing and distracting the human family, that to call men off from these appears just as necessary as when men have perverted and abused any gift of heaven, it becomes the duty of every philanthropist and faithful subject of the great King to apprize men of the consequences, and to call them off from what may prove their utter ruin. There was no occasion to denounce drunkenness before men had discovered the art of making, and a taste for using to excess, fermented liquors. But now that drunkenness has become the common or a common sin of the community, there is need for dehortations against this horrid abuse of God's bounty.

      "God made man upright; but he has sought out many inventions." To restore man to uprightness and happiness is the grand end of the whole remedial government of God. To be instrumental in introducing that state of things which God instituted, and which was once exhibited; of leading the disciples to see that they need but one bond of union, one prophet, priest and king, one bible, one book on the science of religion, and one treatise on the art of living well, is the supreme object of all our efforts.

      That such has been our design I hope has been already gathered from the preceding volumes, and we are thankful that we are not without witness that our labor has not been in vain. The sphere of usefulness allotted to this work has increased and been enlarged with every volume. The present volume is commenced with incomparably more sanguine anticipations than those which animated our first efforts. We are assured that the religious mind is marching forward with strides geometrically proportioned to its progress not many years back.

      The opposition made to our course has only stimulated our speed, and affords fresh evidence of the goodness of the cause to which we are indissolubly wedded. The pusillanimity of our opponents, the imbecility of their attacks--and the manifest management of their resources, while they exhibit the true foundation of their standing in public estimation, have confirmed our hopes, and given the assurance that not only the decline, but the overthrow of human religious establishments, and of a religion founded upon human tradition and upheld by prejudice is at hand.

      Had they never been employed in an effort to defeat our attempts, we could have known nothing of their disposition and could have argued nothing from their silence; but their exertions have [259] shown, that to will is ready with them; but how to perform they find not.

      We boast not of ourselves; but of the excellency of those principles which we have been led to espouse: and our unfeigned desire is that our opponents would either manfully, argumentatively and affectionately produce their strongest reasons; or come over and help us.

      While the press is laboring every day and pours forth upon the public eye volumes of declamation, of commendation, of eulogy upon the toys of childhood, and the trifles of old age; upon the glorious fruits of tracts, the exploits of the heroes of modern invention; while holy romances, fictitious travels and religious novels are gravely recommended by the pulpit and the press, methinks there is room and need for a few faithful advocates to plead the cause of the bible, and to argue its superiority over all human expedients to convert the world.

      The great majority of papers called religious, are as much political, commercial and facetious as they are religious. The Luminaries, Stars, Suns, Registers, Recorders, Secretaries, &c. &c. in one column tell us the way to heaven, and in the next how to engraft trees, make canals, raise revenue: and some advertise strayed or stolen horses, hogs and negroes. In the same column I lately saw the way to escape the wrath to come, and to clean black silk, separated by a single line. In another, a direction to devotion followed by a direction to find the residence of the barber. A famous conversion is, in another, followed by a broker's list of the rates of exchange. The necessity of humility and temperance is argued in one paragraph--fancy goods, gewgaws and sweetmeats announced in the next. In a word they are a heterogeneous mass of the

      "Any thing to please every body and any body for the sake of two dollars a year," is their motto. If not the letter or design, it appears to be the only appropriate motto. We might as well call Thomas Paine a christian apostle, as call anyone of them the only religious paper in seven states and three territories. Now and then, in splendid capitals, is hung up the glorious fruit of a "TRACT OF FOUR PAGES;" of the conversion of a whole neighborhood by one single prayer of a pious beneficiary fresh from some theological school; of the brilliant success of a religious beggar; and of a new batch of presidents, secretaries, managers and trustees--of what ------? I say of what?------The dictionary affords not words to designate of what.

      In this state of things I sincerely think that there is need for somebody to attempt to serve one master--to plead one cause--to contend for one system which can boast of a divine and infallible origin. And such may we be found, is the prayer of the

EDITOR.      

      IT is admitted by the Apostle Paul that a person not invested with the office of a bishop may desire the office. "If a man earnestly seeks the office of a bishop, he desires an excellent work," He then proceeds to lay down the indespensable moral and intellectual qualifications which he must possess. In doing which he plainly supposes that one may earnestly desire this work who is not eligible to it. Experience, also, a good teacher, teaches the same thing.

