Volume 4. Number 8. March 5, 1827, pp. 312-320.

• A Restoration of the Ancient Order of Things.--No. XVII.: Purity of Speech by Alexander Campbell, pp. 312-314.
• Review of Tassey's Vindication of "The Supreme and Exclusive Authority of the Lord Jesus Christ in Religious Matters."--Continued from p. 303. by Philalethes, pp. 314-318.
• [Introductory Note to Reply to Second Letter from A Friend to Truth] by Printer, p. 318.
• [Reply to Second Letter from A Friend to Truth] by Alexander Campbell, pp. 318-320.
• Anecdote by [Alexander Campbell], p. 320.

      IF all christians "spoke the same things" they would doubtless be of the same mind. But, says the philosopher, if they were all of one mind they would all speak the same things. Grant, then, that speaking the same things is the effect of thinking the same things; and yet, perhaps, it might be true that speaking the same things might, in its turn, be the cause of thinking the same things. For example; William and Mary thought the same things concerning John Calvin--they spoke the same things concerning him to their children; and their sons and daughters thought the same things of him. This is true in the general.

      It is no uncommon thing in the natural world for an effect to be the cause of another effect, and the last effect to be similar to its cause. For example; there is a chain of seven links. A person with a hammer strikes the first link. The motion of the first link is the effect of the stroke of the hammer; but the motion of the first link becomes the cause of the motion of the second, because of the impulse it gives it; and the motion of the second becomes the cause of the motion of the third, and so on to the end of the chain. In each of these effects, so far as they become causes, there is something similar to the first cause. Now it is much more obvious that, in the world of mind or thought, this similarity exists to a much greater degree than in the world of matter. The reason is, men cannot think but by words or signs. Words are but embodied thought, the external images or representatives of ideas. And who is there that has paid any attention to what passes in his own mind, who has not perceived that he cannot think without something to think about, and that the something about which he thinks must either assume a name, or some sort of image in his mind, before his rational faculties can operate upon it; and moreover, that his powers of thinking while employed exercise themselves in every effort, either by terms, names, or symbols, expressive of their own acts and the results of their own acts? Now, as men think by means of symbols or terms, and cannot think without them, it must be obvious that speaking the same things and hearing the same things, though it might be alleged as the effect of thinking the same things, is more likely to become the cause of thinking the same things than any natural or mechanical effect can become the cause of a similar effect. This much we say for the employment of the speculative reader; but for the practical mind it is enough to know that speaking the same things is both rationally and scripturally proposed as the most sure and certain means of thinking the same things. On this view of the matter, I would base something of great consequence to the religious world. Perhaps I might find something in it of more real importance to all christians of every name, than all the fabled powers of the philosopher's stone, had they been real. Perhaps in this one view might be found the only practicable and alone sufficient means of reconciling all the christian world, and of destroying all partyism and party feelings, with all their retinue and train of evils which have been more fatal to christian light and liberty than were all the evils which tell upon human bodies from the opening of Pandora's box, to the animal enjoyments of this world. But how shall we all speak the same things relating to the christian religion? Never, indeed, while we add to, or subtract from the words which the Holy Spirit teaches. Never, indeed, while we take those terms out of their scriptural connexions, and either transpose them in place, or confound them with terms not in the book. If I am not greatly mistaken, (and I be to be corrected if I am) the adding to, subtracting from, the transposition of, and mingling the terms of the Holy Spirit with those of human contrivance, is the only cause why all who love the same Saviour are disunited.

      Now every human creed in christendom, whether it be long or short, whether it be written or nuncupative, whether it be of "essentials or [312] non-essentials," whether it be composed of five or of fifty articles--either adds to, subtracts from, or transposes the words of inspiration, or mingles things of divine and human contrivance together. No such volume, no such articles can be the form or a form of sound words. Every creed is a new mould of doctrine, and into whatever mould metal is cast, when moulded it must assume the size and impress thereof. Let silver be cast into a French, Spanish, English, or American mould of the same size, but differently constructed; and although it is all the same metal, and of equal size, each crown, whether French, English, or Spanish, assumes a different stamp. Now the apostle Paul uses this figure, Rom. vi. xvii. (see the new translation.) "You have obeyed from the heart that mould of doctrine into which you were delivered," or cast. Now does not reason and experience teach us that if ten thousand thousand pieces of coin were cast into the same mould they would bear the same impress. We have but one apostolic mould of doctrine in the world, and all the sons of men cannot construct a mould of doctrine like it. A human conscience cast into the mould of the Episcopalian, Presbyterial, Methodistic, or Baptist creed, and a human conscience cast into the apostolic mould, all bear a different stamp. The Episcopalian, Presbyterial, Methodistic, Baptist, and Apostolic coin, not only wear a different date, but a different image and superscription. Martin Luther's head, John Calvin's head, John Wesley's head, John Gill's, or Andrew Fuller's head is stamped upon each of them. Not only is the Anno Domini different, but the image or head is different on each. They may be all silver of equal purity for aught I know, till they are tried in the furnace; but they are not one, neither can they be in image, superscription, date, and other circumstances, and therefore can not pass current in another country. Let them, however, be tried with fire, and melted down, and all cast into the apostolic mould, and they will come out with a new image and superscription, and pass current through all the empire of that head which is stamped upon them. The figure, I think, is the best in the world, and illustrates the whole matter. I am indebted for it to the Apostle Paul. He gave me the hint, and I am grateful for it.

      Some of our Baptist friends here in Kentucky have tacked round, and thought of a new plan of making a mould to give no impress or stamp to the coin at all. They will have no image, superscription, or date upon it. They will have the coin to weigh so many grains or pennyweights, but without a stamp. A plan of this sort has been lately proposed by one of our good Doctors; but to the astonishment of all, the first coin that came out of this new mould was inscribed with the number "six hundred three score and six." Let him that has understanding explain how this could be. But of this hereafter.

