Volume 4. Number 4. November 6, 1826, pp. 281-288.

• To Mr. D.--A Sceptic.--Replication.--No. III. by Alexander Campbell, pp. 281-282.
• A Restoration of the Ancient Order of Things.--No. XV.: Love Feasts by Alexander Campbell, pp. 282-284.
• Letters from Students in Hamilton Seminary (New York), pp. 284-285.
  • [Introductory Note to Letters from Students of Theology] by Alexander Campbell, p. 284.
  • [Letter to the Editor] by W. D., p. 284.
  • [Reply to Letter from W. D.] by Alexander Campbell, pp. 284-285.
  • [Introductory Note to Letter from C. S.] by Alexander Campbell, p. 285.
  • [Letter to the Editor] by C. S., p. 285.
  • [Reply to Letter from C. S.] by Alexander Campbell, p. 285.
• From the "Western Luminary" of September 27 by A Friend to Truth (T. T. Skillman), pp. 285-286.
• A Refutation of the Foregoing Misrepresentations by Alexander Campbell, pp. 286-288.
• A Good "Christening" by [Alexander Campbell], p. 288.
• The Points at Issue by Alexander Campbell, p. 288.

      DEAR SIR:--IN again reading your letter, I have already, I perceive, got my lever under the heavier end of your difficulties. What you next say is rather a farther developement of those noticed, than a detail of new ones. I will, however, still prosecute the subject farther, and pay a due regard to those sentences which exhibit your difficulties in a new, or in a stronger light.

      There is in all the productions of sceptical writers which I have seen, a singular confounding of things revealed, with their own reasonings. More than half the time their premises are in the Bible, while they are cavilling against it. You seem to have fallen into the same predicament. The sentence in your letter, next to those I have examined, is of this character. It reads thus:--"I thought that as the greatest degree of happiness was the only object of creation, the design of the Almighty would have failed, if as the scriptures authorize us to believe, a majority of mankind will be forever damned."

      Let me now ask you, How did you come to think that the greatest degree of happiness was the only object of creation? If not from the Bible--from what source? It will serve no purpose to say, "By reasoning;" for this is but a mere excuse for plagiary. For a man might as rationally propose to create something out of nothing, as to propose to reason without something to reason upon. And now I ask you (for your own conviction,) Upon what were you reasoning when you came to the conclusion that "the greatest degree of happiness was the only object of creation?" Upon something in the Bible, I conjecture; for there is nothing out of it from which this can be legitimately inferred on principles of reason.

      The grave terminates all reasonings about happiness. No person can look beyond it without the telescope of faith--without the Bible. Now no man can rationally conclude from all that passes from the cradle to the grave, that "the greatest degree of happiness was the only object of creation." If there be a truth in the Bible which human experience approbates, it is this, "the whole creation groans and travails in pain." I positively deny that there is any such data afforded in the material world, from which any man can legitimately conclude that "the greatest degree of happiness was the only object of creation." In fact, all human experience is to the contrary of such a conclusion; for no one in this life ever tasted one drop of the greatest degree of happiness; and how, in the name of the whole five senses, could he conclude, either from his observation or experience, that the greatest degree of happiness was the only object of creation!!! From this, methinks, you may see that you are indebted to the Bible, either understood, or misunderstood for your premises; and that there is no logical connexion between your premises and your conclusions.

      But, again--You add to the Bible with as little ceremony as you borrow from it without acknowledging the debt. Pray where does "the Bible authorize you to believe that a majority of mankind will be forever damned?" This may be a fact; and it may be admitted without in the least invalidating the truth of the Bible. For no man can argue from the fact that there are ten times more blossoms in spring than apples in autumn that the world is not under the government of God. But without questioning the truth of such a termination of things, I ask Where does the Bible authorize such a belief? That in past ages, or in the present, a majority of mankind have walked in the broad way, and but few comparatively in the narrow way, may be admitted as a Bible truth; and yet it will by no means follow that a majority of mankind will be forever damned. For one or two substantial reasons: For any thing you or I know, all the human beings that have yet lived may be as a drop out of a bucket in comparison of the whole human family. Again--Of the millions of human beings that have been born, one-third, at least, have died in infancy, concerning the eternal destiny of which the Bible says just not one word. But that a period of many generations is yet to come, in which the knowledge of God shall cover the earth as the waters cover the sea, the Bible explicitly declares; and concerning what numerical proportion of the whole human family shall be saved, the Bible says not one word. Of the saved it says, "they shall be an exceeding great number, which no man can number," and this is more than it says of the number which shall be cast off into hell. You will see that I determine nothing about the comparative number, but only say that you have no scriptural authority for believing that a majority of the whole human family will be eternally damned. I would add, that in reasoning against, or in calling in question, the divine authority of a book to which yourself and all intelligent persons are obviously indebted for every correct view of the invisible and future world, it behoves you not to reason from conjectures, or ill formed views, which are based upon mere imagination. But as I before said, nothing can be inferred from the numbers saved or lost against the divinity of the book, from mere principles of reason.

