Volume 4. Number 7. February 5, 1827, pp. 303-312.

• Review (of John Tassey's The Supreme and Exclusive Authority of the Lord Jesus Christ in Religious Matters, Maintained) by Philalethes, pp. 303-306.
• Paulinus to the Editor of the "Christian Baptist": Second Epistle by Paulinus, pp. 306-308.
• Experimental Religion.--No. I. by Philip (Walter Scott), p. 309.
• Extract of a Letter from the Editor by Alexander Campbell, pp. 309-312.
  • The Outlines of an Oration, Based upon the 4th and 6th Chapters of Nehemiah, the 2d Chapter of the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, and the 17th and 18th Chapters of the Revelation by Alexander Campbell, pp. 310-312.

      THERE is just issued from the press, in This place, (Pittsburgh,) a work, titled, "The Supreme and Exclusive Authority of the Lord Jesus Christ in Religious Matters, maintained; and the Rights, Liberties, and Privileges of the Children of God established from the Sacred Scriptures, in Opposition to the Assumed Powers of Ecclesiastics. In two Parts. By John Tassey, Pastor of the Congregational Church, Pittsburgh." This work contains 165 pages, duodecimo. The first part is based upon that ancient prophecy, Deut. chap. xiii. as quoted by Peter, Acts iii. 22. 23. "For Moses truly said to the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up to you, of your brethren, like to me; him shall you hear in all things, [303] whatsoever he shall say to you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul that will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people."

      In this part the author first illustrates the similarity between Moses the type, and Christ the antitype, in a variety of striking coincidences, both personal and official, in order to illustrate and establish the truth of the prophecy.

      He next proceeds to develope and enforce the ditty of unlimited obedience in all things. This he does with great apparent solemnity and elaborate pathos; and finds much to blame and lament, and justly too, on account of the manifest neglect of, and opposition to, the exclusive and universal authority of this great prophet amongst professors of every name and description.--"There is not," says he, "that entire subjection of mind to the instructions of Christ, discoverable among professing christians, that there ought to be. There is not that total and unqualified surrender of the soul to all the doctrines, and to all the duties which he inculcates. They not only listen to his word with a partial ear and straitened understanding, but with a prejudiced mind and a steeled heart. Determined at all hazards to maintain their ground, they cannot, they will not be persuaded to resign themselves to the entire control of the Lord Jesus. We complain not now of any particular description of professing christians. The evil is general and deep-rooted in them all, and demands immediate remedies. It is an eating gangrene that will soon corrode the vitals of religion, and eat out the very marrow of the gospel. And how can it be otherwise if the authority of Jesus is superseded by the authority of other principles? if pride, and party zeal, and selfishness, and love of systems, with all their close attendants in the train, march up, in rank and file, to dispossess the Son of God from his high seat as Lord of conscience?" Page 42.

      Again, page 48--"Not that any professing christian will openly or avowedly deny the authority of Jesus. But whether his authority is set aside avowedly or otherwise, it matters not. It amounts to the same thing. 'You call me Master and Lord, and do not the things which I say. Many will say to me in that day, Lord! Lord! to whom I will say I know you not; depart from me, you workers of iniquity.' What we complain of, then, is that attachment to self-formed and conjectural principles, by which the authority of revelation is superseded;--that love of system which grinds down and new models every opposing passage of these holy records, until it is supposed to tally with our acknowledged creed; that blind and unconquerable love of party, which forces the Oracles of Heaven out of their natural and obvious meaning to support its unhallowed pretensions." Page 54. "Yet, singular to tell, that some of our must zealous advocates for systems talk of persons going to hell with an orthodox creed, as if religious truth had changed its nature, and become the soul's eternal enemy. Perhaps, however, there is some cause for thinking so; some real operative principle that works the effect; but surely in the word it is not, nor can it be. The doctrines which the Saviour taught tend not to lead men in the path to hell; but upward lead to glory and immortal joy. Whence is it, then, that such reflections rest on orthodoxy? We suspect the cause is near at hand, and quite within our reach. The general source from which men learn religious sentiments is not the word of God, but the formal systems of the day; or from the party to which they respectively belong. In those systems the principles of religion stand invested with all the authority of ecclesiastical statutes, and enforced by ecclesiastical sanctions, but the authority of Christ attends them not. There they are exhibited in all the nakedness of systematic stiffness, stripped and leafless as the sturdy oak in winter, couched in the technical and logical phraseology of the schools; but they stand divested of those heavenly charms which engage our affections; of that sympathy and love which subdue the heart, and captivate the soul. There they are set forth contaminated with the foul breath of fallible and dying mortals, addressed only to the intellects of men; announced in words of human wisdom, and compounded of the most heterogeneous materials; and, consequently, cannot reach the conscience, nor carry conviction to the inquiring mind: they possess no attractions to catch the soul, no loveliness to engage the heart to the admiration of virtue. And every step we take in pursuit of truth, as exhibited in these formularies, is attended with uncertainty and doubt. We may talk, then, of the wisdom of our ancestors, and their claims upon our high regards; but their wisdom was certainly human wisdom, and the regard we owe them ought never to be placed in competition with that which we owe the Lord of life. How very differently do the scriptures teach us! They take every avenue to the human heart. They enlighten us with their instructions, and sanctify us by the purity of their truth, and the unction of the Good Spirit from on high; they command us into subjection by their authoritative voice; and deter us from the paths of folly by the thunders of heaven. They engage our sympathetic feelings by the sympathy and love of Jesus; and excite our imitative dispositions by the exhibition of all that is amiable and of good report in the conduct of those whom they set before us for our examples. Instead of an abstruse and metaphysical phraseology, we have the plain and obvious language, which his righteous servants spake, as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. Instead of the productions of fallible men, we have the pure and infallible testimony of the Lord Jesus. And in place of the dry systematic formularies of human wisdom, we have all the excellency, and beauty, and harmony, of the doctrines and duties of God's word, represented in their close connexion and dependency. And with all the charms with which virtue can adorn the human character, we see the Son of God invested, and in him morality and holiness assume a living form to attract and draw us from the fatal paths of folly, sin, and shame. That orthodoxy, therefore, which changes not the heart, but leads to ruin and despair, is the genuine offspring of human creeds: from the pure fountain of eternal truth it has not sprung. Surely the doctrine of Christ must be sadly compounded with false principles, or associated with most erroneous sentiments, when it ceases to produce those natural effects ascribed to it in the scriptures.--Were it received pure and unmixed from the fountain of truth now, as it was in apostolic days, it would still bring forth the peaceable fruits of righteousness, which are by Christ to the glory of God."