      Let, then, but one mould of doctrine be universally adopted, of standard weight, image, and superscription, and all christians will be one in every visible respect; and then, and not till then, will the kingdom be visibly one. There will be one king, Dei gratia, on every crown; and that crown, if of genuine metal, will pass current through all the king's dominions. It is admitted there may be some pewter, or brass pieces whitewashed; but the former will soon grow dim, and the latter, when rubbed a little, will show a baser metal.

      I may be asked, How does this correspond with speaking the same things? I will tell you, it is but a figure illustrative of the same thing. The same image and superscription engraved to the mould, answers to the same things spoken in the ear and conveyed to the mind. The same impression will as certainly, though not mechanically nor as instantaneously, be made upon the mind as upon the metal. And did we all speak the same things we would be as visibly one as all the pieces of coin which have been cast into the same mould. I again repeat, that this unity never can be obtained while any other creed than the sacred writings is known or regarded. And here I invoke all the advocates of human creeds in the world:--

      Gentlemen, or christians, whoever or whatever you be, I will consider your attempt to disprove this position a favor done to me and the christian world. None of you have ever yet attempted to show how christians can be united on your principles. You have showed often how they may be divided, and how each party may hold its own; but while you pray for the visible unity of the disciples, and advocate their visible disunity, we cannot understand you.

      But to come to the illustration of how speaking the same things must necessarily issue in thinking the same things, or in the visible and real unity of all disciples on all those topics in which they ought to be united, I will select but one of the topics of capital importance on which there exists a diversity of sentiment. For example: The relation existing between Jesus Christ and his Father. This is one of those topics on which men have philosophized most exuberantly, and on which they have multiplied words and divisions more than on any other subject of human contemplation. Hence have arisen the Trinitarian, Arian, Semiarian, Sabellian, Unitarian, and Socinian hypotheses. It is impossible that all these can be true, and yet it is possible that they all may be false theories. Now each of these theories has given rise to a diction, phraseology, and style of speaking peculiar to itself. They do not all speak the same things of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But all who do speak the same things belong to one theory. Scripture words and sentences are quoted by each of the theorists, and to these words are added expositions and definitions which give a peculiar direction to the words of the Holy Spirit. Some portions are considered by each theorist as peculiarly favorable to his views, while others are not often quoted, and if quoted at all, are clogged with embarrassing explanations. Some of the words of the Holy Spirit are quoted with great pleasure and others with great reluctance. And why? Because the former are supposed more favorable to the theory than the latter. I have often seen with what pleasure the Arian dwells upon the words "first born of every creature;" "the beginning of the creation of God." And how seldom, and with what reluctance, he quotes "I am Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last;" "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God." Again, the Socinian emphasizes with great force upon the words "the man Christ Jesus;" but never dwells with delight upon this sentence, "Who being in the form of God, did not think it robbery to be like God." The Trinitarian rejoices that "there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and that these three are one;" that Jesus said, "I and my Father are one," &c. But seldom does he quote on this subject the texts on which the Arian and Socinian dwell with pleasure. [313] Not one of them will quote with equal pleasure or readiness every thing said on this subject; and had they the liberty they would trim and improve the apostles' style to suit their respective theories. They would do, as I heard a preacher do this week, quote the scriptures thus: "If any come to you and bring not the doctrine of the absolute, unoriginated and infinite divinity, the doctrine of the eternal filiation and generation of Jesus Christ, receive him not into your house." They do not speak the same things of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Now, suppose that all these would abandon every word and sentence not found in the bible on this subject, and without explanation, limitation, or enlargement, quote with equal pleasure and readiness, and apply on every suitable occasion every word and sentence found in the volume, to the Father, to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit; how long would divisions on this subject exist? It would be impossible to perpetuate them on this plan. I ask the world if it would not? But, says an objector, there would be as many opinions under any other phraseology as the present. This might be for the present generation, but they could not be perpetuated. And as to any injury a private opinion may do to the possessor, it could, on this principle, do none to society.

      Again, could not men believe in, obey, love, fear, and rejoice in Jesus Christ as readily and to as great a degree by speaking and hearing all the words and sentences in the volume, as they now do in all the varieties of their new nomenclature. Let them be cast into the same mould; that is, speak and hear the same things, and there would not be a Trinitarian, Arian, Semiarian, Sabellian, Unitarian, Socinian, or any thing else but a christian on this subject, or an infidel in the world. It would be so on all other topics as on that instanced, if the same principle were to be adopted.

      Men would, on this principle, learn to appreciate and love one another, and to estimate human character on the real standard of piety and moral rectitude. Unfeigned obedience to the Lord, guileless benevolence to all men, and pure christian affection to the household of faith, would be the principle of appreciation of human character. Not our wild reveries, our orthodox jargon, or our heterodox paradoxes would be of paramount importance. Never can this state be induced until a pure speech be restored--until the language of Canaan be spoken by all the seed of Abraham.

      Our confessions of faith, our additions to, our subtractions from, our transpositions of, and our extractions out of the book of God, are all in open hostility to the restoration of a pure speech, and are all under the curse, and we are punished with famine and sterility on account of them.--I have seen a confession of faith all in bible terms, extracted and transposed, like putting the eyes and ears and tongue in the right hand. Now I object as much to a creed in bible terms transposed and extracted, as I do to worshipping the Virgin Mary instead of Jesus the Messiah. The transposition of the terms or the extraction of sentences from their connexions is just as pernicious as any human innovation. Samples of this sort will be afforded at another time.