      But having already glanced at the moral and intellectual endowments of a bishop in a previous number, we proceed to his call and appointment to office.

      In the first place, then, the call is based upon the qualifications; without these he is not eligible; with them he is eligible. Consequently a due estimate of his endowments must be formed by somebody; and most certainly not by himself, nor by those who belong not to the flock to be instructed and presided over. By whom then? Assuredly by those amongst whom he is to labor, and over whom he is to preside. His qualifications in the intellectual department must then be viewed in relation to the capacity and attainments of the flock: for a man may be fit to teach, and to preside over one flock, who would not be qualified to teach or preside over another. The flock then in calling or electing a person to this office will turn their attention to themselves as well as to the candidate. They will consider his intellectual attainments with a reference to their own, and will conclude whether his aptitude to teach and his capacity to preside is of such a degree as will correspond to their circumstances. If so, he is apt to teach them, and eligible to preside over them. His election or call is from them and must be audibly, distinctly, and emphatically expressed. They are constituted the judges in this case. For no matter how eagerly he may desire or seek the office, he can make no pretension to it from such considerations. He cannot make himself an overseer. This the flock must do.

      On the mode or manner of expressing this call or election we have only to remark that the inspired writers use the term which the Greeks were wont to use in their elections of officers. The inference is, that in using or adopting the same term, they attached to it the current ideas; which were, that the person to be appointed should be publicly announced and that by the voice or stretched out hand of the members entitled to choose, he was to be elected. The consent of the people or their wish unequivocally expressed, was all that ever was, amongst the Jews or Greeks, deemed essential to the election or appointment of any officer. Whether the hand should be stretched forward, or elevated; whether the electors sat or stood, or whether they spoke aloud, each one separately or with one consent arose and simply answered in the affirmative, the election was always good and valid;--provided always the desire of the people was clearly and fully expressed.

      As to the act called ordination or inauguration, if ever there was such an act peculiarly so called, it consisted in the imposition of the hands of the seniors or elders of the congregation. The Apostles did express their concurrence with the people's choice by an act of this sort, and when congregations were fully set in order there was always a plurality of elders or a presbytery instituted in each congregation, who always did express their concurrence with the brethren's call by inducting the elected into office by the joint imposition of their hands. But this eldership was not a collection of elders from different congregations assembled; but those of one congregation.--The history of this institution stands thus, and would have continued thus but for the man of sin;--Every thing essential to appointment, call, or ordination was vested in the minds of the brethren. Their desires, however expressed, gave the office to the candidate, however he was announced. The apostles so taught them. They, in the first instance, took a part, not in the call or appointment; but in the introduction and inauguration of the [260] bishops elect. This was done in conformity to the Jewish custom of imposing their hands upon the head of the person or animal devoted. This being done, a plurality of bishops being thus introduced into any particular congregation, when, either the death of one of the eldership, or the increased demands of the congregation required another, the brethren called or elected and the eldership expressed their concurrence, and the brethren's desire, by a formal sign expressive of the devotion of the person to the work. I say this is all that can be legitimately gathered from the volume, as to the forms of investiture; but as to the right of the brethren so to choose, and of the bishop, on this choice to officiate, there is the most ample evidence.

      Here I would take the liberty to remark that in process of time, as corruption and defection progressed, it came to pass that what was, with the apostles, but the mere sign or mark, expressive of their concurrence with the brethren's election and appointment, came by degrees to be considered as the ordination itself, independent of the brethren's voice--Now no instance can be found in the inspired writings, where the circumstances are detailed, of the call and appointment of any brother to any office, where the call and appointment is not distinctly represented as the act of the brethren, and in no case is an ordination or appointment made without them. But their call is what, in all cases, gives the right to officiate. This is the essential thing, and the other accompaniments are the accidental properties of this thing.

      The analogy between such an appointment and that of a presiding officer in a free community is as exact as any other analogy. For example, what gives any man a right to officiate as a governor or a president in a free community--Is it not the call and appointment of the people composing the community? Whether is it the voice of the people, or the form of inauguration after the people have made the appointment, which constitutes the essential consideration in creating such officers? The application is easy.

      The Grecian and Roman republics, the commonwealth of Israel in its primitive integrity, the republics of America, and the congregations of christians in this one instance are essentially the same. In their first origin the people did every thing, both elect and ordain. No republic ever sent to another republic for their officers to come and make ordinations for them. No kingdom or monarchical empire ever sent for a foreign king or potentate to come and make a king for them. No christian congregation, in the age of primitive propriety, ever sent to another for their officers to come and ordain officers for them. The imposition of hands, when first instituted among the Jews, was practised by the laity.