      Page 59. "The doctrines and commandments of men, on whatever pretence introduced, ought to meet with that severity of rebuke, which they most justly deserve. They have ever been the source of discord and corruption in the church of God. If Christ is sole governor in his kingdom; [304] if he is given as leader and commander to his people; if he, as Moses was, is faithful in all his house; and if he possesses the exclusive right of dictating to the consciences of men, and of making laws for their regulation in religious matters; then every rule of expediency, every doctrine of human formation, every case of conscience determined in any shape, by persons possessing an assumed right to do so, is contrary to the rights and prerogatives of the Lord Jesus."

      After insisting at length upon the exclusive and universal obligation of hearkening to the voice of our Great Prophet, and of the ruinous and dreadful consequences of rejecting or neglecting his authority, or in any wise interfering with it, he comes to the second part, p. 85, to treat more particularly of the supreme authority of the Lord Jesus in relation to his churches, and to vindicate the liberties and privileges of his people from the assumed authority of ecclesiastical courts of every description. He prefaces this part of the subject with a quotation from Acts xxii. 17-28, a part of Paul's farewell charge to the elders of the church of Ephesus.

      Page 85. "Warped by the prejudices of education, or blinded by a superstitious attachment to a particular sect, some are of opinion that the bible lays down no specific rules for the management of Christ's kingdom, but leaves it to the prudential management of its friends to regulate its concerns."

      In reply to this assumption, our author justly argues, that it goes "to arraign the wisdom of God,--to charge the oracles of Heaven with what would render them useless and nugatory." That "we can never conceive that an all wise God would leave his word imperfect; or that he would grant us a code of laws which would either be inapplicable or deficient; much less that he would leave his people altogether destitute of such necessary regulations." That, "of all the duties which devolve upon a governor, there is none more essentially necessary than the formation of wise and equitable laws for the management of his subjects. Without these it is impossible for him to maintain his authority, or prevent anarchy and confusion throughout his dominions." That "it is equally impossible for subjects to submit to law with which they are totally unacquainted." That "of course, it becomes the bounden duty of every wise ruler to govern by righteous and equitable laws, and to publish these for the benefit of all concerned. Also, that by the nature of the laws promulgated, we judge of the qualifications of the governor from whom they derive their authority and character." Therefore, that "if the Lord Jesus is King of kings, and Lord of Lords, it is but reasonable to expect that he will govern his subjects by regulations corresponding with his righteous character: that, as they are willing subjects, and must render a cheerful, and not a forced obedience, they must become acquainted with the laws of his kingdom, as promulgated by himself; and then their obedience will not be an act of submission to the authority of man, but to that of Jesus Christ: their faith will not stand in the wisdom of man, but in the power of God. But to suppose that the Lord Jesus governs his church without any fixed or determined laws; or that, if he does rule by such laws, he has not clearly or explicitly made them known to his people, ought to be regarded as too gross an insinuation to admit of the smallest consideration."

      Thus he argues for the indispensable necessity of a distinct, intelligible, and competent exhibition of law, both for the honor of the ruler and the loyalty and comfort of the ruled. And certainly to good effect. For to acknowledge Christ as a ruler without a law; or by a law deficient and unintelligible, would, to say the least, be a foul imputation upon his character. What would we say of a civil governor, or of a government that would proceed in this manner? Would we not call that governor or government weak, foolish, or tyrannical?

      After obviating an objection to the above statement, drawn from the informal and unsystematic exhibition of the laws by which the church of Christ is to be governed, our author proceeds [page 88] to an examination of the nature and constitution of those primitive societies called churches of Christ, in order "to ascertain the amount of the information furnished in the scriptures respecting their government, laws and customs, as they existed in apostolic days" and resolves his inquiry into the four following questions: "What is the church of God, which he has purchased with his own blood? What is its nature and constitution? What are the permanent officers and ordinances of a scripturally organized church? And what are the particular duties devolving upon those officers?"

      In the prosecution of these inquiries, he confines himself wholly to the sacred records; except that, in one single instance, he refers to the well known Apologetic of Justin Martyr in page 211, which shall be noticed in its proper place. He commences with exhibiting the certain and definite meaning of the term church in its appropriated application to the people of God, both in the Old and New Testaments. In the course of this investigation it is fully evinced that the term church, or congregation, (as some translate it) when applied to the people of God has always one of the two following significations; namely, either the whole body of the redeemed contemplated as co-existing either in heaven or earth; or else to one particular society met, or in the stated habits of meeting together in one place for religious purposes. That this latter and particular application of the term is sometimes attributed to the congregation as distinguished from their pastors and teachers, but never to the latter as distinguished from the former: as is also the term clergy, translated heritage, 1 Pet. v. 3. applied by the apostle to the people, contradistinguished from their bishops and pastors. It is also clearly evinced that the term church is never used to designate a confederation of churches; or a representative assembly composed of delegates from such confederation.

