Volume 4. Number 5. December 4, 1826, pp. 288-296.

• To Mr. D.--A Sceptic.--Replication--No. IV. by Alexander Campbell, pp. 288-289.
• Review of Miller and Duncan--Continued by Alexander Campbell, pp. 289-291.
• Extract of a Letter from a friend in North Carolina, to the Editor, dated September 10, 1826 by J. C., p. 291.
• Reply by Alexander Campbell, pp. 291-293.
• Christian Morality.--No. IV.: On Speaking Truth by Alexander Campbell, pp. 293-294.
• A Restoration of the Ancient Order of Things.--No. XVI.: The Spirit of Ancient Christians by Alexander Campbell, pp. 294-296.
• [Introductroy Note to "Hilary, Bishop of Poictiers in Aquitanic"] by Alexander Campbell, p. 296.
• Hilary, Bishop of Poictiers in Aquitanic (On the Spirit of Creed-Making), p. 296.

      DEAR SIR--You say that "if our Maker was almighty, he could have created universal happiness." But his works prove him almighty, and experience shows that he has not created universal happiness; for even the temporary evils which millions feel are incompatible with the idea of universal happiness. You in this instance, therefore, argue against both observation and experience. But you add, "To this end, (i  e. universal happiness,) I conceived every thing in nature had a direct tendency." What "direct tendency" you can see between ideotism, decrepitude, penury, disease, and all the evils of the brutal creation towards universal happiness in this state, I cannot conjecture; and if you take into view a future state, you then admit the very truth at which your skepticism revolts. But what is no less strange, you say you are "able to reconcile the evils we feel here as necessary to our peculiar state of existence." This is like a person saying he is able to carry two hundred pounds upon his shoulders, but adds he is unable to carry fifty. You talk of a peculiar state of existence here; but when you reject the divinity of the Bible, where do you learn of any other than this peculiar state of existence here? Another state of existence hereafter is a Bible truth, but not one which can be derived from any other source.

      I aim at no more in these remarks than to convince you that your whole style and sentiment is at variance with your doubts. The grand principles are already laid down which show your difficulties to be unreasonable, and emerging from an unchastened imagination. In the same style you affirm, "Punishment, I thought, should be proportioned to criminality: but in inflicting eternal punishment for temporal crimes the principle of justice is violated." What that principle of justice is I know not, which teaches us that a man should be punished no longer than the precise time he sins, or that if an offence is committed in one minute the punishment should be of no longer continuance. This is precisely the force of your objection. For the idea of punishment being longer than the time of sinning, is that which staggers you. It would, therefore, be a violation of this "principle of justice" to confine a man in a penitentiary for eighteen years for a crime which he perpetrated [288] in half an hour. On this "principle of justice" it would be unreasonable to cut off a man's life for ever from the earth for an action which he committed in one minute. Men are in the habit of "punishing eternally" their fellow creatures for "temporal crimes." For when A kills B, he is by his peers and the laws of his country punished with an eternal separation from the whole human race existing upon the earth. But on this your "principle of justice," this is a gross violation of all right. But again, there is another sophism in the terms "temporal crimes." I know of none such; for as to the time in which any action, good or bad, is finishing, it is nothing. For instance; A kills B. Now B is in a moment cut off from all his relatives. His children lose him once for all. The effects of this murder are eternal; or, in other words, the children of B are ever deprived of their father, and B himself is forever deprived of his life by an action which was perpetrated perhaps in a minute. The consequences are eternal, and not temporal; and therefore it is out of all propriety to talk of "temporal crimes." It would require more logic than, I presume, is possessed by all the colleges in your state to show or prove on fair principles, that there is any crime temporal, in your sense of the words, or that there is any crime committed the consequences of which are not eternal.

      You make some strong cases and propose some queer questions; but they only glance at one side of the difficulty, and are all capable of being turned to any point in the compass of human ingenuity and human weakness: such as, "Could the God of compassion have sat on his throne of untroubled felicity whilst a being whom he had called into existence, who would never have been liable to pain but for him, was enduring the pains of hell fire." You might have said, "Was enduring the pains of the gravel or rheumatism, or an infant enduring the pains of the cholic, or of a burned or scalded finger, or of a fever," &c. &c. for these cases are as much in point as yours when presented in connexion with "the God of compassion."