      The subsequent part of this period is engrossed in my Replication No. 1. You add, "I thought that as the Deity was the first cause of all things, he was responsible for all things, especially for evil, as he possessed a greater power to prevent it than the immediate cause; and, if so, he could not punish any of his creatures with eternal misery." This much will suffice for the present epistle.

      When you talk of the Deity being responsible, you lose sight of the essential attribute of Deity. A Supreme can neither be responsible nor accountable; for responsibility and accountability imply dependance. To whom can a Supreme be responsible? An independent dependant being is no greater contradiction than a responsible Supreme. To whom could the Creator be responsible for creating so much sea, so much cold, so much darkness, so many reptiles, so many monsters in the ocean, so many conflicting and jarring elements in this material system. If to his creatures, then he is like them; if not to them, to none.

      Some talk of his preventing moral evil by an exertion of Almighty power; of his having "greater power to prevent it than the immediate cause;" of his being stronger than Satan. But all such notions, if they have any foundation at all, are built upon the most palpable inattention to rational nature. And here I would affirm that it is impossible to conceive of a rational [281] creature of an infallible nature. But in affirming this I am brought to the shore of an immense ocean where weak heads are sure to be drowned. Let us try whether we can swim a short distance in sight of land.

      Let us then try an hypothesis of this sort, viz. Suppose that all those beings called angels, of which you have doubtless heard, had been created infallible creatures. What then? None of them could have become Satan. But what next? None of them could have been capable of moral good. For it is essential to moral good that the agent act freely according to the last dictate, or the best dictate of his understanding. Moisture is not more essential to vegetation than this liberty of acting according to the views or feelings of the agent is to moral good. Please consider, that if a rational being was created incapable of disobeying, he must, on that very account, be incapable of obeying. He then acts like a mill wheel, in the motions of which there is no choice; no virtue, no vice, no moral good, no moral evil. A little reflection is all that is wanting to see that a race of beings created incapable of disobeying, (i. e. infallible,) are as incapable of moral good or moral evil; of virtue or vice; of rewards or punishments; of happiness or misery, as the stones of the field. There are some things impossible to Omnipotence. Hills cannot be made without vallies; shadows, without substances; nor rational beings, without free agency. "It is impossible for God to lie." It is impossible to create a being that shall be capable of obeying, and at the same time incapable of disobeying. If, then, an order of beings had been created among which it was impossible for any one to become Satan, it would have been as impossible for any one of them to be either morally good, virtuous, or happy. So ends the first hypothesis. And who can bring it to any other issue?

      Let us try another. Suppose that when one or more of those beings called angels had disobeyed and fallen, that he had been annihilated by an exertion of almighty power. What then? Physical power triumphs over an evil agent. What next? Moral evil is not subdued by moral means. Therefore the possibility of its recurrence in the same order of beings is not prevented. To prevent its recurrence in the same order of beings a mere display of physical energy is insufficient; wisdom must be displayed as well as power; goodness and justice must be exhibited as well as omnipotence. To have crushed the first rebel by an immediate display of simple omnipotence would not have prevented the rebellion of others; it would not have been godlike, but it would have been in the style of mortals, who, when foiled in one department of energies, seek redress in another.

      To launch out into the developement of views purely metaphysical, in order to correct metaphysical errors, is at best only calculated to create a distrust in those visionary problems on which some build as firmly as if on the Rock of Ages. I never wish to establish any one point in this way; but I desire to throw a caveat in the way of those who are willing to risk eternity itself upon a visionary problem.

      How "God's possessing a greater power to prevent moral evil than its immediate cause, prevents his punishing any creature for his evil actions," is to me altogether unintelligible. No father would reason thus with respect to a disobedient child. God has power to prevent A from killing B; ought he not therefore to ordain the death of A, or inflict any punishment on A for killing B? We sometimes reason on such principles against the ways of God as would condemn every human being.

      But leaving this ocean of speculation, (for my head aches,) let us approach the shore. Moral evil exists as sure as we exist. From all that we can reason on its origin, nothing can be concluded against the divinity of the Bible. The Bible is the only book in the world which pretends to give us a history of its origin, progress, and cure. We do know that it exists; for of this we have indubitable testimony, and there is nothing repugnant to reason in the sacred history of its origin, which is simply this. God made rational beings of different orders, that is, beings capable of obeying and disobeying his will, without which capacity we have seen they could be neither virtuous nor vicious, happy nor miserable. Those beings were necessarily created under a law. One or more of them disobeyed that rule of action. This first act of disobedience was the first moral evil in the universe. God did not immediately destroy it, as we have seen and the Bible testifies. It is in the nature of moral evil to multiply its exhibitions. This it has done. And God has adopted a course of government adapted to its nature, which the Bible unfolds, and at which some men cavil. This is an additional proof of its nature and existence. He has devised and revealed a remedy for those laboring under its consequences. Those who receive the remedy are cured. Those who do not, remain under its influence.

      Now what other or more rational history of moral evil can be given? Nay, is there any history of it besides the Bible history in the world. What can--what does Deism present? Is there a slippery perhaps on the subject in all their systems? Does not Deism make God as directly and immediately the author of moral evil as of moral good? Is not men's aptitude to it called by them nature. Yes, the course of human nature. And whether they represent man as springing from the ground as a mushroom, or as the fortuitous concourse of atoms, do they not view him as just the same being now that he was when he first opened his eyes, or from a vegetable began to have the power of locomotion?