      Page 102. "Moreover, we maintain that the word church, in the scriptures, can be understood neither literally nor figuratively, as applicable to an assembly of delegates from different churches or congregations. Not literally--for as we have shown before, it is already the appropriated name of those societies from which the delegates are supposed to be sent, and these various societies are never assembled in one place, so as to make but one society, and therefore can never be called a church; they are not literally a church, but churches; for they literally meet in a number of different places; and, surely, a number of distinct assemblies can never be called one assembly. But, you say, they are assembled figuratively in their representatives. Suppose they are, this does not alter the case; for the designation church cannot apply, in the singular number, to these representatives figuratively, no more than literally, for the best reason in the world--because the representatives [305] assembled must, in this case, be designated by the very title by which their constituents are known. And as in the present instance, their constituents are designated by the plural noun churches, for this very reason, if we wish to apply the appellation to a representative body figuratively, we must call them churches, not church; for all these different assemblies, according to scripture usage, are never known, nor described by the singular noun, church; but always by the plural, churches. Accordingly, it might be properly said, in a figurative sense, that the Presbyterian congregations enacted a certain law, thereby meaning that the general assembly did so. But we could never, with propriety, say the Presbyterian congregation did so; for all the congregations of Presbyterians are not known by the title congregation, in the singular number. Or suppose, for sake of illustration, that an assembly of delegates from Antioch, Syria, Silicia, &c., together with the apostles and elders resident in Jerusalem, met as a representative body there; this meeting could not, in a religious sense, be literally called a church, for this word was already pre-occupied, being the appropriated name of any particular assembly of the saints, who met for worship; consequently, could not become the designation of a meeting so differently constituted: nor could it be so called figuratively; for we could not say that the church in Jerusalem enacted certain decrees, for this would be false; the meeting of christians in Jerusalem, previously known by this designation, not being a delegated body at all, but a worshipping society; consequently it could not be the assembly called the church in Jerusalem, which enacted such decrees as the case supposes. And on the supposition that this representative body was the enacting authority, it could not be figuratively called the church in Jerusalem; for it was not the church in Jerusalem merely, that had delegates in the representative body; but, as is alleged, there were delegates from a great number of other churches throughout Syria, Silicia, &c. consequently, the decrees of these churches, made by their delegates assembled in Jerusalem, could never be figuratively called the decrees of the church in Jerusalem, but must, in consistency with the rules of rhetoric (he might have said, with the rules of common sense,) be called the decrees of the churches represented, inasmuch as these churches, by their representatives, enacted them."

      Our author, after thus vindicating the term church from a gross misapplication, manifestly designed to give an appearance of scriptural authority to the representative system of church government, next proceeds to notice an unhappy sectarian abuse of the term:--

      "By a strange and almost unaccountable revolution in the history of the appellation church, from being the designation of a christian society, it has come to be in connexion with some other descriptive word, the badge of distinction among the various sectaries. Hence we have the Lutheran Church, the Reformed Presbyterian Church, the Baptist Church, &c. all of which designations describe the boundaries of the respective sects to which they refer; or, as they are frequently used, represent the supreme judicatories belonging to these denominations. Hence the assemblies of God's people have been robbed of their proper scriptural name, and others substituted for it; and almost all that remains to the original proprietors of it, is, that they are permitted to grace the walls of their meeting-houses with this designation, and call them churches. All the honors and privileges belonging to those who formerly were the rightful owners of the title, have been gradually assumed, and finally usurped, by what are now denominated church judicatories, together with the title itself. Yet for such an application of the word church to a representative body, the scriptures do not lay the smallest foundation. "The notion, therefore, of a church representative, how commonly soever it has been received, is a mere usurper of a later date, and it has fared here, as it sometimes does in cases of usurpation, the original proprietor comes, though gradually, to be at length totally dispossessed. Should any man now talk of the powers of the church, and of the rights of churchmen, would the hearers apprehend that he meant the powers of a christian congregation or the rights of all who are members of the christian community? It is, therefore, not without reason that I affirm, that the modern acceptation, though an intruder, has jostled out the rightful and primitive one, almost entirely."¹

      Our author modestly concludes this part of his investigation by submitting the result to the judgment of the candid and impartial; with the following protest:--

      Page 141. "It only remains for us to declare, That we do most solemnly protest against all ecclesiastical courts of every description, as completely hostile to the supreme authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, and subversive of that pure and personal obedience which we ought to render to him, as king and head of his church. And still further, we do not hesitate to pronounce that system, which erects partition walls, or frames terms of communion, either congregational or ministerial, by which christians are prevented from joining together with their fellow christians in the service of God, or from engaging to perform their duty according to their talents or abilities, as destructive to the best interests of christianity, and as sanctioning the breach of that primary law of Christ's house--the law of love."

PHILALETHES.

December 6, 1826.

Virginia, November, 1826.      

      DEAR SIR--IT is time I had made my acknowledgments for the attention which you have paid to my first letter; not only in giving it a place in your interesting publication, but in replying so promptly and largely to the various points introduced to your notice. I am your debtor also, and in no small degree, for the copy of your discourse on the abrogation of the Old Dispensation, &c. It proved a mental treat, for which I beg you will accept my hearty thanks.

      The metaphysical parts of this composition, however ingenious, (and ingenious they certainly are,) I let pass. You have yourself glanced at them, by way of disapprobation; and I have long been persuaded, that with metaphysical reasonings we have but little to do, in illustrating and enforcing the simple truths of the gospel. Nor do I mean to express unqualified approbation, as to the rest of the discourse. This could hardly be expected: and were you to revise and republish, I think it probable that the statements or remarks, even in regard to the governing object, might, in some two or three instances, wear a different aspect. The main point appears to me to be triumphantly carried; but [306] there are expressions and sentiments which seem to be rather unguarded and defective, and to require some modification. The pamphlet is lent out; so that I cannot refer to it so definitely as I could wish; but as this matter is thought by some of the wise and good, to involve consequences of a dangerous tendency, I must ask your indulgence while I make a few remarks.

