|
[Table of Contents] [Previous] [Next] |
Alexander Campbell
The Christian Baptist (1889) |
| NO. 9.] | APRIL 2, 1827. |
Remarks on a Tour.
THROUGH the watchful care and supporting hand of the Father of Mercies, we have returned in safety from a tour in the states of Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, and Tennessee, occupying a period of four months. On this tour I had the pleasure not only of visiting my old friends and acquaintances, but of adding many new ones to the number. To this pleasure, however, was annexed the pain of parting. For, to the uncertainty of meeting again in this pilgrimage, was added the uncertainty, in some instances at least, of meeting in the heavenly country. For, while we rejoice in the assurance of meeting many of our friends in that blessed state where there is no more separation, it must be acknowledged that there are some personally attached to us, and we to them, from various reasons, concerning whose eternal life we can entertain but a very slender hope. It is, perhaps, natural; but so it is, that while we exercise benevolence towards [320] all mankind, we more ardently desire the salvation of some than of others. Hence it is, that on our list of friends there are some of whose salvation we are not always sanguine; yet, from their social and merely human virtues, we feel compelled, with more than ordinary zeal, to exclaim, "Would to God that they were not only almost, but altogether christians!" The Saviour once looked upon and loved a young man of extraordinary virtue, who, with a sad and sorrowful heart, bade him adieu. He was almost, but not altogether a disciple. There are, perhaps, few christians unacquainted with the feelings and views to which we allude. There is no doubt but that the Saviour of the world, his apostles, and the christians of the primitive age, had many friends who never became obedient to the faith. But this is a subject on which we can neither think nor write with pleasure. We shall therefore dismiss it with the expression of a wish that none may construe attachments or friendships, based on considerations merely human, into an affectionate regard for the Saviour and his disciples.
We added much to our knowledge of men and things religious, and returned home richly laden with materials for public edification. These materials have been quarried out of the actual condition of things in the religious world, and will require but little skill to adjust to advantage. We got into the cabinet of the popular systems, and into the sanctum sanctorum of the religious world. At these we had but peeped before, but now have looked full in the face the sacred effigies which fell down from Jupiter. We are often wont to conclude that from a few samples we know the whole, and that from a short acquaintance we know the man. Of the fallacy of such conclusions we have frequent proofs, but yet we are reluctant to suspect that we may be wrong. I would not raise expectation too high, nor give occasion to retort--
| "Returning from his finish'd tour, "Grown ten times perter than before," |
but I would say that I think I am better qualified to speak to the religious world on the subjects to which I have been calling its attention, than before. I have been questioned and cross-questioned a thousand times on a thousand topics; I have heard religious experiences, religious doubts; histories of conversions and relapses; of family religion, of family discipline, of christian congregations, of councils, conferences, and synods, of debates and strifes, of revivals and declensions, of persecutions and triumphs, of religious wars and commotions--so numerous and diversified, so ordinary and extraordinary, that I think little can be added to give variety to the religious scenery which I now have in retrospect.
If undissembled piety yet exists on earth, I have seen it; if christian friendship or brotherly love have yet their abode on earth, I have sojourned with them; if intelligent zeal and active philanthropy yet warm a human heart, or animate a human tongue, we have heard their eloquence and felt their power. And if there can be seen a dreary waste of frigid speculations; if there be on earth a barren desert of withered forms and parched ceremonies; if there be a valley of dry bones and lifeless sculls, strewed with the spoils of death, we have traversed it through. If there be superstition, delusion, enthusiasm, scepticism, infidelity, or atheism, yet alive, we have conversed with them.