      No man is to be debarred the christian church who does not deny in word or in works the declarations of the Holy Spirit, and no man is to be received into the christian community because he expresses himself in a style or in terms not found in the christian books; which must be the case when a person is obliged to express himself in the corrupt speech or in the appropriated style of a sectarian creed in order to his admission.

EDITOR.      

      IT appears a matter of such vast importance, especially in the present corrupt and divided state of christianity, to have the sole and exclusive authority of our Lord Jesus Christ in religious matters fully vindicated, and re-established in the hearts and minds of his professing people; that every publication which has this for its object appears peculiarly worthy of public notice. And as this appears to be the grand object of the "Christian Baptist," I have supposed a few extracts from the work under consideration would not be unacceptable to its readers. Mr. T's sole object in his vindication, is to establish the all-sufficiency and alone-sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures, as a plain and adequate expression of the divine will for the instruction and direction of the people of God in all matters of faith and duty; to enforce the most strict and conscientious observance of them in all things for this purpose, and to obviate the interference of all human authority between the word of God and the consciences of his professing people. In the prosecution of this object it necessarily occurs not only to vindicate the independent and intrinsic sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures as a complete rule of faith and obedience, by arguments drawn from the character and declarations of their divine author;--by an induction of leading particulars respecting the faith and order of the church, its officers and ordinances, and the qualifications and duties of its members; but also to attack and obviate the high pretensions of assuming ecclesiastics, by vindicating the sacred text from the false constructions forced upon it in support of their pretended claims. This he does by shewing, in the first place, that the fixed and appropriate meaning of the term church, in the New Testament, when used in relation to the subjects of the Redeemer's kingdom, is either universal or particular, as noticed in my last. In the prosecution of this part of his plan, (p. 94,) referring to apostolic times, he observes that, "in those days sectarianism had no existence, except as contemplated in prophetic vision."

      The amalgamation of christian communities into one solid, compact, and united body, by representation in ecclesiastical councils, was not then heard of. Such worldly compacts of self-seeking and self-interested spiritual rulers, endeavoring to promote their ambitious designs, had not, at this time, as afterwards, subverted the liberties and privileges of the children of God. The wisdom of ecclesiastical councils had not, as yet, occupied the place of the wisdom of the Lord Jesus; nor had scholastic or systematic divinity destroyed the simplicity of the doctrine of Christ. Far otherwise do matters now appear. We must now have a system of government modelled upon the best establishments around us. We must have superior and inferior courts, legislative assemblies, and ecclesiastical judicatories. And what, at the best, makes but a bungling job of the whole of such systems, is that the same assembly is this moment legislative, and anon judicative; not only is it the maker, but the executor of its own laws; thus opening a door for the most tyrannical exercise of power. It is well that our liberties, civil and [314] religious, are guaranteed by wise and liberal institutions. Were it not for this, we should soon be furnished with the necessary appendages of all such ecclesiastical establishments, to wit, inquisitorial racks and gibbets, the most convincing instruments ever used by ecclesiastical power. Matters, then, have mightily changed since apostolic times. The appellation church, from designating a few disciples associated together to sing praises to Jesus Christ," (and commemorate his death) "has come to signify a large and respectable body or sect of professing christians, once a year represented in general assembly, or in its convocation of bishops, usually convened to make laws to bind the consciences of their careless and submissive adherents. Accordingly, we have the Romish Church, the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church, the Methodist Church, the Baptist Church; and their natural associates in power," (the Romish Conclave) "The Convocation of Bishops, the General Assembly, the Methodist Conference, the Baptist Convention; a kind of phraseology to which the New Testament is a total stranger. Little did the first christians think that the body of Christ should ever be split up into such fragments, and that its professed friends should become the rivals of earthly potentates in their thirst for splendor and power. Little did they suppose that the followers of Christ should so far lose sight of their Master's glory, as to become the mere dupes of a designing oligarchy, in promoting the prosperity, of any particular sect or faction. Now that all this has come to pass, may be established from the most indubitable phraseology: what does such language as the Baptist interest, the Methodist interest, the Presbyterian interest, indicate? Who does not perceive that the secret spring of action which this betrays, is the aggrandizement of a party? This, and often this alone, is the grand moving cause of all that fury, zeal, and seeming earnestness with which our peaceful hours of rest have been broken in upon, and grievously misspent. And, to promote and gain this mighty end, have been the cause of collecting together synods and other ecclesiastical councils, since the commencement of those extended corruptions, by which the churches' beauty has been defaced. But who is there so blind as not to see, that, in proportion as the aggrandizement of a sect is promoted, so is the glory of Christ injured; and, the cause of truth and righteousness, of heavenly peace, of christian love and unity, more pleasing than the splendid offerings of mighty conquerors, is immolated at the shrine of this insatiable love of party?"

      "Oh! then, let us return to the simplicity and purity of ancient times, when the disciples of Jesus, in their associated capacity, or as individuals, acknowledged no authority, either delegated or assumed, but that of Jesus Christ; and when, in their church assemblies, they could carry into execution the laws of Jesus, without the aid of self-constituted courts, either to new model or explain them; or any human authority to give them sanction!"

      "Once more, we observe, that the language of the sacred writers, when they come to refer to the local situations of the various churches, decidedly proves that they had no conception of a consolidated earthly church, either extended" (as embracing the whole population of a district or country, as the church of Scotland, &c.) "or representative" (by delegates or otherwise.) "When they refer to any circumscribed or limited situation, as a town or city, they, in all such cases, use the singular number, as the church at Ephesus, at Corinth, at Cenchrea, which was about two miles from Corinth; evidently because there was no christian society in any of these places, but one, to which the designation church justly belonged.