      After proving that we are not now under the Legal Dispensation, or the Law, (so called,) and showing that we are to draw our views of actual duty from the New Testament, &c. when you come to the case of the unconverted sinner, you place him, I think, under the Law of Nature. True it is that you make the summary of the Law, ["You shall love the Lord your God," &c.] the basis of all Divine Law. This is, indeed, a thought as important as it is just and striking. Yes; this principle, no doubt, is carried round, through the vast range of the universe, to all orders and ranks of intelligent beings, as the foundation on which all particular obligations are built up: so that however the Law, as a Dispensation, may be branched out or modified, to suit different classes of rational beings, or different times and circumstances, it stands on the same eternal, unchanging basis. This sentiment commends itself at once to the mind of an intelligent reader of the bible: it taxes not our ingenuity for proof; and had some of our "divines" happily taken it up, in proof of the immutability of the "Moral Law," they need not to have set up their chymical apparatus; to convert one thing into another, by attempting to prove, that the law given to angels, the law given to Adam, and the ten commandments, are all the same.

      I may seem to be digressing, but you will not consider me as having lost sight of the point. You place the unconverted sinner under the Law of Nature. And why not place him, my dear sir, under the whole of God's revealed will, according to the Dispensation under which he lives? This, I think, is perfectly consistent. Even the heathen are under the Law of Nature, (Rom. ch. i.) and wherever the New Dispensation comes, it lays hold of every human creature, with the grasp of divine authority, while it presents the exhibition of divine mercy. The basis of obligation is the same, in the benighted regions of paganism, and in the enlightened lands of Christendom; but the dispensation, and the particular obligations, are certainly very different.

      I might enlarge on this topic, but I consider it unnecessary; your own reflection no doubt will supply, or has supplied, whatever I might add by way of argument. A brief remark or two, however, I must beg leave to subjoin, in order to obviate misapprehensions; as to my own views of this matter of Old Testament and New Testament obligations. And first, it appears perfectly scriptural and proper, to consider us under the New Dispensation, as still under Divine Law, though not under "The Law," or the Legal Dispensation. The will of God, as exhibited under the New Covenant, so far as it consists of prohibitions and injunctions, is now his Law to us. Secondly, by this Law, or revealed will of God, (call it what we may,) unconverted sinners are certainly condemned; and by it, christians are to have their hearts and lives regulated. I only add, thirdly, that whatever is sanctioned, as of continued obligation, by the letter or spirit of the New Testament, is to be so received, wherever found;--whether in the Old Testament, or even as a dictate of nature.

      Dismissing this point, I come now to notice one of deep interest, on which, in your answer to my first communication, it is but justice to say, you appear to have bestowed much attention. I allude to the subject of Divine influence, or the operation of the Holy Spirit on the heart of man. I feel confident that you wish me to be free and candid in my communications; and I certainly feel as confident, that without full liberty of this sort, I should find no satisfaction in communicating lily thoughts at all. This is all the apology I deem necessary. Freely and candidly then, I must say, that while many things in your answer--and many incidental remarks, in reference to this very point, met my admiring approbation, I felt some degree of disappointment at the manner in which you considered it proper to shape your reply, in this particular case. Your reasons are, no doubt satisfactory to yourself: perhaps they ought to be so to me and to all. I have heard much said about your answer to Paulinus; for it has excited amongst us a high degree of attention. Some of your readers are satisfied; some are not. And though, upon a candid, careful, re-perusal of your letter, I think it justly due to you to say, that you are an avowed friend to the Spirit's operations, in the production of genuine religion, I must own that I could still wish, you had found in your heart to dispense with what I consider an over degree of scrupulosity, and to answer in a more direct manner. I certainly do not think of dictating to you; nor do I wish, by any means, that you should do violence to your own conscientious views of propriety: but I must think you carry your scruples on the subject of theories and systems to some excess. Permit me to state, as briefly as I can, my own views. By the way, I did wish to introduce, in this letter, some new subjects; or at least to take up some that were just touched on in my former communication: but I must say out what I have to say on the matters in hand, before I can attend to any others; and there will then, I doubt, be but little room left, without occupying too many of your pages.

      Now, my dear sir, be it known to you, and to all whom it may concern, that I am as little disposed to advocate or favor the "art and mystery' of manufacturing theories and systems in religion, as almost any other man--perhaps even, as brother Campbell himself. True it is, that I sometimes indulge my imagination in conjectures;--in attempting some little excursions in the unknown regions,--in the wide field of possibilities, &c. though I do not wander into so many fields as a certain D. D. whose sermon you reviewed; nor do I exhibit these conjectures as articles of faith. But these conjectures, I presume, are a different sort of thing from what you mean by theories in religion; and again I say, I am no advocate for the formation of mere theories; nor for the compiling of abstract truths: nor do I think that those laborious writers, who have attempted to manufacture a regular, connected system of divinity from materials such as they could collect, have thereby advanced the cause of unadulterated religion. I say, a regular, connected system: for though I believe such a system does really exist with God;--that the golden chain is complete; yet it appears to be exhibited only in some of its parts; the connecting links being hidden in impenetrable, adorable darkness. The skill of man is thus baffled; and wherever a fond system-maker exhibits what he would call the whole golden chain, we shall find, upon examination, that he has only some of the parts--(perhaps, indeed, only some of those [307] which are actually revealed,) joined, here and there, by a hempen cord, or an iron link of his own making.

      I have no disposition, I assure you, to carry the fruits I may be enabled to gather from the tree of life, (the bible,) to any distillery, Arminian or Calvinistic, to be run down into alcohol: I would rather take them in their own proper state. I do not consider myself obliged either to be laced up in the stays of John Calvin, or to wear the surtout of James Arminius: I like better "the robe of righteousness--the garments of salvation"--found in heaven's wardrobe, ready made, and to be procured "without money and without price."