      In process of time persons were set apart in every community under every form of government for the purpose of inaugurating those constitutionally made officers. It was so in the Jewish, it was so in the Grecian, the Roman and the American republics. It was so in the christian, and it will be so again.

      With the history of the world, with the pages of Jewish and christian history before me, I would contend that any congregation has a right to call, appoint, or ordain any person to any office laid down in the volume, and to do all the acts and deeds thereto appertaining, without calling to their aid the assistance of any foreign deacon, bishop or officer.

EDITOR.      

      IN looking over the Baptist confession of faith in order to find out the nature, design and authority of the annual associations of messengers, I find the following paragraph, which contains the whole law and testimony on this subject. It is not a part of the good old confession of the English churches of 1689, but it is a part of the "Treatise of Church Discipline" drawn up by Benjamin Griffith at the request of the association which met in Philadelphia, September 25, 1742, and added it is presumed, by the authority of said association, to the confession, and made an essential part of the canons of the associated churches.

      As this document contains the nature, design, and the authority of such meetings, we shall lay it before the public in full, accompanied with a few

      "AND forasmuch as it falls out many times that particular churches have to do with doubtful and difficult matters, or differences in point of doctrine or administration, like the church of Antioch of old, wherein either of the churches in general are concerned, or any one church, in their peace, union, or edification; or any member or members of a church are injured, in or by proceeding in censures not agreeable to gospel rule and order; it is according to the mind of Christ, that many churches holding communion together should meet by their messengers and delegates, to consider of, and to give advice in and about such matters in difference; and their sentiments to be reported to all the churches concerned: and such messengers and delegates, convened in the name of Christ, by the voluntary consent of the several churches in such mutual communion, may declare and determine by the mind of the Holy Ghost, revealed in the scripture, concerning things in difference; and may decree the observation of things that are true and necessary, because revealed and appointed in the scripture. And the churches will do well to receive, own and observe such determinations, on the evidence and authority of the mind of the Holy Ghost in them, as in Acts xv. 29. Yet such delegates thus assembled are not intrusted or armed with any coercive power, or any superior jurisdiction over the churches concerned so as to impose their determinations on them or their officers, under the penalty of excommunication or the like. See the Confession, chap. xxvii. sect. 14, 15. See also Dr. Owen, On the Nature of the Gospel Church, chap. xi. and Dr. Goodwin, vol. iv. book v. chap. viii. ix. x. &c., Of the Government of the Churches of Christ."

      As reference is had in this paragraph to the English part of the confession, that both the American and English views may appear in full, we shall here insert the two sections of chap. xxvii. above referred to:--

      14. "As each church and all the members of it, are bound to pray continually for the good and prosperity of all the churches of Christ, in all places, and upon all occasions to further it, every one within the bounds of their places and callings, in the exercise of their gifts and graces, so the churches, when planted by the providence of God, so as they may enjoy opportunity and advantage for it, ought to hold communion among themselves, for their peace, increase of love, and mutual edification."

      15. "Cases of difficulty or differences, either in point of doctrine or administration, wherein either the churches in general are concerned, or any one church, in their peace, union and edification; [261] or any member or members of any church are injured in or by any proceedings in censures not agreeable to truth and order; it is according to the mind of Christ, that many churches holding communion together, do by their messengers meet to consider and give their advice in or about the matter in difference, to be reported to all the churches concerned; howbeit these messengers assembled, are not intrusted with any church power properly so called; or with any jurisdiction over the churches themselves, to exercise any censures either over any churches or persons, or to impose their determination on the churches or officers."

      The grand points embraced in the sections here exhibited, are,

      1st. That cases of difficulty and difference either in point of doctrine or administration, affecting one particular congregation or others with them, may occur.

      2d. That in cases of either sort, particularly of maladministration, individual members may be injured by the censures or proceedings of the particular congregation to which they belong.

      3d. That because of such things, it is the mind of Christ that the particular congregations should, by messengers or delegates, meet to consider of such cases, and to give advice to the congregations.

      4th. These delegates in association assembled may "decree the observation of things that are necessary, because revealed and appointed in the scripture. And the churches will do well to receive, own and observe such determinations, on the evidence and authority of the mind of the Holy Spirit in them."