      The consummation of your difficulties is, I presume, expressed in the following sentence: "And besides these, it appeared to me inconsistent with the Deity," (I suppose your ideas of the Deity) "to require from us, on pain of damnation if we failed, implicit belief in an account of transactions which occurred several thousand years ago, (and considering the imperfect medium through which information was communicated from one age to another,) and of which it required the utmost stretch of intelligence to comprehend even the probability." Your difficulties in this sentence are based upon false views of the gospel and of its evidence. It is not a fact that implicit faith in transactions at best probable, is required on pain of damnation. Every thing in this sentence is convulsed and distorted. Men are not, in strict propriety, even required to believe any thing on pain of damnation. For example; suppose you had swallowed the most deadly poison, and that some benevolent physician had voluntarily called upon you and told you that there was a medicine which would save your life, but if you did not take it you must most certainly die; would it be a truth for you to assert, when cavilling against the medicine, that you would not taste it because he had required you implicitly to receive it on pain of death. I say it would be a false representation of the whole matter, notwithstanding it is true that if you did not receive the medicine you must die. Now I cannot conceive how it could be "inconsistent" with the most benevolent being to address a dying man as the physician in question had addressed you, and to assure him that eternal destruction must be his doom if he reject his medicine. Now the fact is, all men are sick of a disorder which must prove their eternal ruin if they are not cured of it. This is just as certain as death. I will not spend time in proving it. A remedy is provided. It is an infallible one. It is presented gratuitously, and directions for its use are appended to it. To excite interest, and to persuade men to receive it, they are told a solemn truth--that die they must--that perdition awaits them, if they do not receive it. Some say they are not sick, and they will live forever without it. Others say they are sick, but have no confidence in the medicine. Others have no objection to the medicine, but dislike its administration. Others receive the medicine gratefully, are thankful for it, and are cured by it, and would persuade others to come and be cured. Amongst those who object to the medicine, there is a great variety. Some will not take it because the physician tells them they cannot be healed without it. Some reject it because they think they ought not to have been sick, and are incensed against their Maker because he did not give them a constitution insusceptible of disease. They defy Omnipotence to arms, and console themselves that if they are lost, it will be their Maker's loss as well as theirs, and that it will pain him as well as them. They choose death to spite him. Others object to the medicine, because every body will not be cured, and all the world saved by it. They would believe its efficacy and partake freely if all were to be cured by it, but because they are told that all will not receive it and be healed, they will not taste it. So it goes. I have seen many men act the part of a spoiled child, which cried all morning about its breakfast, and though in need of food, it spurned the bread and butter, and threw it back upon the too kind and lenient hand of an affectionate parent, because its humor was not consulted in some peculiar way.

      But it is not a fact that men are required to believe implicitly, on pain of damnation; nor is it a fact that the transactions to be believed occurred several thousand years ago; neither is it a fact that the medium of information is of such a character as you describe: nor is it a fact that it requires the utmost stretch of intelligence to comprehend the probability of those transactions which constitute the gospel. This is not the place, nor is the time so opportune, to enter largely into the nature of the gospel nor the evidence which supports it. But I will give you a brief statement of the gospel and a few remarks upon the evidence of its divine authenticity in my next.

	Your sincere friend,
	EDITOR.

      IN the third section Mr. Duncan repels the third charge of his antagonist. It was confidently alleged by Dr. Miller that Mr. Duncan's arguments against creeds proved too much for Mr. D.; for if Mr. D. objected to creeds because they were human, he ought to object to expositions of scripture, or comments, verbal or written, because they are human; therefore, concludes the Doctor, Mr. Duncan's arguments prove too much for him. This is the way that men of talents impose upon the weak and unsuspicious Mr. D. drives Dr. M. from this sophism by shewing that he wilfully changes the question, and misrepresents him: for Mr. D. does not object [289] to creeds simply because they are human, nor indeed at all on this account; but he objects to men making human creeds authoritative, making them as binding on the conscience as if they were of divine authority: he would, he shows, object to human sermons and human commentaries too, if they were to be imposed upon the people as terms of communion, and he would not care that any church published a human creed every time they met, provided it was a mere declaration of their faith that day, and not intended to be binding upon them and their children after them while they met in that house. In p. 40 Mr. D. says--

      "In relation to 'commentaries on the bible,' his argument is, if possible, still more defective. They may not be altogether harmless; and the church, upon the whole, might do as well, if not better, without than with them. For the most part they manifest very little intellectual independence, and are the depositories of the dogmas and notions of the day in which they were written. But still, no man is obliged to own or read them; no church court will try heresy or immorality by their interpretations; there is no difficulty in exchanging them, and no censure implied in rejecting them. But what of ecclesiastical creeds? Are they thus lightly esteemed? Do christians consider them as mere commentaries? Would Dr. M. listen for a moment to any overture, which would propose so to treat them?--Let men write as many creeds as they please, and publish them as often as they please. But let it be done on their own responsibility, and let ministers and christians read them or not, at their own option. On these terms our controversy would soon be over. Dr. M's third charge therefore is wholly unfounded."

      In the fourth section of Mr. D's book he does more than defend himself, for he mortally wounds his opponent. With an air of triumph Dr. Miller had asked, "how the church can take effectual measures to exclude Pelagians, semi-Pelagians, Swedenborgians, Universalists, Arians, and Socinians from her ministry, without the use of creeds and confessions in some form?" This question Mr. D. treats in a most masterly manner. He shows in reply to the first, that "the man who cannot be condemned by the scriptures is not to be condemned at all." He shows that the very creeds which were made against those heresies and heretics did not keep them out. This he supports by historic facts well introduced, such as--

      What did the Nicene creed (made against Arius himself) effect? "Was Arius converted, convinced, or silenced? Very far from it. Contentions abounded, angry debates were protracted, and Arius was banished. A little while after Arius was recalled, and subscribed the creed, remaining still unchanged in his heretical sentiments; so that this 'important end' of excluding Arius from the ministry, was not secured even by a creed.