      This egotism, it is hoped, will be excused in the present case;--and so much with regard to theories and systems, shaped according to human skill. It is to be lamented, indeed, that systems seem to please some professors of religion, more than the good news of salvation by Christ; and that they manifest more solicitude for the preservation of their beloved plans, than for the maintenance of vital and practical godliness.--Touch every chord in the lyre of salvation;--they still remain listless, unmoved, till the darling notes be sounded to which their spirits are in unison. O for the time when divine truth--the whole of divine truth, shall be relished, as coming from God!--when the souls of professed christians, tuned by grace, shall respond to every declaration of the will of God;--now, with holy fear; now, with lively hope; now, with "joy unspeakable and full of glory;" and always, with obedient "faith that works by love." This will not be till the bible is taken, in good earnest, as the standard of faith and practice. O, sir, may God speed your efforts to call the people to this only standard! May He assist us to plant this standard, this milk-white banner, on the heights of Zion--no more to be insulted by the partycolored flags of Creeds and Confessions of Faith waving over it.

      But after all that I have said, I am not so apprehensive--not so "tremblingly alive" to the danger of theory and system, as to avoid the direct expression of a sentiment on any proposed subject in religion, where indeed I have a sentiment made up on such subject. And why, my dear sir, should we be thus apprehensive? Is there any inconsistency, any impropriety, in so expressing our sentiments? Surely I should think not: or else, as far as I can see, we might narrow the limits of our liberty this way, to one solitary, general, proposition or declaration--I believe what the Bible teaches.

      My letter grows long, and I must condense; must throw out some two or three paragraphs, which I had scribbled off to be transcribed. As I can conceive nothing improper in the simple expression of religious sentiment, so, (to go a step farther,) I see no harm, no injurious tendency, in distinguishing and arranging any scriptural topics, for the sake of bringing the authorities of the bible to bear on them, and obtaining a more lucid view of the different subjects. But then, be it well observed, I would take all these matters simply as I find them in the scriptures;--not as mere abstract truths, but as having their adjuncts;--not as naked theories, but as practical lessons. I would not exhibit them as forming a system,--the connecting links of the different parts being here and there supplied from my own metaphysical reasonings; much less would I, for the sake of any system, sacrifice one part of divine truth to any favorite view of another part. Such are my thoughts in regard to theories and systems in religion. If now, while I think you rather in danger of fastidiousness on the one hand, you should consider me in any degree unguarded on the other, l should really wish to see the evil pointed out: for I again say, I am no friend to the "art and mystery" of system-making. And here I leave this matter: no doubt you will think it high time.

      I have lately received my copy of the new translation of the New Testament,--a work which I think well calculated to aid the liberal-minded reader in his study of the sacred volume;--to relieve the mind on some passages which, in the common translation, appear difficult, if not unintelligible; to enlarge our comprehension of divine truth; and to confirm our belief, by bringing forward (as every good translation does) the same general representation of the sacred original. Of one or two of the supplements I stand in doubt; and, whether it be taste, or the effect of habit, or something better, I have now and then met with a new term which pleases me less than the old one. But as yet I have not given the whole book a perusal, and must be sparing of particular remarks. The four Gospels (or Testimonies) I had before read;--having in my possession Dr. Campbell's Translation, with his admirable Dissertations.

      Before I leave this subject, and bid you adieu for the present, though I have occupied, I doubt, more than my share of room, I must take occasion just to say, how highly pleased I am with your "Prefaces," and "Hints to Readers; &c. and at the same time, how sorry I am to find one particular sentence, which to me appears to be seriously wrong. It is in the Preface to the Epistle to the Romans. "And here let it be noted, (you say,) that the justification by works, and that by faith, of which Paul speaks, and of which our systems speak, are quite different things. To quote his words and apply them to our questions about faith and works, is illogical, inconclusive, and absurd."

      On this point I can now say but little. The sentiment you have expressed in the general preface to the epistles,--that we are to attend to the circumstances of the writer and the persons addressed, &c. is readily admitted to be correct and important; and that we are not to make every period a proverb, like one of Solomon's, &c. But then, dear sir, is it any thing uncommon in epistolary communications, (especially in those of a didactic nature,) occasionally to express a truth, a maxim, a position of general application? Certainly not, and to me it seems entirely clear, that the apostle has done so in the case above alluded to. While he assures the Jews that they could not be justified by the works of their law; while he reminds the Ephesians, that it is "not by works, so that no one can boast;"--and while he remarks to Titus, that we are saved, "not on account of works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his own mercy," &c.--am I not authorized to maintain the same truth, as of general application? Surely I should think so. If I have misunderstood you, excuse me; and be persuaded, my dear sir, that the interest I take in your labors, is one powerful motive with me to remonstrate, wherever I have done so. I need not remind you, that according to our motto, "The Bible our Standard," I must adopt no man's views, however right in many things, where he appears to be in an error.

      Believe me, with best wishes,

	Yours in the gospel of our common Lord,
	PAULINUS. [308]

      THERE are a few topics in our religion to which the writers of the New Testament have paid very particular regard. They are, 1st. The Messiahship of Jesus. 2d. The history of the Apostles. 3d. The right ordering of the primitive churches; and 4th. The history of the church general, or whole body of christians.

      In making a selection of the sacred books, it was, therefore, with great propriety that the first place was assigned to that order of them which particularly respected the founder of our religion--Jesus.

      With equal propriety the second place has been given to those books which speak of the second order of religious character, viz. the immediate followers of Jesus, or the twelve apostles, a general history of whose labors has been delivered to us by Luke in the Acts or Actions of the Apostles.