      5th. That these messengers when assembled have no power to oblige the congregations or individuals to take their advice, by inflicting any penalty whatever. They are neither to "impose their determinations on the congregations nor their officers under the penalty of excommunication or the like."

      Such are the prominent items in the preceding extracts, and they contain the whole law and testimony on this subject.

      Now there are some things here on which I want more light; and first on the subject of these delegates. Are they the representatives of the churches? If so, what do they represent? Do they represent the wish, desire, conscience and interest of those at home? I can see how a person may be my representative in the national councils, in matters and things pertaining to this life; but I cannot see how any person can be my representative in any thing belonging to my conscience, in the things pertaining to the kingdom of Jesus Christ. If viewed simply as delegates, what is delegated to them? Is any thing pertaining to the doctrine, worship, or discipline of the congregation which sends them? If so, what is it, or what may it be? If not the doctrine, worship, or discipline of the church, what is delegated to them? As messengers going to a general meeting to carry intelligence to that meeting, and to bear home intelligence from it, I can understand the nature and utility of their mission; but I do not understand them when viewed in the light of delegates or representatives. I will thank any person to afford me some information on this subject.

      In the next place I am at a loss to understand how it comes to pass that these delegates may decree things that are necessary, and yet the congregations be absolved from regarding these decrees any more than the advice of an infant which may betaken or rejected with perfect impunity. And how it may be well for the congregation to take the advice of the council, and yet they cannot and must not be censured for not taking it! On this subject I earnestly solicit information.

      Again, I cannot see how these associations can have the authority of Christ so to decree or advise, and that congregation be guiltless who refuses or rejects their decrees. For I can find no parallel case where the Great King authorizes any agents to act for him, and yet holds those guiltless who disobey his own institution.

      There is another difficulty here. The English and American Baptists in times past have quoted Acts xv in support of their meetings and of their authority so to decree. Yet they will not allow that their decisions are to be received as the decisions of the "association that met in Jerusalem." They do not consider their decision as the decisions of the Holy Spirit, and cannot even say that they are infallibly according to the decisions of that Spirit, and therefore they very prudently say their people may receive or reject their decisions, as they deem them agreeable or otherwise to the Divine Word, of which they are supposed to judge with the same authority at home, as their delegates do abroad or in council assembled.

      But that difficulty which is to me the greatest and most incomprehensible is this. Seeing that the associated Baptists do view associations in the light before given, and withhold all authority from the decisions of their delegates; seeing they deny that associations have any right "to impose their determinations on the congregations or other officers under the penalty of excommunication OR THE LIKE;" how in the name of all consistency, do they sometimes excommunicate congregations, or churches, and cast them out of the association, as the penalty for refusing to take their advice or receive their decrees. This is the most inexplicable thing of the whole, and I do earnestly solicit light on this subject, if it should be refused on every other.

      As the time of associations for the year 1826 is fast approaching, it seemed good to me to propose paid more attention to such things than I have those embarrassments to such brethren as have. For on reading the Confession of Faith and the Treatise on Discipline thereto affixed by Benjamin Griffith at the request of the Philadelphia association, I thought that all jurisdiction and authority over churches was disclaimed, and that no penalty was attached to any refusal on the part of any congregation to conform to the decisions of their delegates in council assembled.

      The power of an association is declared in fact to be inferior to the power of a single congregation. The association is not even co-ordinate with, but subordinate to, a single congregation. Except as a meeting for mutual intelligence, exhortation, and comfort, they have nothing to do which cannot be undone by a single congregation. If then they attempt to imitate the ecclesiastic courts of other denominations, they become more awkward than the ass covered with the skin of the lion. They appear like a lion, but bray like an ass. At least such is the construction, and the only construction I can put upon the words quoted until better informed, till which time I must think and speak as I do.

EDITOR.      

      AN association once on a time advised a church to put away its teacher. The congregation at home examined the advice of the association, and on comparing it with the decisions of the Holy Spirit, as they understood them, refused to take the advice of the delegates assembled; for which [262] cause they were excommunicated from the communion of the association for their contumacy. Now the question is, Did this association act according to the law and testimony contained in the little book? and if they did, where then is the difference between the decrees of an association and those of a college of cardinals, or a bench of English prelates This query is respectfully submitted.