      To those who are modest enough to question their own capacity to decide on all things supernatural, invisible, in heaven, earth, and Hades, with infallible certainty, I doubt not but the Bible account will appear at least rational; and I am now, and I hope always will be, able to prove that any other account, theory, or conjecture different therefrom, is just as futile and as childish as the schoolboy's theory of the earth, which made the globe rest on the back of a large turtle, but could find nothing for the turtle to stand upon.

      You shall, God willing, hear still farther from your friend,

EDITOR.      

      THAT the bible is precisely adapted to man as he is, and not as he was, or as he shall be in another state, is with me a favorite position; and one, as I conceive, of much consequence in any attempt to understand the Sacred book. Next to it in plainness and importance is this--that the religion of Jesus Christ is based upon the whole man, his soul, body, and spirit. There is not a power, capacity, or attribute, which man possesses, whether animal, intellectual, or moral, which it does not lay hold of; which it does not address, control, or direct, in the pursuit of [282] the most dignified and exalted objects. From the loftiest faculties of the mind, down to the appetites and passions purely animal, it loses sight of nothing. Hence we may say of it as the Saviour said of the Sabbath, "It was made for man."

      It is a religion essentially social, and the reason of this is found in the nature of man--for he is a social being. The religion of Jesus Christ refines the social feelings, and gives full scope to the exhibition of all that is social in man. No man can therefore either enjoy, or exhibit it to advantage, but in the midst of christian society. Hence "love to the brethren," and all that springs from it, forms so conspicuous a part of the christian religion.

      A christian congregation established upon the New Testament exhibits the most perfect society of which human imagination can conceive. Every perfection and advantage that belongs to society is a constituent of it. When we have put every faculty into the most active requisition; when we have aroused all our powers to discover, or to exhibit the nature, properties, excellencies, and benefits of the most finished, polished, and sentimental society, we have only been seeking after or exhibiting that peculiar character of society which the New Testament gives birth to, and to constitute which is its highest object, as respects the present world. Neither reason, nor even fancy itself, can project a single ornament, can point out a single perfection or benefit that belongs to society, which does not belong to, and form a part of, that society of which we speak.

      But I speak not of a degenerated state of a christian society, such as those dead and misshapen things which intriguing kings and sycophantic priests have given birth to; but I speak of a christian society in its pure and primitive state, such as that formed by the direction and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Many societies called "christian" are the habitation of envy, pride, ambition, selfishness; a rendezvous of moping melancholy and religious superciliousness; a conjunction of ignorance and superstition: a combination of gloom and invincible moroseness. A great majority of christian congregations assume an aspect more becoming an assembly of pharisees and monks than of christians. A severe austerity, a rigid sanctimoniousness, an awful penitential silence characterize their interviews. Their sunday apparel seems to sympathize with an agonizing piety within, and every movement indicates that there is something in their religion at variance with their lives and their comfort. These are but little things; yet they are symptoms of a diseased constitution, and like an unnatural pulse, assure the physician that the vital functions are laboring under a morbid influence. There can be no doubt to those who drink deep into the spirit of the New Testament, but that the aspect of a society of primitive worshippers was essentially different from ours. The hope, and joy, and love, and confidence in God, which their views of Jesus inspired, animated their countenances and their deportment, and shone forth in their whole demeanor; as the ignorance, the doubts, and fears, and awful uncertainty, of a company of cloistered friars and nuns, designate their faces and gestures. It is not going too far to say, that an intelligent mind makes an intelligent countenance, and exhibits itself even in the ordinary movements of the outward man. It is much more evident that the whole aspect and demeanor of a congregation of worshippers is an index to their peculiar views and sentiments. Who, that is acquainted with the views and sentiments of the individuals composing any congregation, does not see, or think he sees, in the outward man the character he has formed of the inward man. This I do not say as if it were my design to enjoin upon individuals or congregations to cultivate a system of appearances or movements, comporting with the sentiments, views, and feelings of others; but to lead them to reflect on the causes of these things, and to inquire after what that was, and what that is, which distinguishes us from the primitive disciples.

      This leads me to remark that the primitive christians had, amongst other things which we have not, a particular kind of feasts, called in the New Testament, "feasts of charity," or rather "love feasts." This was not a practice for which they had to work themselves up, but it was a natural and unforced expression of the spirit which dwelt in them. A marriage supper is not more natural than a christian love feast. There does not appear any precept enforcing or enjoining such feasts in any part of the apostolic writings. This would have been as inconsistent with the genius of the book, as for it to have given a commandment that christians should eat and drink together. It was as much the genuine result of their religion, as verdure is the result of the genial influences of spring. When God sends the rain and causes the balmy zephyrs to breathe, it is unnecessary to issue a command to the seeds of plants to germinate and grow. Thus it came to pass, that soon as the spirit of God was poured out on Pentecost, and disciples multiplied, they not only attended upon the ordinances of social worship enjoined upon them by the apostles; such as "the breaking of bread," "the fellowship," "the prayers," "the praises," &c. but they were led to meet in each other's houses, and to "feast with gladness and singleness of heart." This going from house to house and eating their food with gladness and singleness of heart, or as it is more correctly and beautifully rendered, "and breaking bread from house to house, they partook of their refreshment with joy and simplicity of heart, praising God," is just what is fitly called a feast of love, or the love feasts of the New Testament; because christian love bade the guests, brought them together, and was president of the table.