      The epistles addressed to particular churches occupy the third place, and discourse generally upon the various relations subsisting between them and the Messiah, whose mission they had recognized; their obedience to him; their worship, discipline, order, &c.

      While the Revelations, which furnish us with a prophetic account of christianity in the aggregate, from the days of the apostles till the end of the world, occupy the fourth place.

      That the mission of Jesus, the history of his twelve apostles, the constitution of the primitive churches, and finally the fortunes of christianity in the aggregate, are therefore subjects of great and popular importance, cannot, I think, be reasonably doubted.

      But after all, what would it profit me to understand all that the Revelations have said of the church general, what happiness should I derive from the most perfect acquaintance with what is written of the primitive institutions, or of the twelve apostles, or even of Jesus himself, in all the scriptures generally, and in the four gospels in particular, unless at the same time I knew that I myself were individually and personally interested in the great salvation. This brings us precisely to what is vulgarly called "experimental religion;" a phrase which, by the way, means nothing more than those personal proofs and evidences of our individual adoption into the family of God, which are to be found in the character of every genuine christian. Other topics may be great and of general importance; but if I have rightly defined the expression experimental religion, then it stands for something of more vital importance to my present happiness than all other matters--it stands for the personal evidences of my own individual election to eternal life. Beings of a different order may possess great knowledge of Jesus, of the twelve apostles, the primitive churches, and also of the body of Christ in general; but they can have no experimental religion, no personal proofs that they are individually interested in this salvation; therefore they can derive no happiness from the belief and contemplation of those subjects. The devil possibly has a more extensive acquaintance with those topics than the most enlightened christian; yet his knowledge must inevitably result in trembling. He has no experimental religion.

      Will any man assert, then, that it is of small importance to be convinced that I am individually interested in the salvation of God? I presume that no christian would willingly be guilty of such temerity; and I hesitate not to aver that it is of supreme importance to me to be well informed on this grand point; therefore, it has pleased the Holy Spirit, besides those books written concerning Christ, his apostles, the particular churches, and the body general, to give us also another order of books written on this very topic. The epistles general, and especially the first of John's, are devoted to this subject, and detail to us the various evidences by which we may know that we are "in him that is true;" that we are "now the sons of God," and "have eternal life." In fact, I fear not to hazard the opinion that the New Testament had been incomplete without something on the topic indicated by the unsound phrase "experimental religion." Something on this point, indeed, was necessary to keep a man from being imposed upon in regard to his own character, while on the other hand, something seemed necessary to be said about the infidel or apostate to keep a man from being imposed on in regard to the character of others. This has actually been done by Peter and Jude, who, in their general epistles, have spoken both of unbelievers and apostates. This topic, I presume, we must, by way of analogy, style experimental infidelity!

      Thus we have in the New Testament, books which inform us of Jesus Christ, the apostles, the first churches, the church general, the character of the unbeliever, and finally the character of the true believer, or of the personal proofs of a man's adoption into the family of the Most High.

      Experimental religion, then, (for I scorn to fight about the sound when we have agreed upon the sense)--experimental religion, I say, is one of those subjects which the Holy Spirit has shown to be of importance, inasmuch as he has condescended to discourse upon the christian graces and gifts which constitute what we call by this rotten phrase, "experimental religion." In another paper, I may, perhaps, enumerate some of those particular evidences by which the christian may know that he is a son of God, though I may just add here, that the scriptures inform us that, 1st, Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is begotten by God. 2d, Whosoever loves, has been begotten by God. 3d, That whosoever has the hope of the gospel in him, is an heir of God; and, finally, that all christians know that they have been begotten by God by the spirit which he has given them. Thus the faith, love, and hope of the gospel, with the gift of the Holy Spirit, are all proofs of our individual personal adoption.

PHILIP, alias W. SCOTT.      

      I FIND the saints are yet in Babylon. Many, very many are conscious of it, and are desirous of coming out of her that they may not partake of her plagues. But they are beset with difficulties. They have lost not the copies of the law of their King, as did their types, the Jews, in the literal Babylon; but they have lost the sense, or rather have been preached out of the sense of the law, and many are even preached out of their common sense. They are sensible of this. But this is not all. There are too many Sanballats and Tobiahs, and too few Nehemiahs and Ezras. The captives, too, are so much attached to the chains that bind them, and so much wedded to the manners of the Babylonians, their captivators, that they are, in many instances, unwilling to hazard the dangers and to encounter the reproaches incident to an attempt to return to Jerusalem. I labor incessantly to convince and to [309] persuade the people who fear God, both out of the law, prophets, psalms, and apostolic writings, that such are their character and circumstances, and to induce them to return. It happens in this case as it did when the gospel was first promulged--some believe the things that are spoken, and some believe them not. The number of believers is, indeed, very considerable. But when they think of repairing the breaches, and rebuilding the temple, some Sanballat says, "Will they revive the stones out of the heaps of the rubbish which are burned?" And, to scandalize them, some Tobiah adds his scoff, saying, "Even that which they build, if a fox go up, he shall even break down their stone wall!" However, many of the people "have a mind to work," and the wall will be reared. Out of Babylon they will--they must come; for the mouth of the Lord has spoken it. And should we never see the day, we will die in the full assurance of faith that the saints will separate themselves from the strangers, and renounce allegiance to their spoilers and captivators. Many of those friendly to a return, are attempting to persuade their communities to arise in the mass and to march in one phalanx, and flatter themselves that they may succeed. However much we do desire such an event, we cannot reasonably expect it; for such an event never happened. No community, either political or religious, ever was reformed in the mass. No people ever, all at once, returned from any apostacy. Even when God's typical people were brought back out of Babylon, of the whole nation, but forty two thousand three hundred and sixty at first returned.