      But when they come to speak of a certain district of country, in which there was a number of such assemblies, they as invariably use the plural number; as, "the churches of Judea which are in Christ Jesus; the churches of the Gentiles; the churches of Macedonia; the churches of Galatia; the seven churches which are in Asia;" never the "church of Judea, of the Gentiles" (or the gentile church,) "of Macedonia, of Asia, or of Galatia." Now this phraseology proves that the word church, in the singular number, was so completely appropriated to a single congregation of Christ's disciples, and had become so universally the name by which such an assembly was distinguished, that nothing but local situation was necessary to subjoin to it, in order to make it explicitly refer to a particular society; and, that it would have been an absolute abuse of language to have used it as the appropriate name of any differently constituted meeting. The word congregation, which, through custom, has become the appropriated name of an assembly of people in the habit of meeting to attend to the worship of God, might as properly be applied to a session, a presbytery, a synod, and a general assembly, as to apply the appellation church to any of these. But, were we to adopt this course, confusion and obscurity would be the consequence, and language would cease to be (an intelligible) medium of communicating our ideas. Were the word congregation to be indiscriminately applied to the meetings above noticed, then it could be the appropriated name of none of them; and we would be obliged to use it with such expletives as would prevent mistakes. In like manner, if the word church became the appropriated appellation, by which a worshipping assembly of the saints was distinguished; it follows, that it could never have become the appropriated designation by which any differently framed assembly could be represented. Nor could it ever be used in reference to a representative assembly of any description, without the addition of such expletives; or, in such a connexion as would preclude misapprehension. But in none of the passages in which the appellative church occurs, where it is supposed to apply to a representative body, are there any expletives subjoined to intimate a change in the application of the word; nor is there any thing in the connexion which would indicate such a use of it, as shall afterwards more fully appear. If, then, this is the fact; and if the word church, after all, will be found to mean, at one time, a kirk session, or consistory; at another, a synod, or provincial conference; and again, a general assembly convened in judicature; or a general conference in conclave assembled; and yet no intimation of any of these different meanings in the connexion; nor any expletive annexed to intimate the change; must there not follow the utmost confusion and misapprehension? and would not every writer, who would commit such blunders, be justly chargeable with darkening counsel by words without knowledge? Should he not be reprehended severely for his ambiguous and unmeaning phraseology? And is it so, that it remains to be the province of the Holy Spirit alone, to write unintelligibly? To use words, yea, appropriated names, in a variety of different meanings, [315] without warning us of the change; or intimating the reason of such alteration from the fixed and determined meaning of such appellations! Far be it from any christian to think so improperly of the productions of inspiration;--to suppose that he ever meant to speak unintelligibly, or use language calculated rather to obscure, than to elucidate divine truth! Let us prefer charging the evil to its proper cause,--a disposition to make the scriptures quadrate with our respective systems. It is this that has affixed certain meanings to words, which the Spirit of God never intended them to convey. By this means men gratify their prejudices, and prop up those systems of religion to which they are attached, and give them the appearance of scriptural support; when the volume of inspiration directly discountenances and opposes every thing of the kind. So long, therefore, as we are to regard words as signs; our ideas, and the Divine Spirit sent to reveal to us every thing necessary for the proper management of his children, we ought to lay it down as a fixed principle, that when he speaks to us, he intends to be understood; and, consequently, that he uses words in their commonly acknowledged import."

      Thus our author justly reasons against the perversion and abuse of the language of inspiration, and points out the true cause of it, while rescuing and defending the term church from the forced and incoherent meanings imposed upon it, in support of an assumed authority to dictate in matters of religion. And having done this, (as I think he most evidently and irrefutably has, in the course of his investigation,) all rule and authority in the church of Christ, (except that of a single congregation with its proper officers, over its own proper members, in the execution of the laws already made and provided in the holy scriptures for the government of the church,) are for ever abolished. Consequently, every distinct worshipping assembly, or particular church, remains in full possession of all that power of complete self-government, with which the apostles left the primitive churches fully invested, after they had set in order amongst them the things that were wanting for this purpose.

      In the course of his vindication, our author frequently refers to the modest assumption in behalf of synods and councils, recognized in the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter xxxi. section 3. and adverts to the only two passages of scripture therein quoted in support of it without a formal reference to the Confession of a full quotation of the passage, which reads thus: "It belongs to synods and councils ministerially to determine controversies of faith and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of the church; to receive complaints in cases of mal-administration, and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God, appointed thereto in his word. Acts xv. 15-31. xvi. 4. Matt. xviii. 17-20. "These are the claims of the whole Presbyterian body on which they have continued to act, however otherwise divided in sentiment, from the year sixteen hundred forty-seven to the present day. Claims which justify the pretensions and acts of all synods and councils, from the council of Nice to the present day; for, according to them, and they are the judges, both the authority enacting, and the acts enacted, are according to the word of God. It is true, but rather unhappily for them, it is conceded, sect 4. that "all synods or councils since the apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err and many have erred; therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as a help in both." Eph. ii. 29. Acts xvii. 11. 1 Cor. ii. 5. 2 Cor. i. 24. "Therefore, before we can warrantably receive their help, we must first help ourselves; and ascertain by our own research of the holy scriptures whether those things, which they have determined, are so. A poor, uncertain, fallible help, indeed! And yet so invested with a divine authority, as to be an "ordinance of God!!' And which if we do resist, we are sure to receive present damnation!! For who ever resists the dogmas of such decreeing and enacting authority, without being cast out as heretics or schismatics, however unscriptural they might appear to the conscientious recusant? But this, it seems has only been the case "since the apostles' times." Happy, then, yea, thrice happy, the christians that lived in the apostles' times, whose helps were infallible. Helps that might be depended upon with the utmost confidence. Helps worthy of God to give, and of his people to receive. And would it not be better still to rest in the helps thus supplied, than to have recourse to such miserable supplements,--such super refinements of "rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his church?" Have we not reason to fear, yea, is it not evident, that the rules and directions superadded to what the apostles left behind them, under the pretence of the better ordering of things, have had the very contrary tendency? Did not the apostles, by means of the faith and order established by them in the churches, leave the christian communities in peace and love amongst themselves, and towards each other? But how is it now, after the better orderings, and additional improvements of, at least; fifteen hundred years? Let the reader judge.