      "Nor did many years roll by, until a bishop of Rome was guilty of an equally disgraceful manoeuvre. Pope Liberius, 'about the middle of the fourth century, when the Arian controversy was at its height, intimidated by the power of the reigning emperor Constantius, whom he knew to be a zealous disciple of Arius, declared publicly in favor of that party, and excommunicated Athanasius, whom all the orthodox regarded as the patron and defender of the catholic cause. This sentence he soon after revoked; and after revoking it, his legates, at the council of Arles, overawed by the emperor, concurred with the rest in signing the condemnation of Athanasius, yielding, as they expressed it, to the troublesome times. Afterwards, indeed, Liberius was so far a confessor in the cause of orthodoxy, that he underwent a long and severe banishment, rather than lend his aid and countenance to the measures which the emperor pursued for establishing Arianism throughout the empire. But however firm and undaunted the pope appeared for a time, he had not the magnanimity to persevere; but was at length, in order to recover his freedom, his country, and his bishopric, induced to retract his retraction, to sign a second time the condemnation of Athanasius, and to embrace the Arian symbol (creed) of Sirmium. Not satisfied with this, he even wrote to the Arian bishops of the east, excusing his former defence of Athanasius; imputing it to an excessive regard for the sentiments of his predecessor Julius; and declaring, that now, since it had pleased God to open his eyes, and shew him how justly the heretic Athanasius had been condemned, he separated himself from his communion, and cordially joined their holinesses (so he styled the Arian bishops) in supporting the true faith. Before he returned from exile, meeting with the emperor, who was by this time turned semi-Arian, the pliant pontiff, impatient to be again in possession of his see, was induced to change anew, and subscribe the semi-Arian confession!' Will Dr. M. who has so earnestly asked me what I would have done with my doctrine as a member of the council of Nice, look at the contrast, and candidly answer to himself, who 'missed the point'--the ancient confessor or the creed-makers?"

      But "admitting," says Mr. D. "that he may, by his creed, exclude Pelagians, semi-Pelagians, Swedenborgians, Universalists, Arians, and Socinians from the ministry, by what authority does he extend its operation, and exclude from the ministry, in his voluntary associations, men who are contaminated by none of these heresies? Men against whom he has not a word to say, but that they oppose the exercise of human authority in the church, and are scrupulous to preserve the rights of the human conscience, and the supremacy of the Lord Jesus, as King and Head of his church? Will he permit me respectfully to return his own words to him: "Why this almost entire silence concerning a part of the argument, which, first of all, and above all, demanded his whole strength? Not, I am persuaded, because he had not discernment enough to see the full front and force of the difficulty, but because he had nothing to say. Here his doctrine labors most deeply and fatally. Until he shall relieve it from this difficulty, he will have accomplished nothing. It is a millstone about the neck of his cause, which, unless detached, must sink it irrecoverably."

      Here the Doctor receives an incurable wound. I am sorry that I cannot publish the whole of Mr. Duncan's answer to this question, because in giving a few slices of it I do injustice to the whole. In showing how the church may be preserved pure without these humanly authoritative human creeds, he is full and convincing. He asks, How did the primitive church, and down till the council of Nice, exclude heretics and heresies?--If creeds are necessary, Why did not the Master himself give us one? Why did not the apostles give us one, seeing the church must perish without it? Out of about forty pages of the most relevant matter in reply to this question, I can give but one quotation more:--

      "If then the question is again pressed, how shall we exclude heresies and their advocates [290] from the church, I reply, let christians quit their scholastic strife, and seek after nothing but biblical theology. Let young men, while training for the ministry, be turned to the study of the bible, and taught to learn for themselves what Jehovah has said. Systems of theology will always produce heretics; for they are always creating matters of "doubtful disputation," and ranging parties in hostile array. Few men examine every thing which belongs to any given system; and many men declare a vast deal more than they know. A principle is taken for granted, and then its legitimate consequence is boldly defended; whereas both should be discarded, if the first were candidly and fairly considered. Let young men be taught to investigate for themselves; to turn their attention to the scripture page, and declare no more than what they learn from prayerful and diligent inquiry. When this is done, the "millstone," which we are endeavoring to detach, shall roll to the bottom of the floods: and Dr. M. and myself, with our bibles in our hands, shall rise to the paradise of God, to differ no more forever. There we shall see as we are seen, and know as we are known; and charity, the greatest of all christian graces, now so loosely seated on our hearts, will adorn as with her mantle while eternity shall last."