Of the teachers of what is called religion, we have had a very full example. From the allegorizer, who preaches Christ and his church out of every verse of the Song of Solomon; from the mystic, who finds the whole plan of salvation in Paul's shipwreck and escape on Malta; from the inspired enthusiast, who tells of dreams and visions, of extacies and revelations all the day; from the drivelling paraphrast to the verbose and soporiferous commentator, we have had a perfect example. But on the other hand, we have also been conversant with the sapient doctors of biblical criticism, the shrewd and convincing reasoners upon the law and the testimony; the profound interpreters of scholastic theology; the eloquent declaimers against vice and immorality; the dispassionate and frigid metaphysician; the practical preacher, and the erudite bishop. But what is worthy of notice and still more of remembrance, we have heard some commend the life they will not lead, and approve the course they will not follow; who
| "See the better way and approve it too. "Detest the worse, and still the worse pursue." |
Of the influence of these teachers there is every where illustrious demonstrations. Here is a congregation all on fire, and there another cold as Boreas. Here there is one intelligent and liberal; there another ignorant and bigoted. Here they are all intent on mysteries, and there on their interpretation. In one congregation it is all doctrine; in another, all practice. In a few the supreme question is, "Lord, what will you have us to do?" but in many it is in effect what is most fashionable?
Religious sects do not bound and limit these diversities, but they exist in all. We mingled with all, conversed with all, and found in all pretty much the same varieties. A few differences in opinion do not always, indeed very seldom, make a visible difference in the exterior or interior items of a profession. The Baptist and the Paido-Baptist, the New Light and the Old Light in the same latitudes vegetate alike. They wear different regimentals, rally round different standards, and fight under different captains; but neither the flag nor the cockade makes a difference in the soldiers. One is heroic and daring; another dastardly and timid under any insignia. As of nations it was once said, of sects it may now be said, "In every one he that fears God and works righteousness is accepted by him." And will not the sprinkled which by nature keep the precepts of our Lawgiver, judge you a transgressor, though immersed, who boast in your immersion, and keep not the commandments of your King?
The two greatest evils we have to deplore, because pregnant with the greatest evils to mankind in general, are the manifest want of congregational and family discipline. The easy terms on which many are admitted into christian communities, and the little attention paid to their after behavior; the great zeal manifested for the acknowledgment of the party shibboleths, and the little concern expressed for the good works of christians, have almost defaced the landmarks which bound the plantations of nature and of grace. The decent moralist without, and the precise professor within, the pale of christian society, are, in the main, one and the same character. And when the question is asked, What do you more than others? it is answered by comparing the best in the church with the worst out of it--a mode of reasoning the most sophistical in the world. It should have been by comparing the worst in the church with the most respectable deistical moralist, and not by demanding all the boot between the decent sceptic and the extravagant debauches, or licentious rake, to [321] make the odds between the christian and the unregenerate. But thus it is that many impose upon themselves and one another. They are content to say that they differ from others, inasmuch as they frequent not the ball-room, nor the theatre, nor the haunts of dissipation. To this add, that the reins of congregational discipline are held in such an enfeebled hand, that a group of the most motley character is held together whithersoever the impetus of passion, sense, or appetite guide the way. Though this is not universal, it is very general in all parties. The restraints of christian doctrine are relaxed by the artificial or rather mechanical restraints of wayward creeds, and an agreement in "essential" opinions, covers a multitude of actual aberrations from the morality of the Lord Jesus.
The most generally true and correct report of the Baptist churches which could be given is as follows:--Four congregations or churches are under the pastoral care of one shepherd. He visits them every fourth Saturday and Sunday. In their church capacity they meet once a month. They meet at twelve on Saturday, and after organizing themselves by prayer and the appointment of a moderator for the day, business is called up. If there be no "business" on the docket an effort is made to create some, lest they should be idle. The business generally consists in hearing the experiences of candidates for baptism, should any offer. Each member becomes a juror, and when the candidate tells his story, a verdict is agreed on according to the nature of the case. If a favorable opinion of the candidate is entertained, he is ordered to be baptized; and this matter disposed of, nothing remains but to hear a sermon, or to quote the eighteenth of Matthew over some case of discipline. The first day of the week, commonly called Sunday, is occupied in singing a few stanzas of something called hymns, which in general are the metrified articles of the creed of the church. Next comes a prayer, or the hymn turned into prose; that is, the opinions of the brethren, dressed up in the form of prayer; and then comes the sermon, in which one drop of wine is turned into a gallon of water. By this miracle the faith, that is the opinions of the brethren, is strengthened, and sometimes their heads become dizzy with the sound, or rather effervescence of the distillation, or decomposition of the concrete material. Speculations are sung and then prayed, and then preached and then sung, and then prayed and then blessed. And after being thus fed and feasted, the brethren go home for one month to ruminate and digest this hearty meal. Thus the lambs are fed, and the sheep feasted. As to the children at home, the little kids are playing about the shepherds' tents, or nipping the blossoms on the hills. It is altogether left to Heaven when and how to convert them. It is a work of sovereign grace which no education can accelerate or retard. So sovereign are the conversions and so supernatural, that there is as good a chance in the playhouse as in the chapel. A minute acquaintance with novels and romances is as well adapted to conversion as the historical books of the Old and New Testaments. The great concern about the children is, that they may be rich and honorable in this world; that they may be able to control a great many pounds of bread and beef, and to dispense it with a good grace. Thus their minds grow up a great moral waste, in which grow exuberantly the corrupt passions and appetites of nature.