EDITOR.      

      MR. EDITOR--ARE we to consider congregations of christians acting conformably to either the letter or spirit of the religion which they profess, when they solicit acts of incorporation from the civil authority; and having obtained them, proceed to exercise the new powers with which they are invested? As you say so much, and propose to say more on the subject of christian morality, would you oblige a few of your Virginia friends with a few remarks in reply to the above query?

OLD VIRGINIA.      

      LET me answer one query by proposing another. Why do christian congregations solicit such acts of incorporation? The chief and substantial reason is, that they may be able to compel, by the arm of flesh, those who do not willingly contribute to the "Lord's treasury." The naked truth is this; an unincorporated congregation is no party in law: consequently the trustees thereof are like their creators, not recognized in law. They cannot raise or collect funds from those who promise, and afterwards repent, by any legal process. But when incorporated or invested with such privileges as make them a party, they can levy, distrain; in a word, they can compel every man to pay whatever he once promised; they can receive legacies: they can raise, and husband, and appropriate funds, as any other company, for building roads, canals, or bridges.

      Acts of incorporation are therefore solicited and obtained for the self-same reasons which induce canal, road, and bridge builders to solicit them. They are of the same use and advantage to both. When, then, a christian congregation solicits from the state legislature an act of incorporation, in plain English it says, "Give us the right to compel by all the civil pains and penalties which are allowed to all corporate bodies of this world, such as fail in making good their promises. We say, give us the power to compel them, against their own inclination, to contribute the sums which they once promised. For we have found all other means, all arguments and inducements drawn from the christian religion, unavailing. We do not like such christians, it is true; but we want their money. They once subscribed, and they ought to pay; but they will not be induced by any other argument than those eloquent appeals, which the constable or sheriff can make to their feelings. Grant us then, O ye powers that be! the right of compulsion--that glorious right, by which we can move the widow's soul and the orphans guardian to do what is right in its own nature and profitable for us to enjoy; and we will, as in duty bound, ever pray that you may share liberally in our tender mercies. If any one has a bequest to make us, we cannot receive it. Many a well disposed old maid, and childless old bachelor would, in their last moments, will and bequeath to us the remnants of their fortune; but we have no power to receive it or to retain it against the legal heirs. Grant us then, we humbly beseech you, the right of receiving and retaining such legacies, if the natural or legitimate heirs should mourn all their days in sorrow for it. Make our plea stronger than their plea, and we shall doubly pray." I say, this is in plain English the spirit, and meaning, and language of all such solicitations. Whether, then, such requests are compatible with the christian spirit, I leave you to judge. I make no comment, as the text is plain enough already.

      This is the best substitute for a religious establishment in this country, and in a certain degree has answered all the purposes. I do not here inquire into the policy of granting such petitions; I do not inquire into the constitutional right which any assembly has to grant such favors. But I am willing to shew by many arguments, (if this is not satisfactory,) that in asking for such immunities, every grand principle of christianity is lost sight of, all dependence upon Jesus Christ is renounced, all faith in his promises and all regard to christian character is abandoned.

      Many preachers and ministers of such congregations contend that they have a right to live on the gospel. For the sake of argument let it be admitted. Let us then suppose a case which has within our own knowledge actually occurred. A clergyman preaches the gospel; he has an incorporated congregation. Forty-five dollars of one year's subscription were collected by the arm of flesh. The money was brought by the trustees to the priest. His bread and his meat for a certain time were purchased with it. He and his family eat it. Now the question is, When he eats this bread and meat, whether does he live on the law or on the gospel? Whether does he eat the free-will offering of devotion, or the exacted tribute of sordid poverty, or the constrained oblation of covenant breakers? Can he return thanks to Heaven for his food, as the bounty of God, or must he thank the "the powers that be" for it? An infant becomes an Aristotle here. The case is a plain one. And many such there are, who "preach the gospel" and live upon the law.

      Every attempt to hold in subjection either the conscience or the purse of any people by legal restraints on religious grounds ultimates in an inquisition: and if it stop short of fire and sword it is owing to the mildness of the people, and not to the spirit of the system.

      We have no doubt but many unsuspicious souls. without evil motives or designs enter into such measures; but still the thing itself is a great evil and has already in some instances, and may yet in many more, become a source of sorrow and of suffering to those who have been caught unawares in an evil net.