      --"I wish to encourage the more general circulation of them, as, in the general, I heartily approve of what they contain, especially the imposition of the priesthood; yet I must acknowledge there are a few things to which I have some objections. Objection 1st. The call to the ministry: you, if I mistake not, reject any thing like our having a knowledge of any special call of God to the work, as this call was confined to the days of the apostles, and accompanied with miracles as the evidence. This I acknowledge, and the calling may be said to be a miraculous calling, as well as many miracles attending their work, (the case of Paul;) but since the days of the apostles, I have to believe that the real ministers of the gospel of Jesus Christ are divinely and specially called to the work; not that I believe that every person who takes it upon himself to teach or to preach, is called by God to the work; no, far be it, for I believe that there are but few, compared to the number now engaged in this all-important work, know anything like a work of grace upon their souls, and as little about a call to the ministry. I believe many are nothing better than wolves in sheep's clothing, and many, too many, are preaching for filthy lucre, feed and are kept fat on goat's milk; but yet I believe those that are owned by God are such as have passed from nature to grace, have experienced the new birth, and not all such called to preach: though I acknowledge that every lay member is to teach and preach both by example and precept, if they act up to their duty and privilege, as lay members and not pastors. Neither do l believe that every person whose mind may lead him out to public speaking, is to be considered as qualified for an elder or pastor; for in the church, God has placed diversities of gifts, by the same Spirit, some pastors, some teachers, some to exhortation, &c. and we are all called upon to the exercise of these public gifts; but I believe those that are called to labor in word and doctrine and to take charge of the flock of God, to feed them, &c. have some special exercise of mind not known to others. I will tell you a little of the exercise of my mind. I entertained a hope about twenty-nine years ago, that God, for Christ's sake, had pardoned my sins; that I was justified in his sight through the all-atoning blood of the cross, &c. At this time I felt unspeakable love both to God and my fellow creatures, and it was my heart's desire that all might see and test the sweetness of this salvation, &c. but yet I can date no call to the work of the ministry. About six months after, I had a most transporting view of this glorious plan with its sweet and unbounded fulness--the beauty of holiness, the hateful nature of sin, the happy state of the saints, the deplorable state of the wicked, &c. that immediately my mind was impressed something like this; that as God had been so good as to reveal and make known these things to me, if I did not go forth and warn poor sinners of their danger and endeavor to point them to the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world, that God would require their blood at my hand, &c. I trembled, I tried to make my excuses, but yet it would awful sound in my ears and reach my very heart, Woe to me if I preach not the gospel! For seventeen years was this the case; but at length, with much fear and trembling, I had to venture upon the Lord. Since that, though doubts and fears often I have to labor under, I witness peace in venturing in the work. It would exceed the limits of a letter to detail minutely the exercise of my mind for seventeen years.

      Objection 2d. You say, if I mistake not, that we only have to acknowledge that we believe that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. Now I believe that there are thousands that are so well instructed in the scriptures, that they believe this in the head but not in the heart; and this belief may influence them so as to live moral lives with graceless hearts. I believe all such as have been and are delivered from the curse and bondage of the law, and have been put into the liberties of God's dear children, can render such an account of the exercises of their mind while under conviction, their deliverance, &c. &c. as is common with other christians, and in this way to get fellowship, which is desirable in the church of Christ. I only drop these few remarks, and must come to a close after noticing another objection--that of faith.

      You hold out to view that the scriptures hold out but one faith. True, there is but one true and saving faith, which is that faith that works by love and purifies the heart from sin, &c. But the scripture speaks of a faith which we make shipwreck of, a faith of devils, &c. Probably I might have understood you better had you been a little more full on these subjects. I have been short in my objections and remarks, for it would require a letter of several pages to give you my views on the subject, which I may attempt another time.

      Funeral sermons, so called, I believe to be anti-christian and traditional. I should be glad you would give us your views of this subject in one of your papers, as fully as possible.

      Adieu, my dear brother, for the present. I hope ever to be your well-wisher and fellow-laborer in the common cause of our Divine Master, and that in much love.

J. C."      

Dear Brother,

      WITH regard to the two objections stated in yours of the 10th September, I have a few things to remark. And with respect to the first it ought [291] to be considered that preaching, teaching and ruling embrace the whole duties belonging to the offices ordained by the Saviour relative to the conversion of sinners and the edification of disciples. These works were for a time to be performed by the same persons. And if we understood the precise idea attached to these terms by the apostles, there would be less difficulty in our minds as to the call and qualifications indispensable to these works. The term call itself is a scriptural term, and was used by the apostles in a certain and definite sense.

      You have no doubt frequently observed that we contend that the scriptures never can be understood in any other way than by attaching to the terms found in the book the very ideas which the sacred writers and speakers affixed to them. To take their terms and attach other ideas to them, is the grossest imposition upon ourselves and others. To attempt to understand their terms or to investigate the meaning of them is not a mere controversy about words and names, as some would have it; for the whole of our salvation is found in words and communicated to us in terms; and unless these words and names are apprehended, we are just in the predicament of those who have no revelation. It is matter, therefore, of vast importance with me to understand the words found in these sacred writings in the very identical sense of the writers; and I am assured that when this is done all doubts on the subject of religion will vanish, and the New Testament will be perfectly understood. There is but one rule to be observed in order to gaining this end, and that is to take notice how the terms are either universally or specially used in all the places where they occur. This requires much reading and attention, which, however, always repays the diligent. The laborer is always rewarded with prompt payment. No man can labor one day in those mines but he must carry home with him the precious metal at night. God is not (like man) obliged to carry on any work upon mere credit. He always pays down at the moment the work is done. Nay, we can never bring him in debt; for he pays for every stroke while it is striking.

      But to return. Let the term preaching and the term call be understood aright, and there can be no controversy between us upon the subject.--But you think "there is a call to the ministry." In this phrase the terms are all changed. I think there is a call to the office of a deacon, and I think there is a call to the office of a bishop; and I think, moreover, that no man can constitutionally assume, or take to himself, these offices, unless he is called according to the apostolic rule. But with regard to "the call to the ministry" the bible says nothing; and although I understand the ideas attached to these words in popular use, I reject them from my vocabulary altogether, because they mislead those who wish to understand the christian scriptures in their own simplicity and force. The bible knows nothing about "the ministry" of the Catholic, Episcopal, or Presbyterial church, nor any other ministry save that of Moses and Christ. There is no such office as that of a pope, cardinal, dean, chapter, archbishop, church warden, presiding elder, circuit preacher, class leader, lay presbyter, Presbyterian minister, Congregational or Baptist Divine, mentioned from Genesis to Jude. It is true, John, in the Revelation, mentions something about them, but it is when he is describing that curious animal that rose out of the sea, that spoke like a lamb, and which had horns and claws somewhere about it. Now as the bible knows nothing of these offices, it is unreasonable to expect to find a call to them mentioned in the volume. "A call" in some sects means so many hundred dollars a-year; in others it means a deep impression upon the mind; and in others it means no more than the voice of the congregation.