      But to proceed: Our author not only evinces by a copious induction of evidence from the holy scriptures against the allegations of Dr. McLeod and others, that the term church is never used in the singular to denote a plurality of assemblies in any place, united in a representative body; to regulate the concerns of its constituents; but also attacks and exposes the forced interpretations put upon Matthew xviii. 17, &c. and Acts xv. 15--in support of such representation. The reader will please to recollect, that it is upon these two passages, as upon an impregnable foundation, that the whole colossian superstructure of synods and councils, their divine constitution and mighty powers are predicated, in the above cited article, from the Westminster Confession of Faith. They ought certainly, therefore, to be proof of the most obvious and decisive character, in order to support such high pretensions, such vast assumption of power. But from what appears upon the face of the investigation before us, the former shrinks, nay, quite disappears at the first touch; and, considered as proof, goes rather to demolish than to support the superstructure founded upon it. For, as our author justly observes, the phrase "tell it to the church," in the above connexion, precludes forever the possibility of appeal, inasmuch as the sentence of the church is decisive, being ratified in heaven. If we understand the word church, then, in its appropriated scriptural import, for a single congregation of saints statedly meeting for religious [316] purposes, a rejection of its decision admits of no appeal, and if we should understand it as Presbyterians do, to mean a kirk session, a presbytery or a synod, to whichsoever of these the complaint is made, by its decision the matter is determined, being ratified in heaven: consequently to the defendant, or rather to the recusant, there remains no room for appeal, though he should think himself aggrieved. "Tell it to the church," then, is the third and last step in the process; however we may understand the term. "In the reasoning which we have followed up, says Mr. T. in reference to this quotation, we have taken it for granted, that some one of the courts specified, might have been intended. But--whether you call it a consistory, a session, a committee, a bishop's court, a synod, or conference, what you please, there is not the most distant allusion to any one of such constituted judicatories, whatever in the passage. We would ask,--what hinders the word church from being here understood in its usual and determined acceptation?"--"By what rule of sound criticism," says Professor Campbell, "can we arbitrarily impose here on the word church, the signification of church representative, a signification which we do not find it bears in one other passage of scripture? To affirm, without proof, that this is the sense of it here, is taking for granted the very point in dispute."¹ Let it first be shewed that in the phraseology of the New Testament, the word church is applied to a representative body of any kind, and we will relinquish the point, &c. Our author next proceeds to investigate the claims in support of the representative system, founded on Acts xv. 15, &c. the other parts of the foundation assumed in the Westminster Confession, in support of the divine right of synods and councils: the whole of which claims appear, in the course of the investigation, to receive as little countenance from this latter passage, as they did from the former.

      P. 124, "We shall now more particularly examine the 15th chapter of the Acts, which is supposed to present an example for courts of appeal, and to which all the different denominations refer with confidence in support of their respective systems. To conceive, however, that this chapter lays a foundation for papal usurpation, and diocesan episcopacy, and classical presbytery, is perfectly absurd: yet this is the grand proof to which they all appeal in support of these different hierarchies. That this chapter lays no foundation for any one of the above systems, and especially for those courts of appeal, or ecclesiastical councils, for which it is so triumphantly quoted, we propose now to demonstrate. Mr. M'Leod informs us, that "we have in this chapter an authoritative decree, enacted by a representative assembly, exercising ecclesiastical jurisdiction over churches and presbyteries." That it is an authoritative decree, we most readily admit; and who is there that denies it? But that this decree was enacted or ordained by a representative assembly, we refuse to acknowledge. The first argument by which he attempts to prove his position is this: "The apostles did not determine the question as inspired extraordinary teachers and rulers. When inspired they spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. This excludes disputation. But about the question there was much disputation!" On reading this paragraph we were struck with astonishment--What! the apostles did not determine the question as inspired, extraordinary teachers!! For what then are these uninspired decrees placed in the inspired volume? Not determine the question as inspired extraordinary teachers!! Why then does the language of the decrees declare the contrary? "it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:" What! this question not determined by inspiration, and yet "it seemed good to the Holy Ghost!!!" Oh! prejudice! oh! bigotry! what have you done? You cease not to pervert the right ways of the Lord. Need we, then, endeavor to argue out these decrees to be an inspired document, when they are expressly so called by the inspired writer himself, and also by the unanimous voice of the apostles and elders, with the whole church, who preface their letter with this declaration?--Who can deny it that believes the inspiration of the scriptures at all? This one fact, then, invalidates forever any argument that can be drawn from it in favor of ecclesiastical councils and enactments. But we are told, "About this question there was much disputation, and inspiration excludes disputation." Be it so. Among whom did this much disputation take place? Was it among the apostles? No such thing. Not a symptom of this kind is noticed as happening between those inspired characters. On the contrary, the three of them that spake are in perfect accordance in their views of the subject; as any person may see who will take the trouble of examining the narrative. Nor does the circumstance of the apostles' arguing the point from the Old Testament scriptures, or from the facts that had occurred under their own labors, alter the case respecting the inspiration of this document, more than the same course destroys the inspiration of the epistles, in which we find it pursued to great extent. This, therefore, was evidently an extraordinary meeting, because composed in part of inspired extraordinary men, who were competent to ordain inspired and extraordinary decrees, being authorized to do so by the Holy Ghost. Until then, you can find a synod partly composed of such characters as are competent to enact decrees under the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit, as the above mentioned document was ordained, it is vain to plead this case as a precedent for ecclesiastical courts, or to talk of enacting authoritative rules of faith and manners for the disciples of Christ. The claims of the court of Rome, on this score, have some degree of consistency with them. It at once sets up for infallibility, and his Holiness tells you plainly, that he is the successor of Peter, and derives his authority immediately from Jesus Christ, whose vicar he is upon earth, but there are ecclesiastical courts claiming a right, authoritatively, to enact laws for the people of God; to determine articles of faith, and resolve cases of conscience, and that, at the very time they are disclaiming every thing like infallibility.--We would ask, then, What is the difference between a Presbyterian synod or assembly, claiming to be the successors of the apostles, exercising their assumed power in the name, and by the authority of Jesus Christ; and his Holiness the Pope, claiming to be the successor of Peter, and exercising his assumed power in the name and by the authority of Jesus Christ? For our part, we have a number, by whose combination they become the more dangerous.