      That we are not singular in this view of the tendency of those measures, the following extracts from a correspondent in Amelia county, Va. will shew:--

      "At a meeting of the Presbyterians some time since, not far from this place, among other things it was proposed to petition the next session of the Virginia legislature for a charter of incorporation; but the motion was opposed by some upon the ground that it would not go down well with the people yet. It was consequently postponed to a more convenient season, while they in the mean time intend to use their best endeavors to prepare the minds of the people for this measure. This, dear sir, is regarded by us as a bold stride towards an establishment. We would like to hear you upon this important point."--

      "By demonstrating to an enlightened public that religious incorporation is the foster mother of establishments; that death-like inquisition is her legitimate offspring; imprisonment her only process; the stake her only tribunal: and death [263] the only anodyne of her opponents; the evil day may be delayed in its coming; nay, the impending danger may be entirely averted. If so, happy for us who oppose the measure! thrice happy for those who urge its rejection! happy for all our fellow-citizens!"

      MY text will be found in the Baptist Recorder, vol. 1. No. 13. It reads thus: "In our next number we shall give his criticism in full (that is on the two positions which appeared in the 10th No. of the Recorder. See C. B. Volume third) that our readers, whom brother C. represents as persons with whom sound is infinitely more important than sense, may judge for themselves." Now, courteous reader, you see the Recorder represents me as having stigmatized its readers as persons "with whom sound is infinitely more important than sense." Let us turn over to Volume third. Here we find these words: "Great efforts are made to enlist the feelings and prejudices of those with whom sound is infinitely more important than sense, against my endeavors," &c. These words the genius of controversy converts into a direct and formal imputation of one particular class of readers. Let us now for example take a parallel case. Suppose that the National Intelligencer, had said of the efforts of the United States Gazette that great efforts were made to enlist the feelings and prejudices of those who are tories against the present administration; would it be a truth or a falsehood to say that the National Intelligencer had represented the readers of the United States Gazette as tories? To what should we attribute such a misrepresentation? Should we call it an error of the head, or of the heart? If of the head, should we attempt to reason with a person of such intellectual powers? If of the heart, could we suppose it to be under the influence of the Holy Spirit? From an intellectual or moral defect such perversions and misrepresentations must proceed. The above is the only notice which the editors of the Recorder have yet taken of my remarks on experimental religion. The 11th and 12th Nos. which have been issued since our first notice of them was written, have not been received; but it appears from the 13th that they have not in these Nos. published any thing upon the subject. I do hope these gentlemen will make reparation for the injury they have done me in the apprehension of their readers. It was for their benefit I wished my remarks inserted in the Recorder, consequently could not suppose them persons of this stamp; but if my remarks are to be thus perverted, and if I must be brought before them in such disadvantageous circumstances, I could not wish to appear before them. They might as truly tell their readers that I had represented them as men-stealers or homicides, for if my saying that some persons are of such character, implies that I represent all the world of this character, they might with a good grace tell their readers, in particular, that I had thus represented them. But from this unpleasant topic I turn to one of the exalted items of christian morality.

      With most men of refined moral sensibility reputation is next to life--with some it is dearer than life. The christian religion cherishes this feeling, and while it guides and stimulates our pursuits after good fame, it teaches us by the broadest precepts, and the most powerful examples to take care of the reputation of others. "A good name is better than great riches," was an axiom of the wisest man. Philosophers and poets have dwelt upon this theme with more than usual pathos. How often do the apostles exhort the christians to seek the reputation of those who in former times had obtained an illustrious fame? With how many arguments and exhortations do they induce them to shine amongst the excellent.

      It is no inconsiderable evidence of the Divine excellency of this religion, that it teaches its disciples to pay a due regard to that in others which they appreciate most in themselves. Hence what is dearest in the christian's estimation is to be guarded in another in exact proportion to the importance which he himself attaches to it. Thus a man to whom the reputation of virtue and wisdom is dearer than any earthly acquisition, is taught from the golden rule itself, to pay the highest regard to the reputed virtue and wisdom of others. But there is this peculiarity in the christian system, it does not allow any of its disciples to derive any satisfaction from a comparison of themselves with others. All human systems are founded upon false principles as respects the satisfaction to be derived from reputation. They allow their admirers to be pleased in excelling others; not seeing that if it afford pleasure to excel others, it must inevitably afford pleasure not to see others as commendable as one's self. But the christian system, as the heavens are higher than the earth, excels that which is based upon such principles. It teaches us while eagerly bent upon the reputation of christian wisdom and virtue, to derive pleasure from the superior displays in others of that which we would admire in ourselves, and inciting us rather to look with pity and regret on those in our rear. There is a delicate distinction here which we regret to see so seldom noticed.