      I know what you term "a call" is just what I felt a hundred times when a boy. And I still feel it. I feel that it is my indispensable duty to call upon sinners to reform, and to flee from the wrath to come. I also feel that it is my indispensable duty to write and publish this paper, and to make use of all righteous means to circulate it far and wide. I could not conscientiously abandon it. But shall I say that I am specially called by the Holy Spirit to edit the "Christian Baptist?" If there be any sense which can be put upon these words, which will justify their use in this connexion, I will add, that I am as much called by the Holy Spirit to publish the "Christian Baptist," as any man upon the earth is called to preach the gospel. What think you of this? A man that can read well, and who finds persons who cannot read the testimony of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, is also called by the Holy Spirit to read those testimonies; and in so reading, he is preaching the gospel. I think the whole amounts to this, and the whole controversy issues here; those who feel it their duty to preach the gospel, call this sense of duty "a call of the Holy Spirit;" and when they feel it their duty to visit the sick, and to feed the hungry, and clothe the naked, they consider this sense of duty a mere dictate of conscience, or a part of religion, and do not rank it so high as a special call of the Holy Spirit; whereas in fact it is the same in every respect. And did men feel that there is as much religion in feeding the hungry and visiting the sick, as they think there is in public speaking, I doubt not but that they would think they had as divine, and as authoritative a call, to the one as to the other. But many, from false views of things, after they have found peace and joy in the gospel, think that there is no way of serving God nor men but in preaching the gospel, and they can have no rest night nor day so long as they are not "serving God," i. e. in their view, preaching the gospel. Hence so many not only attempt to preach the gospel, but even to teach the christian religion, who have need themselves to be taught the very first principles of the doctrine of Christ. In this way they impose upon themselves, the church, and the world, with a good conscience, thinking they are serving God, and that they are either emphatically or exclusively the servants of God. Now I am led to think, from the apostles' doctrine, that the poor widow, or the waiting maid who labors industriously in her station, and who obeys Christ, is just as good a servant of God and "minister of Jesus Christ" as ever John Calvin was, or any other preacher of teacher is. On this topic I cannot be more diffuse at present.

      As to your second objection, I will only observe that, although every christian can tell much of his own past and present feelings, there is no law, commandment, or rule, calling upon him to make them known for any purpose whatever. And there is no divine commandment, rule, or precedent, authorizing us to demand, in order to baptism, any such a recital; but a true, sincere, or hearty profession of the faith which the apostles required. Disciples are not to be baptized into their own experience, but into the faith; nor are we to love them because of their experience, but because they are partakers of [292] the same precious faith. Nor is their telling their experience any more assurance that "their religion is seated in their heart" than their professing the faith. There is not one advantage to be gained by hearing or telling all the workings of unbelief, or all the conflicts of conscience, or all the agonies of despair, all the calms and storms of the experience of John Bunyan, or any other man; and it is absurd, in every sense of the word, to call such agitations and mental commotions as were prior to conversion--I say again, it is absurd to call such, "christian experience." Any thing it may be but christian experience; for a christian experiences no such things. And it is absurd on another account to require a candidate for baptism to tell us his christian experience, for it supposes that he must have lived a long time a christian without obeying the very commandment which points him out as a disciple of Christ. And for a Baptist to baptize any candidate on the recital of his christian experience while disobeying the gospel, is the climax of inconsistency. If I am to be entertained with such recitals, I would ask persons to tell me what they experienced while they disobeyed the gospel, and what have they experienced since they believed and were baptized. This would at least be consistent with Baptist proceedings; but the popular course is at war with the very elements of their own system. I have only to add one word more, that to call the experiences of men, before or after they believe, vital piety, is the greatest abuse of language and good sense that I know of.

      On the subject of funeral sermons, the law of my King says nothing. Some may, perhaps, have read in their Testaments of the eloquent eulogy and pathetic funeral oration which the Rev. Simon Peter delivered on the death of Deacon Stephen; or of the feeling funeral sermon that the pious and Rev. Saulus Paul pronounced on the death of the Rt. Rev. and venerable James Zebedee. Those who have read the funeral sermons delivered by the apostles on the death of John the Baptist, and Mary the mother of Jesus, will no doubt admire the practice; but for us who have lost all these parts of the New Testament, we cannot be supposed to have much taste for this kind of orations. For my part, I would rather hear one resurrection sermon than ten burial sermons.

      I have been sometimes asked how this practice got into fashion. The only history I can give of it is as follows:--In the days of popish uniformity it was usual to gather the friends of the deceased to contrive some way of expediting the progress of the departed in his journey through purgatory. For this purpose his relative gave oblations, and the priest was there ready to receive them. When the oblations amounted to something sufficient to make the gates of purgatory yield, the priest went down with the sum and gave his orders to the keeper of this prison to let the ransomed captive escape.