      Page 98. "But let us inquire more minutely into the materials of which this assembly was composed. Were they ministers and elders only? Yes," says our author, "the assembly was composed of presbyters." "No," says the inspired [317] writer, "for it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch." And again, "the apostles, and elders, and brethren send, greeting." Here, then are two writers at issue upon this point; and the question simply is this, Shall we believe the assertion of Alexander M'Leod, because ------? Or shall we believe the testimony of Luke, because he was inspired by the Holy Spirit?"

      I shall close these extracts for the present with the following; see page 124: "What, then, becomes of this jure divino system, or the divine warrant for ecclesiastical courts? Is there any warrant whatever contained in the inspired volume for such constituted courts? We reply unhesitatingly, that there is not, in any shape; neither directly nor impliedly. That there is nothing "agreeable to sound reasoning from established truths,--nor from approved example,--nor sanctioned by divine approbation,--nor established by divine acts,--nor recommended by directions from God," to be found in favor of such a system; and, consequently, that it cannot be of divine right, our author himself being judge."

PHILALETHES.      

      THE following Reply to a second communication of "A Friend to Truth," which appeared in the "Western Luminary," some time since, was intended first to have appeared in that paper.--The reason it was not published in the "Luminary," will probably be made known hereafter.

PRINTER.      

Mr. Skillman,

      DEAR SIR--It is said you are a christian. I will, therefore, address you as if in truth you were one. I profess to be a christian, and will speak to you as I think a christian ought to speak. Christians have a right to use a liberty with each other, not common to all mankind. They may exhort, admonish, reprove, and entreat one another in a way in which the children of this world dare not. They are all born again, and from above, and have kindred feelings, desires, aims, and pursuits. They are children of one family, are all taught by God, and under the government of one Divine King. They are mutually bound to be subject to the same laws, and to watch over one another. They sometimes err. Hence arise the obligations of reciprocal care for each other's good.

      You published, about three months ago, a communication injurious to my moral and religious character. You saw my refutation thereof six or seven weeks ago. You promised, from a sense of justice no doubt, to publish my refutation a week after you saw it. But you did not meet your engagements, because it is presumed the author, or authors of the slander, had not their rejoinder ready. Dare you not let my reply appear as soon as you saw it, or as soon as you promised it? Were you afraid to let your readers see it, unpreceded by a second publication of the slander, and unsucceeded by a long rejoinder: lest they should be in danger of being convinced? There is either cowardice or injustice apparent in this thing; but which, I will not say; or whether either, until you vindicate yourself. If the sun ought not to go down upon a christian's anger, it ought not to rise and set for forty days on the columns of slander and evil report uncontradicted, when the refutation is in possession of the publisher. It is true you informed us you expected an addition of subscribers to your paper; and that you would ultimately have the pleasure of publishing more generally my refutation.--But, sir, in gaining power you lost time; and one great act of kindness does not always compensate for two wrongs. Now I exhort you to do so no more. Be never ready to take up an evil report against your neighbor; and should it get into circulation, be ever ready to out it down.

      But now to the rejoinder of your "Friend to Truth." He has tried to escape through the back door which I mentioned in my refutation he had left open for himself. He contends he said no harm of me, nor of the New Testament: nor did he intend to praise, or blame, or criticise the work, but merely to correct a false impression on the public mind, that prevailed among many.--This is, I grant, what he professed to do; but, in reality, he made a false impression upon the public mind, and most grievously slandered me.--He brings the foulest charge ever mortal man brought against me. Now for the proof. His own words are, "He (viz. myself) was anxious to furnish the public with a gospel shaped exactly to his own views." Now, Mr. Skillman, I ask you what more grievous charge could you conceive of, than to accuse a professed christian of wilfully, designedly, "anxiously" imposing upon the christian public a book, purporting to be a correct translation of the New Testament, "shaped exactly to his own views," and in which he makes the Spirit of God speak to suit himself, regardless of the true meaning thereof? It is a crime above all forgery, interpolation, and perversion, known in human affairs. If this be done without a shadow of proof, without a single specification, is it not slander of the highest character? I leave this question with you, sir, and the public. But the fact that I am so accused without a single specification in proof thereof, is manifest from the two pieces published in your paper over the signature "Friend to Truth."

      I must not feel myself slandered nor injured by such an allegation; nor must I defend myself from it, unless I renounce all christian character! So this gentleman insinuates. It would be impolite and unchristian in me to plead not guilty. I have not so learned Christ. I have plead not guilty, and this pious and just lover of truth has written again. And what has he said?

      1st. That he is not Dr. Blythe.