      Slander, revilings, backbitings, whisperings, evil speaking, and every species of detraction is reprobated in the most forcible terms which human language affords, by all the inspired writers who touch upon this topic. And amongst the essential characteristics of the than who shall inhabit the heavenly mansions, this has a chief place--"He does not take up an evil report against his neighbor." "He despises a vile person, also, and honors them that honor the Lord."

      What a massacre of character do the public prints, the public places of resort, and even the social hearth in this day exhibit. When commendation is volunteered or extorted, how often is it circumscribed, and what immense subtractions are made, by one or two of those terrific buts!! The very thing of which all are so covetous, viz. a good name, they bestow with the greatest frugality upon others; and too many, like the shamble fly, seem to feast upon the putrid spots in human character.

      The sycophant too and the detracter are nearer akin than a cousin-german. But we are digressing. Paul exhorts, "Render to all their dues: honor to whom honor is due, and respect to whom respect is due." No toleration is granted, no allowance is made in the treatment of any person, whether viewed in the light of a friend or a foe.

      It has been a thousand times lamented, that religious controvertists pay the least regard to the reputation of those from whom they differ in opinion. As charity hides a multitude of sins, so a difference in opinion covers a multitude/of virtues. Reformation in this respect should be every where preached and practised.

EDITOR. [264]      

      WE have often had occasion to notice the pernicious influence of the text system of expounding scripture--No practice has done more to obscure the meaning of scripture, and to originate the most romantic and enthusiastic tenets. The thoughtless manner in which the multitude of textuaries follow each other, not merely in their sermons, but in their quotations of scripture, only affords another instance that not one in a thousand dares to think for himself, and to exercise his own faculties on the scriptures. I have found myself, in countless instances, quoting scriptures in a sense which I had heedlessly attached to them because I always heard them quoted in this manner. Nothing but my own experience and observation has taught me that the great mass of mankind are but mere imitators, and the disciples of men. I have found too, that many sentences are, I may say, universally quoted in a sense which not one sentence of scripture will justify, and that too, on some of the most common topics. I will exhibit a few specimens:--

      Psalms cxlv. 9--"The Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his other works." The last clause I never once heard quoted right, or in its true sense. If I have not been greatly deceived, I have, in every instance, heard it quoted thus: "His tender mercies are superior to all his other perfections, over them all in greatness and glory, transcending every other attribute of his nature." This is the sense universally attached to the words in their frequent application. Now let the whole context be considered and this application of them must be discarded--The sense in which the Psalmist evidently uses these words is--"The Lord is good to all men, and his tender mercies are over all his other creatures upon the earth. He feeds the raven, the young lion, and the eyes of all things wait upon him, and he upholds and feeds them." God's perfections are never in scripture called his works, and David often exhibits his goodness and mercy manifested to the meanest of his creatures.

      David is often called "the man after God's own heart," from the sound of a passage frequently quoted--He is said to have been a man such as Gods heart or mind exactly approved. Thus the populars always apply these words: And of all the men that ever lived David is represented by them as "THE man after God, s own heart" Now let 1st. Samuel xiii. 14, be examined and this sense will totally vanish. Here it is--"Saul has not answered my purpose, mind, or will in governing my people; but I have found a man that will just suit my purpose, viz. David the son of Jesse." That this is the true sense of the words in sacred scripture, methinks is evident when declared without further exposure.

      At a certain crisis in the vision of John, long before the end of the world comes in his view, a heavenly messenger is introduced who solemnly declares "time shall be no more." Hence in the numerous allusions to the period here spoken of, all speak of a period when time ceases to exist. Sermons are spoken and even published on the text "time shall be no more;" whereas the sense, and indeed, the true translation, says, "there shall be no longer delay, the judgment spoken of shall be immediately executed"--that other things which require the continuance of time may regularly be introduced.

      In these examples I prefer those on which no sectarian tenet depends, to illustrate what egregious blunders, and how universally followed, are passing current, as the sense of the sacred writings, under the popular system of text reaching and text quoting.

EDITOR.      

[TCB 259-265]