      The followers of John Calvin and Martin Luther did not relish this custom; but in process of time some of their followers thought that the Romanists gained something from the dead for the benefit of the living; and they set about visiting the houses of mourning, and of making lamentation over the dead for the purpose of affecting the living. They professed not to benefit the dead, but the living. The rich had large funerals and many mourners, and consequently the priests were more attentive on these occasions, because it gave them a "greater opportunity of doing good." It then became a dishonorable thing not to have funeral sermons when relatives died, and so it passed off into a mere token of respect for the dead and living. It is now a mere complimentary thing; and you know when any thing is considered a decent thing, there are many excuses for it. And so it is said it is a good time to touch the feelings when the heart is melting with grief; and it is for the sake of the living and not for the dead that this custom is kept up. It has often astonished me how much more pains is taken, and how much more ingenuity is exhibited in finding authority or excuses for the support and continuance of human institutions, than for attending upon the Divine ordinances plainly declared in the New Testament. But how sensible christians can justify themselves to their own consciences for neglecting the ancient order of things, and in following up human traditions, is to me a matter of inexpressible surprize. I saw, not long since, a funeral sermon advertised on the occasion of the death of Jeremiah Beauchamp and his wife; and a funeral sermon has been delivered on the execution of malefactors in some of our cities. No doubt these were proper themes; but it is something like those "affairs of honor" amongst people of color, which are a good lesson to such men as the honorable John Randolph and the honorable Henry Clay.

      Many, however, delivered funeral sermons from the best motives, and this is with them a sufficient excuse. Balls have recently been introduced in Paris by the prayers of a clergyman, and no doubt there was need for them. And "the grace" before a public dinner has been drunk down in a toast after dinner. Editors of newspapers pronounce encomiums upon the prayers of religious orators of the day. A cattle show and exhibition of horses and hogs must be carried to the church and consecrated by a priest; and nothing is wanting to sanctify a horse-race, and make it a sealing ordinance, but a small stretch of charity--about as much as will license a billiard table and a game of cards. What a religious people we are!! Wishing you and I may be content with, and live up to the piety ordained in the New Testament, I subscribe myself your affectionate brother and fellow-laborer in the doctrine which is according to godliness.

THE EDITOR.      

      "AND as he thinks in his heart, so does he truth express," is one of the distinguishing characteristics of a true disciple of Jesus Christ. Truth is the basis of all confidence amongst rational beings. Implicit confidence in every word spoken would have always been enjoyed had it not been for the introduction of lies. Unbelief and distrust are the natural results of a system of lying and deceit. God has thought proper to designate himself, since the introduction of falsehood into the universe, as "the God of truth." The Devil is always represented as a liar--as the father of liars--as the arch deceiver. Eve was seduced by a lie; and the belief of a lie became the cause of all distrust, and opened a fountain of deceit which has corrupted the whole race of Adam. By the belief of a lie death entered into the world; and God has thought proper, by the belief of the truth, to introduce men into the enjoyment of life. Every thing good is on the side of truth; and every thing evil is leagued with falsehood. The lying tongue and deceitful lips are an abomination in [293] the sight of God; because from them have proceeded all that is the cause of misery and wretchedness in the world.

      From these maxims, which are as universally admitted as the evidences of the christian religion, it is easily inferred that truth is a capital virtue, without which there is no goodness in man. Christians having experienced the evil consequences of the first lie that was spoken in human ears, and having been reclaimed and brought back to God by the belief of truth, are led not only to love the truth which brought them to reformation, but to love truth in general. To speak it and practice it are therefore indispensable duties of the christian.

      All errors in religion are of two kinds; as we say, errors in doctrine and errors in practice. Errors in doctrine are simply lies; whilst errors in practice are transgressions of law. Doctrinal errors are doctrinal lies, or false views which the mind takes of things revealed. If, then, a man believe false doctrine, he simply holds that for truth which is, in plain English, a lie. Of those doctrinal lies some are inoperative speculations; others are operative falsehoods which issue in the transgression of law.

      Some men, for example, teach for doctrine that reformation is not the immediate duty of all men yet unreclaimed. Some believe this to be a truth; consequently, do not reform: but are waiting for something as previous or preparatory to it. Now the holding of this error issues in the transgression of law, or in the transgression of a divine commandment, which expressly says, "God commands all men every where to reform." Again--some take up false views of this reformation, which issue in practical errors. Supposing it to mean no more than a change of views or a regret for the past, they are led to rest in a change of system or of sentiment, while their practices continue as they were. But did they view it as a truth, that in the proclamation of reformation, God commanded such a change of sentiment, through the truth proclaimed, as commences forthwith a reformation of life, and that this reformation of life is the end or object of the commandment or proclamation, then nothing short of such a reformation could satisfy the person entertaining such a view of this proclamation. In this we see how errors in doctrine, or doctrinal lies, issue in transgression of law, either in the way of omission or commission.

      The apostle John, both in his Epistles and in the Revelation, distinctly and boldly denominates the speakers or promulgers of false doctrine,' liars. Those who profess to know God, but in works deny hire, the same apostle calls liars. "If," says he, "a man says I know him, and keep not his commandments, he is a liar, and the truth is not in him." When the apostle John says, "all liars shall have their portion in the lake which burns with fire," there is every reason to believe, from a just regard to his style, that he especially means the propagators of false doctrine.