      I have been often interrogated on the subject of a model or a precedent for the restoration of the ancient order of things. Some seem to think that the New Testament ought to furnish an example of the sort, or some directions for the accomplishment of an object so important. It does, indeed, in some sense, though not in the way which some desire. It teaches us how Jews and Pagans were converted to the faith, and how both people were consociated into one community. It teaches us upon what principles they became one, and for what ends and uses they maintained the unity of the Spirit in the bonds of peace. It exhibits to us what they did in their congregations; but it does not, because it could not, afford a model of a people returning from a long and grievous apostacy. The christian communities had not then apostatized, and consequently no example of a return could be afforded. Until Rome was built there were no great roads leading thither, nor groups of people returning thence. For this reason the New Testament could not afford a model such as we want. But it foretells this apostacy; its rise, progress, and termination: it exhibits the thing in emblems, and in sacred symbols teaches us how to come out of THE MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT. It imperiously commands a return to Jerusalem; and, in general principles, ordains the way. If, then, we only remember whence we are fallen, we may reform. We may return to the Lord. But it does more than all this. It not only minutely describes the apostacy, and characterizes the Man of Sin, and Son of Perdition; but it leads us, in the way of symbols, to understand where we are, and how to return. It tells us plainly that we may find, in the history of the Jews, our own history, and a remedy for all our grievances. To illustrate this point, I cannot do better than to present you the outlines of an oration delivered on this subject. It was the first time that I based a public speech on the writings of Nehemiah; and I must (as they say, John Bunyan was wont to do) write down the discourse after it was pronounced, or give the items and outlines of an extemporaneous address:--

      AFTER reading the above portions of the sacred writings, a few general remarks were made on the character of the inspired books, and particularly on the peculiar method which God had adopted in communicating instructions to men. The utility of the adoption of types or emblems, in communicating instruction, was next exhibited. The natural world, considered as a volume of natural types; and the sacred history of the Jewish people a volume of spiritual types. After these introductory observations, the Jewish scriptures were examined on the subject of types. From this examination it was found,

      1st. That there were persons and things originally designed as types; and also that persons and things not originally designed as types, were in the New Testament, by the inspired commentators on the Old Testament, adopted as types, and used as such for the illustration of the christian doctrine. Of the former sort were the priests under the law, the altars, sacrifices, tabernacle, its vessels, the temple, &c. &c. Of the latter kind were Adam, the deluge, Sarai, Isaac, Hagar, Ishmael, &c. &c.

      2d. By connecting the two Testaments, or the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, it was found that certain persons, in certain respects, were types of Jesus Christ; that his being called the second Adam, a priest after the order of Melchisedec, a Mediator such as Moses, &c. &c. were proofs and illustrations that he was considered the anti-type of many types. But this was not all. On the authority of the infallible commentator, Paul, it appeared that there were not only types of Christ in the Jewish scriptures, but that there were types of the christian people, their worship, and circumstances: and indeed that the history of the church was all found in type in the history of the Jews. In illustration and confirmation of this, the following particulars were noticed:

      1. That all the same names which are in the christian scriptures appropriated to the christian assembly or church, were first appropriated to the Jewish people in the mass. Such were the terms called, elected, redeemed, bought, purchased, ransomed, chosen, a peculiar people, a holy nation, a kingdom of priests, my people, my beloved, my children, spouse, bride, saved, &c. &c.

      2. That all the christian ordinances and worship were typified; such as the Lord's day, by the morrow after the Sabbath, when the first ripe sheaf was waved, christian immersion, by their being immersed once into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; their frequently eating the manna and drinking the water from the rock, an ensample or type of our participation of the emblems in the Lords supper; their sprinkle altar, a type of our sprinkled consciences; their loutgon, or laver or bath for cleansing the priests, a type of our bath of regeneration; their first tabernacle, or holy place, a type of the christian church; their common priests, a type of christians: and their high priest a type of Jesus; their thank offerings, of our praises; and their sin offerings, of the sacrifice of our great High Priest. Incidents in their history were also shown to be types of incidents in our history. Such as their being called out of Egypt; [310] their receiving of a law afterwards; their journey through the wilderness; their river Jordan; their promise of a rest in Canaan: their entrance into it; their city Jerusalem; their Mount Zion; their captivity in Babylon, and their deliverance thence. Other incidents were taken notice of; such as the rebellion of some of them; their failing in the wilderness; their chastisements; their reformations; the special government under which they lived; the rewards and punishments. The authority of the christian apostles was adduced in support of these facts; such as Paul's comments in the 10th of the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians; his letter to the Hebrews every where.

      These remarks and illustrations were merely introductory to the portions of scripture read. We then proceeded to demonstrate the fact that the captivity of Israel was in all its prominent features a type of the present state of the christian world. This was proved,

      1st. From the fact that Paul declares twice in his 1st Epistle to the Corinthians that these things (which happened to them) were tupoi, types to us. Chap. x. 6. "Now these things have become types or examples to us." And verse 11, "Now all these things happened to them as tupoi, types or examples, and are written for our admonition upon whom the ends of the ages are come."

      2d. From the fact that John in the Revelation transfers the very name of the People, or city of captivity of the Jews--I say, he transfers that name to the city of our captivity and to the state in which we are, and calls our spoilers and captivators, Babylon the Great. There is a spiritual Sodom, Egypt, and Babylon. See Revelations, chapters xi. and xvii.

      3d. From an analysis of the 2d chapter of the 2d Epistle to the Thessalonians. This led to an exposition of the more prominent features of the countenance of the Man of Sin, and Son of Perdition. That he was not a political, but a politico-ecclesiastical personage, was shown from his sitting not on a civil tribunal, but in the temple of God, and from the term MYSTERY in capitals upon his forehead. That his impious assumption of the character of God, consisted essentially in his claiming dominion over the faith or consciences of men, and a homage from men due to God alone.