      Feasts, either public or private, are usually denominated from the cause that institutes them. Now when a number of christians are invited, purely on christian considerations to meet either in a particular family, or at a public place of rendezvous, for the purpose of social eating and drinking, or feasting; this repast, whether given by one individual brother, or made by the contributions of all, is a christian love feast. To these feasts was added the song; yes, the sacred song of joy and gladness was a prominent part of the entertainment: for it is added, "they partook of their refreshment with joy and simplicity of heart, praising God." What more natural than these christian feasts? Refined and elevated sociableness is the direct tendency of the christian religion. The table and the fireside; the scenes of festivity, of social converse, and of social song, consecrated by christian affection, become as joyful and cheering to christian hearts, as ever was the altar of Hymen to the bridegroom and the bride--as ever was the marriage supper to the nuptial guests.

      When any intruded into these love feasts, or were bid to the entertainment undeserving of it, these were "spots and blemishes" in those feasts of love, and are so designated by the [283] apostles. Hence it is inferred that none but those embraced in christian love were wont to be invited to those entertainments; and, that no social eating and drinking of a mixed character, where our relatives and neighbors are invited, irrespective of christian considerations, can lawfully be called a christian love feast in the primitive sense of these words. It also follows that whenever a company is called together, all of which are disciples of Christ, to eat and drink, and to be cheerful, such a feast is a christian love feast, and forms no inconsiderable part of that system of means which is wisely adapted to enliven christian affection, and to prepare men for the entertainments of heaven.

      When the ancient order of things is restored, these feasts of love will be found as useful for the promotion of humility, benevolence, joy, and peace, as they were in those hale and undegenerate days of primitive simplicity. They will be found as necessary for the perfection of enjoyment in this earthly state, as any of the acts of social worship are to the edification of the christian community in their weekly meetings. They are obviously distinguished from any of the acts of social worship ordained for the whole congregation on the day of life and immortality; but houses are not more necessary to shield us from the inclemencies of the weather, than those festive occasions are to the consummation of the entertainments, and finished exhibition of the sociability of the christian religion.

EDITOR.      

      THE following letters are from the students of theology in the Hamilton Seminary, New-York:

HAMILTON VILLAGE, August 24, 1826.      

      DEAR SIR--On a request made to you some time since, you very politely forwarded, to the Philomathesean Society, of the Literary and Theological Seminary, to this place, your paper styled "The Christian Baptist." You have not failed to remember us ever since, but have, without any remuneration, furnished us with it regularly. You have thus manifested for us a friendly feeling, a kindness in your attention for which we should be grateful, and for which we now, sir, tender you our unfeigned thanks.

      But for reasons which we are willing frankly to avow, our society has recently come to the resolution to ask you to discontinue your publication.

      It was hoped, respected sir, that your time, your influence, your talents, would all have been put in requisition to subserve the cause of God, and consequently the happiness of man. It was hoped, that thousands would rise up to call you blessed; and that the evening of your life would be calm and composed; cheered by an approving conscience, the approbation of your fellow creatures, and the smiles of indulgent Heaven. But upon a careful examination of your paper, among much that is good, we find much that we cannot approve; much that is repugnant to the best feelings of man, and subversive, as we apprehend, of vital piety. In this vale of tears, man needs all the comforts which can be derived from the light of divine revelation, all the consolation which God in infinite mercy has vouchsafed to man through a blessed Mediator; besides, he needs all the encouragements, all the persuasion, which can be afforded by the most devoted and godly men of the present age, to forsake the contracted views, and jealousy of feeling, which so strongly marked the conduct of our fathers. We admit that there may be much in the church at the present day that is reprehensible. But what way is most likely to effect a change? Is it by a confirmed course of ridicule and sarcasm, or by a dignified, argumentative, and candid exposition of error, and a mild and persuasive invitation to amendment?

      What consolation can we possibly receive, unless we can so live at all times, that when God calls us to his dread tribunal, we may be in readiness to appear? Oh! what will be the situation of that servant, who,, when he is called shall not have on the wedding garment? Shall we preach, shall we pray, shall we circulate our thoughts through the medium of the press, without the most scrutinizing search of our own hearts? and a petition at the throne of Divine Grace, that God may bless our every effort for the good of mankind? What are we, dear air, but miserable worms of the dust? Shall we who hope to inherit, in a few days, the great and exalted privilege of the lowest place in Heaven, keep up a continual warfare with our fellow creatures, and expect to gain the approbation of a pure and infinitely Holy Being, by acts so deficient in charity? The cold hand of death may be upon you before this hasty and imperfect scroll shall reach you;and perhaps the hand which how sketches these lines will be no more active when this letter reaches the place of its destination. These may be considered trite remarks; but death, judgment, and eternity are solemn things--and they are at hand! Permit us to remind you of the great concern which some of the most able, devout, and pious writers have experienced, when publishing their works, apprehensive lest they might not be productive of good.