      But we would call the attention of our readers to a great apostacy from truth, not only doctrinal or sentimental truth, but from speaking truth, and giving true representations to one another in the common intercourse of life. The time has been when a christian was understood to mean a person free from guile, deceit, and falsehood of every kind. He was understood to be a person purified in heart by the belief of divine truth; a person who made no false pretensions nor promises, and always gave a faithful representation of things. But there appears an awful declension in the general character of christians from this description, in the present day. "Christian nations" are as famous for lying and deceit, as they are for their refinements in the arts of war and an honest way of men stealing. The great multitude seems to have lost a regard for truth, and to have adopted a regular system of prevarication and deception. Even the most solemn promises and pledges are violated without any apparent contrition. A tells B, without any apparent compunction, that he cannot meet his engagements because the times are hard. He will not discommode himself, or make any sacrifice, and scarcely an effort to redeem his pledge, because it is fashionable to excuse oneself for failing to fulfil promises by laying all the guilt upon the depreciation consequent on our extravagancies. But this is not all. In speaking of one another, and to one another, exaggeration and hyperbole do not satisfy the propensity for the marvellous, do not give full vent to our passions, our loves or our hates; but downright fabrication and gross misrepresentation become necessary to carry favorite objects; insomuch that we scarcely know how much to subtract from all that we hear, in order to arrive at the truth. Those whose consciences will not brook downright fabrication and blunt lying, will nevertheless button themselves up to the chin in a garment of guile of as many plies as the seven-fold shield of Achilles; so that if you were to unbutton some of our giants in morality, they would be mere pigmies in stature. Equivocation, mental reservation, ambiguity, double meanings, high colorings, small subtractions, and little additions are the apparent order of the day. Now the genius and spirit of all the precepts and examples of christian morality on this point, are in direct opposition to the course of the world. Even hypocrisy and guile are denounced as most odious offences against the spirit of Christ; and yet hypocrisy and guile are the most decent of all the species of lying and deceit exhibited in the world. One of the ingredients in that famous recipe for long life which king David first promulged, and which the apostle Peter attests, is this: "If a man would live long and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil and his lips from guile." If christian societies do not reform in this respect, the character which Paul gave of the Cretans will soon accord with the great mass of the christian world--the Cretans are always liars."

      Every pretence, profession, declaration, and promise that does not fully accord with simple fact, is to be ranked under the generic head of lying, and divests the character of that essential attribute of the inhabitants of heaven. "And as he thinks in his heart so does he truth express."

EDITOR.      

      AMONGST all that has been said in this work on the ancient order of things, we do not at present recollect of having received any objections from any quarter against any one position laid down in any essay under this head. We have received numerous communications presenting objections to some articles in this work, but none that we remember against any one item which we have said belonged to the ancient order of things. To what this is owing, I presume not to say. One thing is obvious from the face of this work, that our correspondents are not backward in exhibiting their objections, nor are we very scrupulous about laying them before the [294] public. This silence, then, on this grand chapter of this work, is to be attributed either to a general conviction, or a patient investigation not yet finished, or to an entire apathy on the subject. We would rather ascribe it to either of the former two causes than to the latter.

      Before we proceed to any new items under this general head, we shall offer a few remarks on that spirit and temper of mind which was exhibited while as yet the ancient order of things stood uncorrupted, and which it may be presumed must be possessed, and exhibited in order to the restoration of that order.

      One of the most infallible signs of true conversion which I know any thing of--and one which the ancient converts generally exhibited--and one which Saul of Tarsus, at the moment of his conversion so eminently displayed, is couched in these words--"Lord, what will you have me to do?" This unfeigned and vehement desire to know the will of the Lord in order to do it, is, in my humble opinion, the surest and most general and comprehensive sign, proof, and pledge of regeneration. The spirit and temperament of the ancient christians inclined and drew them, as the laws of gravitation do all bodies to the centre of the system, to a most devout conformity to all the institutes of the Prince of Life. They loved his will supremely. Neither fire nor water, famine nor sword, good fame or bad fame prevented them in their obedience. They took joyfully the spoiling of their goods, and loved not their lives unto death rather than renounce their allegiance in any one point to him who died for them. His laws and institutions were all in all to them. No scribe, no rabbi, no sanhedrim, no human tribunal, no popularity amongst their own people or foreigners, no reproach, no privation could induce them to treat his will with either coolness, indifference, or neglect. They reasoned thus: If Jesus died for us, we owe our lives to him. We are his, and not our own. His will shall be ours. His statutes shall be our choice. Our only concern shall be, "Lord, what will you have us to do?"

      Let the spirit, then, of the ancient christians be restored, and we shall soon see their order of things clearly and fully exhibited. "If the eye be sound the whole body shall be full of light;" and if the heart be right the practice will bear the test of examination. To have the ancient order of things restored in due form, without the spirit or power of that order, would be mere mimicry, which we would rather, and we are assured the primitive saints themselves would rather, never see. The spirit of the present order of things is too much akin to the spirit of this world. It looks with a countenance beaming too much complacency on the pride and vanity, on the tinsel and show, on the equipage and style, on the avarice and ambition, on the guile and hypocrisy of this world. Its supreme petition is not "Lord, what will you have me to do?" but "O you sons of religious fashion! you leaders of religious taste! you synods and councils! you creeds and systems! you mitred heads and patented divines! and you, O Mammon! tell us plainly, tell us fully, what you would have us to do to gain your admiration, and if possible too, to save our souls." This is not the spirit of all, of any creed or of any party; but this appears the leading and triumphant spirit of the present order of things.