      2d. That he "brought no charge against me."

      3d. He acknowledges that he made one false representation on Acts xx. 28.

      4th. He attacks Griesbach.

      5th. He proves me a Unitarian.

      6th. He demands of me the proof, or to say that I am a Unitarian. And,

      7th. He then charges me only with "fastwinging my way towards the cold regions of Unitarianism." He then prays for me. The whole farce is then complete.

      On these points I must of course say something. He says I "attribute his piece to Dr. Blythe." No where is this said in my reply. He then draws into view an interview I once had with Dr. Blythe, of which he gives a one-sided and incorrect representation. I feel not one unkind emotion towards Dr. Blythe. It is true he acted unkindly, and, I think, an unchristian part towards me. In the fall of 1824, when I was in the neighborhood of his congregation, as I was correctly informed, he commanded his people not to go to hear me, telling them I was "a very bad man and he could prove it." This was obviously an attack upon my moral and religious character. I called upon him for an explanation, and his reasons for so accusing me. I told him [318] what I had heard. He did not deny having said so. I called on him for the proof. He said he knew nothing about or against my moral character, and that he did not mean my moral character; but that he considered me erroneous.--I said the people did not so understand his accusation, and that the term "bad" always related to moral character, and that if he had said an erroneous man I should never have inquired after it. I also added that a person acquainted with the meaning of words could not use the term bad as synonymous with erroneous. He again repeated as above, and thus retracted or explained away the import of his accusation. He then told me he pitied me. I replied, I also pitied him. He added, that I was laboring to pull down the kingdom of the clergy, and that he was determined to build it up. As to any challenge I gave him to "a debate before the sovereign people," I am not conscious; but Col. Drake will, no doubt, remember whether or not; and as he heard my conversation with the Doctor, I appeal to him whether the above is not correct. This is Mr. Friend to Truth's first proof that the New Testament is not faithfully published.

      In the next place this good man reminds his readers that his sole object in his first piece, was, "to correct false impressions that prevailed among many with regard to the New Testament." But we have no evidence that any "false impressions" existed but the word of an anonymous scribe. And no man could have any such impression as he describes, who had read the work; as every thing is plainly stated both in the prefaces and appendix. So that his effort was altogether gratuitous, and uncalled for. And he admits he had never seen the prospectus; consequently, could say nothing about my fidelity in the matter. This is his second argument to prove the translation unfaithful.

      On the subject of baptism, he had said that "the alterations were upwards of eighty," and complains of my saying that this was telling eighty lies in one truth. This, I own, as he understands it, was quite as impolite as it was for Paul to say that the "Cretans are always liars," or as it was for John to say, that "he is a liar who says he knows God, and does not keep his commandments." But he is too sanguine when he thinks that I admit he tells one truth in this matter. For, should a schoolboy say he had seen eighty pigeons when he only saw one eighty times, I would not allow that he had told one truth in his whole story. And the young student of which he speaks, and of whom he read in the spelling-book, who made three chickens out of two, reflects on himself, and not on me, if he had the sense to see it. It suited his conduct--not mine. He next passes by with a sneer the fact that Doctors Campbell and Macknight authorized every thing said on baptism in the whole work. Three facts are stated in my reply, showing that there is not in reality one alteration on the subject of baptism, in the whole eighty: and, Mr. Skillman, take notice, he does not attack one of the three. I demand of him a refutation, if he can of these three facts. All that he can say, these three unassailed, is only making instead of removing "false impressions." Thus we dispose of his "more than eighty alterations," or his third argument to remove false impressions.

      He next tells us that Griesbach divided the collated manuscripts into three classes, and "if he mistakes not, changed the reading" of God into Lord (Acts xx. 28.) "on the authority of a very few." As he appears afraid of committing himself here, we shall advise him to inform himself better before he next writes, and request him to give the names of the manuscripts upon the authority of which the reading is preferred, and then we shall see whether they are of more weight than the very many on the other side. But here he gives up the point about my making a false impression, and also passes by, without a single remark the testimony of Ireneus and the Syriac version. He also fails to charge Griesbach with Unitarianism, and Michaelis with Socinianism, which he ought to have done. He also studiously avoids telling us how the reading Lord instead of God, destroys the divinity of Jesus. Until this is done it is all a mere puff of noisy breath. I assert that Griesbach's Greek Testament is the most correct text in christendom--and this at least is a fair and full balance to all his assertions on Nolan. So goes his fourth argument.

      His fifth argument is, that I am almost a Unitarian, and sorry is he that the evidence is not stronger. But this he is at great pains to prove. His first proof of this tremendous charge is, that "Christian Union," was Dr. Fishback, and "Aquila" was Barton W. Stone; and that I persuaded Dr. Fishback and B. W. Stone that there was no difference between them on the subject of worshipping Jesus. But unfortunately for his conclusion, the premises are false: for B. W. Stone never wrote one sentence in the Christian Baptist over any signature whatever. "Sic transit gloria mundi." His "good reason" to the contrary notwithstanding. His second reason why I am a Unitarian is, because I told a correspondent from Missouri that I was not a Socinian. Because I am not a Socinian, therefore, I must be a Unitarian. This is sound logic. He believes me sometimes. Well now, I will tell him, that I am neither an Arian, nor Unitarian, nor Sabellian. Query--Will he now believe that I am none of these, upon the same evidence on which he believes I am not a Socinian?

      Third proof of my Unitarianism--I quote the Reformer. Now I never heard nor understood that the Reformer was a Unitarian, nor did I ever hear him so charged. But if he be, will my quoting him on historical matters, or any other, not on the doctrine of Jesus, prove me a Unitarian? If so, then every one is a Deist who quotes Hume or Gibbon; every one that quotes Dr. Blythe is a Presbyterian, and every one that quotes John Wesley is a Methodist. A fine critic on the New Testament truly!!!