      With a fervent prayer that your mind may be so directed by Divine Grace, and that you may be so governed by wisdom, that the best interests of your fellow creatures may be promoted, and God honored, we bid you farewell.

	By order of the Society,
	W------ D------, Cor. Sec.

      YOUNG GENTLEMEN,--I CANNOT but feel indebted to your urbanity and admirable piety for the practical little sermon you have had the condescension to deliver to myself for my own exclusive benefit. Had it not been for your kind mementos I might have forgotten that I am a mortal being, and an accountable one. But you have been kind enough to assure me that I must die and be judged, and that at no distant period; for all these proofs of benevolence on your part, I should be extremely insensible were I not to feel grateful; and impolite, were I not to acknowledge my obligations to you. It is true, indeed, that it is not apparent from to what religion you would have me proselyted--whether to the Jewish, Mahometan, or Christian; for as to any thing it contains of a distinguishing character, it might have been written by a Jew, a Mussulman, or a Christian. There is one thing sufficiently plain, however, that you would have me converted to a religion of more charity, and which would dispose me to sing with the charitable poet--

      Or rather--

      Were it not apparently impertinent and somewhat invidious to deliver a lecture to one's superiors, especially to persons already so pious, I feel from the very bottom of my heart a strong, [284] a vehement desire to request you to read the New Testament of Jesus Christ once through, with all that pious concern which you so feelingly exhibit for me. For I feel as certain as I live, that you are not indebted to it for the piety which your communication breathes else you could not have deliberately denounced the Saviour of the world and his holy apostles for their plain, and bold, and severe reprehension of the errorists of that age. This exhortation I would enforce, with many evidences of its necessity, with many proofs of its importance, with many directions for its adoption, were I addressing persons less pious than yourselves; and I would urge it with more concern upon you, as you are preparing yourselves to be guides of the blind, teachers of babes, and instructors of those ignorant and out of the way; but, as I before said, it would appear impertinent and invidious for me so to do.

      You must not call this sarcasm nor raillery; for I assure you I doubt not but your pious souls have been sorely grieved with the impious spirit of "The Christian Baptist;" for it never has looked with a benign aspect either upon the professors of theological schools, nor their disciples. It has never flattered their pious efforts in making christian bishops for christian congregations by means of a system of speculation, and a few rules for collecting sermons, or manufacturing those of ancient times down to the present taste and fashion. But again I entreat you not to imagine that I do not conceive you pious students of divinity; nay, I doubt not but you are as pious as any of the students of Gamaliel, not even excepting Saul of Tarsus. But should you ever he born from above, I will expect to see your piety exhibit itself in a different way and to run in a different channel.

      With unfeigned wishes for such an event, I subscribe myself your grateful friend,

EDITOR.      

      The following epistle from a minority of the students of said Seminary exhibits another kind of piety:

Brother Campbell,

      DEAR SIR--PROBABLY the same mail which shall bring you this letter, will bring you another from the Philomathesean society of this place, requesting a discontinuance of your paper, which agreeably to their request, you have very liberally and regularly sent them. The truth is, sir, the society are, and ever have been, since your paper was sent for, divided on the subject. The propriety of keeping it has been frequently litigated with much warmth. Some have been very anxious to keep it, and others have been very bitter against it. But those opposed to it have at length prevailed; and, as members of this society, we must submit. Yet, as individuals, a few of those in favor of keeping your paper, have concluded unitedly to ask you, as a favor, to continue (to us) "The Christian Baptist." We ask it as a favor because we are here supported by the charity of the public, and are unable to defray the ordinary expense of it. Should it be your pleasure to gratify our request, we hope ever to remember it with gratitude. But whether you should comply with our request or not, may you ever share largely in that grace you so eminently need to succeed your endeavors to restore "the ancient order of things." May you have that wisdom which comes down from above which is pure, peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated. With undissembled piety, christian humility and apostolic devotion, may you by plain persuasive and christian-like argument, be enabled to expose the errors of the age, and establish that purity and simplicity which characterized the apostolic age. May the good will of him who dwelt in the bush rest upon you forever, and the fruits of genuine piety be your choicest blessing. May your age be clearer than the noon, and as a morning without clouds; and when you shall be called to pass the Jordan of death, may you have the peaceful satisfaction of reflecting upon a life spent in the service of God. May your sun set in tranquillity, and the beams of eternity salute your rising peace.