      The spirit of the ancient order always looked up to the throne of Jesus, while that of the modern looks around on the smiles of ecclesiastical rulers. The spirit of the ancient derived its joys from the complacency of the Founder of the Faith; the spirit of the modern, from the approbation of the leaders of devotion. The apostles' doctrine was the food and support of the former, while creeds and commentaries are the nourishment of the latter. The praise of God animated that--the praise of men enlivens this.

      May I tell a little of my religious experience, as this is much the fashion now? I will once at least, comply with the will of the religious populars. Well, then, I once loved the praise of men, and thought it would be a great happiness could I so shape my course as to merit the praise of God and the approbation of men. I saw there was a kind of piety the people of fashion in the religious world admired, and I thought that a few small additions to it might make it pass current in both worlds. I set my heart to find it out. I saw but little difference in many sects as respected true piety, but a good deal as respected show and ceremony. I thought that which was most popular might upon the whole be the safest, as it would make sure of one point at all events, and might gain the other too. For there was a John Newton in the church of King Harry and a George Campbell in that of St. Charles. I vacillated here for a time. If I joined the most fashionable and profitable society, and adopted the most genteel order of things, I did not know but that if I were a pretty honest and faithful member, like some of those good Churchmen or Presbyterians, I might chance heaven as well as they, and at all events I would be sure of good entertainment on the road. As yet I felt not the attractions of the love of God; but soon as I was enabled to calculate the import of one question, viz. "What is a man profited if he should gain the whole world and lose his life?" and soon as I understood that it was "a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation, that Jesus the Messiah came into the world to save sinners," even the chief of sinners, I reasoned on different premises and came to different conclusions. If bought at so dear a rate, and purchased at such an immense price, I found all my faculties, and powers, and means, and opportunities were claimed on principles at which no generous heart could demur. Had I a thousand tongues as eloquent as Gabriel's and faculties of the most exalted character, 'twere all too little to tell his praise and to exhibit his excellencies to men.

      The only question then was, How shall I do this to the most advantage? In attempting to find an answer to this, I found that there was a way already laid down, which, if I adopted and pursued, must lead soonest and safest to this point. It was all comprised in two sentences--Publish in word what he has done, and as his own institutions will reflect the greatest possible honor upon him in this world, let them be fairly exhibited and the end is gained. This chain of thought just led me to the question, "Lord, what will you have me to do?" Now, in attempting to find an answer from his oracles to this petition, I took it for granted that there was no new communication of his will to be expected, but that it must be sought after in the volume. When any act of devotion or item of religious practice presented itself to my view, of which I could learn nothing from my Master's Last Will and Testament, I simply gave it up; and if I found any thing there, not exhibited by my fellow-christians, I went into the practice of it, if it was the practice of an individual; and if it was a social act, I attempted to invite others to unite with me in it. Thus I went on correcting my views, and returning to his institutes until I became so speckled a [295] bird that scarce one of any species would cordially consociate with me: but I gained ample remuneration in the pursuit, and got a use of my wings which I never before experienced. Thus too I was led into a secret, which as I received freely, I communicate freely. It is this: There is an ancient and a modern order of things in the Lord's house. Now I am sure that if all my brethren had only the half of the religious experience I have had upon this subject, they would be doubly in the spirit of this ancient order, and their progress would be geometrically proportioned to what it now is. My friends will forgive me for so much egotism--and my enemies will find fault with me at any rate; so that it is little matter as respects them, what I say or do. In the mean time, however, I cannot conclude without again remarking, that if the spirit of the ancient christians and of their individual and social conduct was more inquired after, and more cultivated, we should find but little trouble in understanding and displaying the ancient order of things.

EDITOR.      

      WHO flourished in the fourth century, speaks as follows of the spirit of creed-making in his time, which was but a few years after its rise:--

      "It is a thing equally deplorable and dangerous, that there are as many creeds as there are opinions among men; as many doctrines as inclinations; and as many sources of blasphemy as there are faults among us; because we make creeds arbitrarily, and explain them as arbitrarily. And as there is but one faith, so there is but one only God, one Lord, and one baptism. We renounce this one faith, when we make so many different creeds; and that diversity is the reason why we have no true faith among us. We cannot be ignorant, that since the council of Nice, we have done nothing but make creeds. And while we fight against words, litigate about new questions, dispute about equivocal terms, complain of authors, that every one may make his own party triumph; while we cannot agree, while we anathematize one another, there is hardly one that adheres to Jesus Christ. What change was there not in the creed last year! The first council ordained a silence upon the homoousion; the second established it, and would have us speak; the third excuses the fathers of the council, and pretends they took the word ousia simply; the fourth condemns them, instead of excusing them. With respect to the likeness of the Son of God to the Father which is the faith of our deplorable times, they dispute whether he is like in whole, or in part. These are rare folks to unravel the secrets of heaven. Nevertheless it is for these creeds, about invisible mysteries, that we calumniate one another, and for our belief in God. We make creeds every year; nay, every moon we repent of what we have done; we defend those that repent; we anathematize those that we defended. So we condemn either the doctrine of others in ourselves, or our own in that of others; and reciprocally tearing one another to pieces, we have been the cause of each other's ruin."

[TCB 288-296]