      His fourth proof is, that I sympathized with the rulers of Transylvania University when persecuted by the righteous. I pitied the goats when the sheep butted them prodigiously. Yes, I pitied the goats horns when red with the blood of the sheep. And if a Protestant should knock out the brains of a Papist, and I should be so unfortunate as to pity the Papist, I must then turn Catholic, and worship the host. Admirable translator!! Profound interpreter!! Steel and lead might as soon elicit a spark of fire as your genius prove me a Unitarian. I never sympathized with the religious opinions of any ruler of the Transylvania University; for I never knew that they gave themselves nor the public much concern about supernatural religion of any sort; but I confess that I thought it unadvisable that the Presbyterians should control every fountain of literature in the West; and unreasonable that a state institution should become a sectarian school. After thus proving me to be a Unitarian, he asks me to say whether or not I am, by writing [319] certain phrases which he has the goodness to prescribe, only attaching to them, without mental reservation, the orthodox sense. I see he thinks me conscientious! Well now, should I conscientiously avow that I am not a Unitarian, Socinian, Arian, Semiarian, or Sabellian, I wonder whether he would believe me. We shall try. If he does not, then my using his test words would be of no use: for, then, I spake feignedly. Strange case, indeed! I am accused of being or leaning to a Unitarian, and not one sentiment or sentence in all my writings or public speeches adduced in proof. I am accused of making a New Testament to suit my gospel; and yet my accuser does not say what my gospel is, nor does he say that I have perverted one single word to favor it--Yes, he has. Has he not censured the word Lord instead of God? But has he accused Griesbach, Ireneus, and the Syriac version, and many others, of having gospels of their own to foist upon the public?--No. Has he accused them of Socinianism or Unitarianism?--No. If, then, this "alteration," himself being judge, does not prove them interpolators and heretics, how can it criminate me!! But, sir, is it not passing strange, that of all the texts that speak of "the supreme deity of Jesus" in the whole New Testament, he has not found one against which to except in the new translation, save this one! and even this one he does not presume to shew to be Unitarian. Is it so that he has not another one in all the book to place along side of it. Surely, then, the new translation is most unexceptionable on this subject; for more than twenty have been excepted to in the common version on this account, by Calvinistic writers, as I can prove.

      I do charge him with the crime of slander in this instance; and I call upon him to show that there is any gospel other than the apostolic supported in the new version. I have often given my reasons why I object to expressing myself in any creed language, upon any article of the christian religion. See also an essay on "purity of speech," in this No. on this very topic. I do believe that Jesus the Saviour is the Word made flesh; that this Word was "in the beginning with God, and that this word was God." I do believe and teach that he is "the Alpha and Omega--the First and the Last." I believe that "although he was rich, and thought it not a robbery to be like God, yet he made himself poor," and ten thousand persons are witnesses that I pray to him and teach others to pray to him, and to worship him with all their hearts, without reservation or equivocation. If this be a proof of Unitarianism or Arianism, I may be accused; but otherwise no man can accuse me without being guilty of slander. But I will speak of him in bible terms, and in the words which the Holy Spirit teaches, and not in the language of Ashdod. I do so on all other topics equally with this. But, like a true son of a sect, this anonymous slanderer first orders me to be scourged, and then asks me what I have done. He first accuses me of the basest crime, and then, unable to convict me of it, he adjures me to say, am I not guilty. He condemns me and then calls for the evidence. But I defy him to prove his charge, and to prove from the new version that I have not faithfully done every thing proposed to be done in the work. In his last piece he has, indeed, not even adverted to the essential parts of my former reply. He has not made a single abjection to the 15th and 16th paragraphs of my reply, nor a single remark, that I can see, on them; and these unassailed, he has conceded every point of importance.

      He thanks me, not for having given this translation to the public; but snarls at the idea of its being imprisoned, because two or three clergymen in the state have the whole work, and perhaps not more than three men in the whole state have all the three works which I have given in one volume. Many of them may have one of the three, some two, but very few indeed have the whole; and should not the "laity" have the work as well as the clergy? I gave it to them--and he will take it from them. I can prove, as soon as he gives his name, if I am not greatly mistaken, that he has actually took home to his own house the work from some of his lay brethren, first telling them its faults and then accepting of it as a present. His name, in full, will decide this point. But with all he says about the clergy having these works, I am told he had to ride to Winchester to a circulating library to get a peep into Doddridge on Acts xx. 28, that he might make out his case.

      He requests me to publish his rejoinder. My rules require his name when a request of this sort is made. Let him publish his name, and I will publish them from Dan to Beersheba.

      Mr. Skillman, as a christian, I can have no object but truth. I am not afraid to avow my sentiments on any subject. I am obliged to you for your last extract from the Christian Baptist; but cannot thank you for the head you made for it. But your head and my body will not make one man. I court investigation, special and strict investigation of the new version. I thank all for their criticisms, but none for their slanders. I feel able to defend the work against all opposition, and will think so until I am tried. You will publish this, I trust, as soon as you see it, especially as you have published the slanders of your friend twice, and tacked his rejoinder to the heels of my reply. You will excuse this hasty scroll, as your paper was received by me after night, on the 6th instant, at Louisville. I am now starting to Indiana, and cannot transcribe my Monday morning's lucubrations.

	Your honest friend,
	A. CAMPBELL.
Louisville, January 8, 1827.

      A SCOTCH blacksmith being asked the meaning of metaphysics, explained it as follows:--"When the party who listens dinna ken what the party who speaks means, and the party who speaks dinna ken what he means himself--that is metaphysics."

[TCB 312-320]