	Yours, most sincerely, and most affectionately,
	C------ S------

My Dear Friends,

      WITH great pleasure I comply with your request and hope that you will be always ready, when you either adopt or reject any sentiment in this work, to produce good and scriptural reasons for so doing. I have never felt any disposition to censure those who differ from me in any of my views, provided always, they seemed to act reasonably and conscientiously, and had something like argument or evidence to support them. Indeed I cannot say I censure any differing from me on any account. It is not my province to censure. I may pity and lament their obstinacy, or their weakness; but if I view any thing more correctly, I have no ground of boasting in myself. I do love all them of every name under heaven that love my Lord and Master, and I would deny, myself, to any extent the law of our King commands, to render any service to the humblest disciple in his kingdom. And while I write and labor as I do, he that knows the hearts of all flesh knows that I do it from the fullest conviction from his oracles that the christianity of our day is a corrupt christianity, and that the ancient order of things is lost sight of in almost all denominations of professing christians. I do consider that there are many, very many christians, in the present day, greatly out of the way, and that they are suffering famine and disease in their souls because of it. I am assured that good health cannot be restored but by the depleting and stimulating plan recommended by Paul in his letters to Timothy and Titus.

      Should any of you, at any time, feel any objections which you deem insuperable against any thing in this work, it will give me great pleasure to have you state them to myself: or should any of your instructors dislike any thing in it, their objections shall be thankfully received, carefully considered, and most respectfully replied to. We must all give account of ourselves to the Lord, and whatever we think now, I am sure at that moment we would rather have his approbation than that of all the human race besides.

      Praying that you may be prepared to give up your account with joy, and not with grief, I write myself

	Your obt. servt. for the truth's sake,
	THE EDITOR.

      P. S. I make no apology to you, nor to the Philomathesean Society, for publishing your letters; believing that there is nothing which they contain that is of any private interpretation.

ED.      

      MR. EDITOR,--PERMIT me to call the attention of your readers to a work which is now circulating freely among our Baptist brethren in this [285] state. I allude to the New Testament lately published by Mr. ALEXANDER CAMPBELL of Virginia; concerning which there is much false impression on the minds of many.

      It was expected by people generally in this part of the country, that Mr. Campbell intended to furnish us with a translation executed many years since by Doctors Campbell and McKnight of Scotland, and Dr. Doddridge of England. If this expectation had been realized, the writer of this notice would have been satisfied, believing those translations to be generally faithful and correct; but finding on examination, that the deviations from those authors are exceedingly numerous, he asks leave to lay before the readers of your paper the following statement, in order that they may judge for themselves whether their impressions concerning this work have not been in many instances erroneous.

      On the single subject of baptism, the alterations from the translations of the above authors are upwards of eighty. There are no less than seven of these in the third chapter of the "Testimony of Matthew." In all of the gospel by Matthew, there were found, at least, sixteen alterations on this subject--in Mark, twelve--in Luke, eight--in John, eleven--in Acts, nineteen--and a few in some of the other books, making at least the number mentioned above.

      As it was found to be too tedious and troublesome to compare the whole work with the originals, in order to ascertain the deviations on all subjects, a selection was made of a single epistle for this purpose. This was the Epistle to the Hebrews translated by Macknight; and in this were found upwards of sixty alterations from that author.

      Now, Mr. Editor, if this epistle be a fair specimen of the whole Testament, it will follow, that there are contained in it upwards of one thousand five hundred variations from the translations of the learned Doctors whose names are in the title page, although numbers of our wise men in Kentucky imagine that we have it almost verbatim from these translations.

      Most of the variations in the Epistle to the Hebrews are of small importance, but they serve to show us that Mr. Campbell was anxious to furnish the public with a gospel, shaped exactly to his own views.

      In glancing my eye over other parts of his work, I perceived an alteration in the Acts of the Apostles, which, in my view, is of very considerable importance. I allude to Acts xx. 28. "Feed the church of God, which he has purchased with his own blood." It is translated "God" by Dr. Doddridge, and he gives a note stating that there is no good authority for the change which some propose to make, of "God" into "Lord." This has long been viewed, as a powerful text in opposition to those who deny the proper divinity of Christ; for it states positively, that he who purchased the church with his own blood, is God. This did not pass unnoticed by the Unitarians, and hence they have long endeavored to persuade people that the common version of the original is erroneous, and ought to be changed as above; and I am sorry to say that Mr. Campbell makes the change, although it is in opposition to the pious and learned Doddridge, from whom this part of his work is taken. I know indeed he passes over it silently, but it may not tend the less on that account, to unsettle the minds of common readers with regard to an important doctrine of God's word.

      Mr. Campbell has been charged with leaning towards Unitarianism. I know not whether there be a sufficient foundation for the charge or not; but if not, he ought to guard against giving a handle to the enemies of truth.

      The above remarks are not intended as a discussion of the merits of this work, but simply to show to those who read it the necessity of guarding against the supposition that it is the identical translation furnished by Doctors Campbell, Doddridge and Macknight.

A FRIEND TO TRUTH.      

      THERE are many ways of making false impressions upon the public mind besides the telling of downright lies. But there is as much real falsehood in the sight of Heaven and all intelligent minds in giving such a representation of things, in whatever language it may be uttered, as gives a false impression to the hearer. And when it is done intentionally, it differs nothing from the grossest deception. The writer of the above article has, in my judgment, as really "borne false witness against" me, as if he had accused me of treason against the state; and what is far worse in the case, it is in a matter of incomparably and inexpressibly more momentum.

      Reader, ask yourself what is the impression which the above statement makes upon your mind.

      1st. Does it not lead you to think that I had cheated public expectation in the execution of a work contrary to my proposals and conditions of publication?