      In speaking of the Woman of Sin, viz. the Mother of Harlots, as well as of the Man of Sin, we did not confine neither him nor her to the walls of Papal Rome; but very briefly it was remarked, that although "the Mother of Harlots" might live in the great city, yet her daughters had married and left her; in plain English, that every council ecclesiastic which assumed the right of dominion over the faith and conscience, and claimed titles of homage, such as Reverend, &c. or are attribute of power or honor which belonged to God alone, was a legitimate descendant, daughter, or grand daughter of the woman on whose forehead was written "Mystery, Babylon, the Great, the Mother of Harlots, and Abominations of the Earth," cautiously avoiding offence, as some of her progeny were present. I went on to demonstrate from our own experience and observation, independent of the sacred testimonies, that we were now in Babylon. Waving all advantages which might have been derived from the time, and times, and the dividing of time; the three years and a half, the forty-two months, the 1260 days, the accordant emblems of 1260 years; their commencement and termination--waving a hundred minor evidences likewise of the fact, the attention of the audience was confined to three obvious proofs, viz.

      1st. The confusion of religious speech now existing, analogous to the confusion of speech at Babel, and the confounding or mixing the language of Canaan with the language of Ashdod during the captivity; our creeds, systems, sermons, and scholastic terms, mingled with some biblical terms, terminating in an almost general ignorance of the sacred writings, and an impossibility of understanding the holy oracles, were just noticed illustrative of the exact analogy between us and the Jews while in Babylon.

      2d. The almost total deprivation of the consolations of the christian religion, apparent in our private capacities and in our public meetings, in our individual experience, and in our social interviews; the melancholy and gloom; the prayers and feelings of the religious, expressed in the 137th psalm; in short, all the grand characteristics of our state, as respects the enjoyments of the religion we profess in its public institutions, and in its personal and family benefits, are exactly correspondent to the state of the Jews during their captivity. An appeal was here made to the experience and the prayers of the pious, based on the first six verses of the 137th psalm.

      3d. The intercommunity with the world, the mingling of religion and politics, the alliance of church and state either to the European forms or by the more specious incorporations of these United States, the almost general conformity to the world in all its frivolities, in the gratification of all those appetites, passions, and propensities, purely animal, so common amongst christians; the great neglect, the very general neglect of the christian education of the youth, and the consequent irreligion and evil morals of many of the children of christian parents, are similar to the intermarriages between the Babylonians and the Israelites, and the almost universal assimilation of the children of those unauthorized marriages to the children of Chaldea. Thus, from the confusion of religious speech, the absence of the christian institutions, and the enjoyments dependent on their observance, and the deterioration of christian morals by an almost exact conformity to the course of this world, being the antitypes of the confusion of the Hebrew language in Chaldea, the absence of the temple and its worship, and the amalgamation of the Hebrews and Babylonians by marriage and familiarity, was argued the fact that we are yet in Babylon agreeable to the scripture declarations and evidences before mentioned.

      Having found ourselves in Babylon; having seen the almost exact agreement of the types and the antitypes, we were led to inquire why the Jews were carried captive into Babylon, that we might in the analogy find a proof or evidence of the reasons assigned in the New Testament why christians are in spiritual Babylon. We found that the Jews had broken God's covenant with them as a nation, by which he had engaged to be their king and protector, and that in consequence he had permitted their temple to be burned, their city to be laid waste, their land to be turned into a desert, and themselves to be slaves to Pagan sovereigns. And so with the antitype. The christians departed from the new covenant. The threatenings declared by Jesus Christ to the seven congregations in Asia have been executed. The Lord Jesus has been disregarded as king, and his institutes forsaken. Other church covenants have been formed; other authorities have been acknowledged; other law-givers have been obeyed, and other apostles than [311] those sent by Jesus, have been enthroned in our hearts. Therefore are we in Babylon.

      Their return is a type of ours, else the system of types is defective and fails of perfection.--Cyrus made a proclamation; liberty was granted by the state in which they were enslaved. The civil powers now are relenting, and our government has given us the liberty and acknowledged our right to be governed in our consciences by the Great King. The proclamation by Cyrus was not more friendly to the return of the Jews to their own land and laws than is the constitution and laws of these United States. The time has arrived that the return should be commenced.

      But how is it to be effected was next proposed. Both the doctrine of the types of the New Testament agree--

      1st. The Jews confessed their sins. See Nehemiah ix. 6. They said, "O Lord, many years did you forbear our fathers, and testified against them, by your Spirit in your prophets, (as he has to us by his Spirit in the apostles,) yet would they not give ear." "Neither have our kings, our princes, our priests, nor our fathers kept your law, nor hearkened to your commandments and your testimonies wherewith you did testify against them."

      2d. But they did not only confess their sins. They personally reformed; they reformed their family discipline; they returned to the Lord with all their heart.

      3d. They gave the people the law in its original import.

      4th. And they solemnly engaged, as a society, to walk in God's law which was given by their lawgiver, and "to observe and do all the commandments of the Lord our God, and his judgments and his statutes." See Nehemiah x. 29. Let us go and do likewise, as respects our King, his laws, commandments and statutes.

      We were then led to consider the parts of Nehemiah read, as typical of the difficulties, reproaches, and opposition which must be encountered by those who undertake to rebuild the city and the temple.

      Such were the outlines of an oration designed to shew that the ancient order of things must be restored, and that the way is marked out, not only in the apostolic writings and prophecies, but also fully exhibited in the typical people.--These outlines you may consider and fill up at your leisure. But should you neglect this, remember the command of the Lord our King. "Come, out of her, my people, that you may not be partakers of her sins, and that you may not receive of her plagues."

      P. S. There was something said on the reasons why the Mother of Harlots had mystery written on her forehead, which I have not room to give you at present.

      Versailles, Ky., Dec. 26, 1826.

[TCB 303-312]