      2d. Does it not lead you to think that I have secretly, and with an intention to deceive, foisted into the works of Doctors Campbell, Macknight, and Doddridge, "one thousand five hundred" and more alterations?

      3d. Does it not lead you to think that I had some other "gospel" of my own, different from that of those Doctors, which I wished by a fraudulent artifice, to impose upon the public as theirs?

      4th. Does it not lead you to suspect that I am an artful Socinian, changing and interpolating the sacred text to establish a favorite hypothesis?

      5th. Does it not, lastly, lead you to believe that I am a very bad man, and a most impudent deceiver, deserving of no confidence as to honesty and integrity in my professions?

      Such, I believe, are the impressions it is designed to make, and such I am certain are the impressions it is calculated to made upon the minds of all them who either know me not, of are prejudiced against me.

      Now, courteous reader, I will ask you one question more. Do you not think, that if there be no foundation for any of these impressions--for any of these malignant insinuations--that the author of the above statement has as really violated the ninth commandment of the sacred ten written by the finger of God, as if he had accused me of murder, theft, or any other crime of which I am innocent?

      Now for the proof. It is a fact which can be proved in any court of law or equity, that the work is as exactly executed according to my prospectus as it could be, with this one exception, viz. that I did not put upon the margin the different translations for reasons assigned in my General Preface, but placed them in an Appendix. See Preface, p. 10.

      In the second place, it is a fact which can be proved in any court of law or equity, that I have faithfully, given the translation proposed, and that the eighty alterations on the subject of [286] baptism which the above statement mentions, are authorized by Dr. Campbell and proposed in my Prospectus.

      And here let it be noted, that this "Friend to Truth" tells eighty lies in telling one truth! for the eighty differences, if like the seven mentioned in the third of Matthew, (and this is the only specification he has made,) are only in one word, which it can be proved in any court of law and equity in England or America, is authorized by the said Dr. George Campbell, who this "Friend to Truth" says is "a faithful and correct" translator in general. Eighty times it is immerse or its derivatives, instead of the Greek word baptize and its derivatives, which we promised in our prospectus to attend to. Thus his eighty differences are in fact but apparently one, and in reality not one. For it can be proved as aforesaid, that Dr. George Campbell has said and published to the world that it ought to be done as I have done, and gives his reasons why he did not do it.

      Again--I request the reader's attention to the following item in my prospectus:--

      "There is also one improvement of considerable importance which ought to be made in this work, and to which we shall attend. Sundry terms are not translated into English, but adopted into those translations from long usage. Those terms are occasionally translated into English by Campbell and Macknight; but not always. We shall uniformly give them the meaning which they have affixed to them, wherever they occur, and thus make this a pure English New Testament, not mingled with Greek words, either adopted or anglicised. But in doing this, we shall not depart in any instance from the meaning which they have declared those words to convey."

      You see there is one promise of great importance in italics in this quotation. Now it can be proved in any court of law or equity where the English language is spoken, that I have not, in one instance, departed from this promise. I challenge all the colleges and divines on this continent to shew that I have not, in every instance, so done. Let this Doctor of Divinity, this "Friend to Truth!" make an attempt.

      He finds "upwards of sixty alterations" in the Epistle to the Hebrews. How this sounds! True he admits them to be of little importance--but how numerous are they! Now, lovers of truth, he has not been half as ostentatious of his calculating prowess as he might be: for, in fact, there is more than one hundred and twenty "alterations" in the first six verses of the third chapter of this epistle!!! In other words, I have given six full verses of "alterations" from the translator of this epistle. But what are they? Why, when the matter is looked into, Dr. Campbell's translation of six verses is put into the text in preference to Dr. Macknight's. Thus I have departed one hundred and twenty times from Dr. Macknight in one half dozen of verses. And what has become of Dr. Macknight's translation of these six verses? Have I cheated the public, and made them believe that they were reading Macknight. No, indeed; Dr. Macknight is faithfully given in the Appendix, because there was not room for it in the margin, and about fifty times you will find Macknight in the Appendix in this one epistle. Now the fact is, this lover of truth to the contrary notwithstanding, these fifteen hundred "variations" are of this kind; and I am not sure but he might have made them twice fifteen hundred if he had been a little more at leisure.

      This tremendous number of alterations will sound as terrific in the ears of the honest members of Dr. Blythe's or Dr. Breckenridge's congregation in Lexington, as did a sentence I met with in Michaelis' Introductory Lectures to the New Testament, when I was a "student of Divinity." Michaelis, a very learned and a very orthodox professor, informed me that in the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, amongst the best of them too, there were more than forty thousand alterations or variations! But when I began to understand the nature of these alterations, there were not more than a hundred of them of much importance. Thirty-nine thousand of them were something like this Dr's eighty apparent differences in one word, but, in reality, no difference. But after all this alarm of the church in danger! the fact is, the public have all the translation of these three Doctors in the volume, and these fifteen hundred different translations into the bargain! So that if the matter be rightly understood, the direful, or rather ireful insinuations of this Friend to Truth are so many encomiums upon the work!

      But this "Friend to Truth," this masked champion of orthodoxy, aims a deadly javelin at my heart. He would assassinate me in the dark! He would "rob me of my good name," and massacre my reputation, and destroy the influence of the best translation of the New Testament that ever appeared in our language; because, forsooth, he thinks it endangers his baby sprinkling. And in this I am not to blame. See Appendix No. 4. His own good and "faithful" Doctors are to blame. They were witnesses in secret, but now they have come out to the public gaze, and I must be called "a Socinian," and an "interpolater," that I may be burned by some good John Calvin, and that the witness of these three "faithful and correct" translators may be again imprisoned. And why am I a Socinian now? Because, on the authority of the acknowledged great, and learned, and mighty collator of versions and manuscripts, I have preferred the term Lord to God. And here again, have I cheated the public? Nay, verily, I have given both. Yes, both Doddridge and Griesbach. See Appendix No. 47. For although I am as firmly convinced of the proper divinity of the Saviour of the world, that he is as literally and as truly the Son of God as the Son of Man, as ever John Calvin was, I would not do as this "Friend to Truth" insinuates I ought to have done, made the text bend to suit my views. But in reality it is more in favor of the divinity of Jesus as it is in Griesbach than as it is in Doddridge. It is only against the awkward phraseology of those controvertists who make more Socinians than Calvinists by their efforts to convert the former. On this ground it was that Dr. Whitby preferred the reading of God instead of Lord, while he gives better authority for the latter than the former. But I was not thinking about favoring my views, nor any man's views, in preferring Griesbach to Doddridge. While I give the reader both, I leave him to judge for himself; but this "Friend to Truth" would have given but one, as he blames me for giving both. I said in the preface I gave the most conspicuous place to that reading or rendering which I thought deserved it--and so it happens here.

      Now my reasons for preferring. Lord in this place to the term God, are as follows:--Some ancient MSS. have it God; others, Lord and God; others, God and Lord: some, Lord God; others, Christ; others, Saviour; and some of the most ancient have it Lord Griesbach gives all [287] these readings, and decides in favor of the latter. Besides I added, in my own mind, to the authority of Griesbach, the following facts. Ireneus, one of the oldest writers who flourished A. D. 176, quoting this passage in L. 5. 14. quotes it as in the New Translation. Now I think this is of great weight, as he lived before any controversy arose about the passage, and before any of the MSS. now in existence were written.--Again--the Syriac translation, the oldest in the world, has it Lord. I do not know how much influence these facts might have had on the mind of Griesbach in deciding for himself on the manuscripts before him; but I mention them as adding in my mind to the weight of his decision.

      But after all, I feel assured that this "Friend to Truth" examined the whole translation in order to find something to impeach my reputation, and that he fixed upon this as the only, and the most likely foundation on which he could rest his lever in order to hurl me down in the estimation of those whose conviction upon another subject he feared. And yet he has ten times more reason to impeach John Calvin and Theodore Beza on account of Socinianism than me, excepting that I have not given my voice in favor of burning any Servetus. For both these gentlemen argue that the famous passage which a hundred orthodox divines and critics have condemned as spurious, viz. 1 John, v. 7. does not prove the unity of three persons in one God, admitting it to be genuine.

      Now I know that this "Friend to Truth" has a way to save himself from all these remarks. It is this: He has not pronounced any opinion upon "the merits" of the translation; he has not affirmed any of the things he has insinuated; and he only meant to correct the false impressions of others; and that he has not in so many words accused me of any unfaithfulness in the case--but we do not thank him for leaving this back door open. He has done his best to blast my reputation and to destroy the influence of the work. I am glad to have it investigated with all scrutiny and severity, and to hear every objection to it from any quarter, because I am of opinion I can defend the work in every grand point against any opposition from any quarter whatever. Numerous attempts similar to that of this anonymous Divine, were made against the common version now in use, but the kings decree put them all to silence.

      I have only to add, that my opinion is, that this slanderer was afraid to publish his name because he is of slender reputation already, and one of those Divines on whom I had to call when last in Lexington because of slanders which he propagated against me, and which he was obliged to retract or explain away.

      If the editor of the "Luminary" has any regard to his character as a "Friend" of Justice, he will publish this statement, as I have published his, and thus "do to others as he would wish them to do to him."

EDITOR.      

      SOME religious editors in Kentucky call those who are desirous of seeing the ancient order of things restored, "the Restorationers," "the Campbellites," and the most reproachful epithets are showered upon them because they have some conscientious regard for the Divine Author and the divine authority of the New Testament.--This may go down very well with some; but all who fear God and keep his commandments will pity and deplore the weakness and folly of those who either think to convince or to persuade by such means.

      WE contend that all christian sects are more or less apostatized from the institutions of the Saviour, and that by all the obligations of the christian religion they that fear and love the Lord are bound to return to the ancient order of things in spirit and in truth. Our opponents either contend that they are not apostatized, but are just what they ought to be; or if they admit of any defection, they contend that the time is not yet come--they must await the Millennium; and that it is better to keep up the present systems than to attempt any thing else. This is just the naked question, detached from all superfluity, and it would be well for both the friends and opponents of this work frequently to reflect upon it.

EDITOR.      

[TCB 281-288]