This is not too highly colored for the present order of things on a general view; but we rejoice to know that there are many individual and some congregational exceptions. But when we describe things in the aggregate, we speak of them as becomes their more general features. A great majority of the families I visited do attend to family religion and to the religious instruction of their children, and some of them to the religious instruction of their servants. But on all hands I heard of, and in some instances I saw, "christian parents" in whose house the melody of praise and the voice of prayer in seldom heard except when a preacher calls. Neither is it uncommon to find a whole family reared and married, and not a professor among them!! Yet in the polite circle and amongst the honorable cits, none are more conspicuous than they. Were time eternity--this life eternal--this world heaven, and all things here immutable, reason and religion would unite in teaching us to devote our whole souls to the objects around us; but as we do not profess to think so, such christians are the greatest paradoxes in the universe. These remarks proceed from benevolence, and are designed not to flatter the wayward--not to allure the unsuspicious--not to conceal our shame--not to reproach the upright--not to palliate the froward--not to countenance the latitudinarians, nor to compliment the orthodox; but to warn, admonish, to reprove, confute and commend, when it is due. It is not he that commends himself who is approved, but him the Lord commends.
EDITOR.
A Restoration of the Ancient Order of Things.
No. XVIII.
Argument against it.
THE present general order of things is exhibited in miniature in the preceding remarks. There are many who advocate the present order of things--not, we hope, the effects of that order, but the system of things which legitimately issues in these results. They are, to say the least, false reasoners, or fallacious philosophers. They do not assign to effects their proper causes, or to causes their proper results. True philosophy consists in assigning effects to their true causes; false philosophy, in assigning effects to other causes than their own. We have often heard much of how the Lord has blessed the present order of things by the numerous converts and large accessions made to congregations under the reigning systems. This is most fallacious and dangerous logic. If it were true philosophy, it would equally prove that infant sprinkling, the invocation of saints, and the whole system of papistical and protestant managements were of divine origin and approbation. For how often do we hear the Papist and the Protestant appealing to the mighty achievements of their leaders in proof that the Lord is with them, and that he countenances all their movements? Each party numbers its Israel every year, and capitalizes its converts, in attestation that the Lord is there. Scarce a revival comes, but Presbyterians, Methodists, and Baptists come in for a share; though, in general, the two former out-count the latter. Now if the Baptist annual converts prove that the present order of things is of divine origin amongst them, it will as logically prove that the present order of things amongst Catholics, Presbyterians, and Protestants, is of divine approbation. All that my reasoning powers can conclude from these premises, is, first, That if the Lord's hand is not in these accessions, they are equally deceived; and though in different degrees, all distant from the equator of truth. One [322] is ten degrees south; another, ten degrees north; and though twenty degrees apart, they are equally distant from the equator of true religion. But, in the second place, if the Lord's hand is in these accessions, then it proves that he disdains equally their systems and their order, and bestows his favors indiscriminately on all. It cannot be argued that he approves all their systems; for this would terminate in the most absurd results. He would then approve of Papacy, Episcopacy, Presbytery, and Independency--of infant sprinkling and of believer's immersion, and of a hundred things flatly contradictory to each other. I say, then, it proves, on the best hypothesis, that he disdains all their systems and their order, and that he loudly proclaims it by the distributions of his favor upon the Baptist order, the Methodistic order, the Presbyterial order, and so forth. If the Lord approved of one of the present systems he would confer all his favors upon that people; or, in other words, he would assemble his elect under that standard, and signalize them as he once did the only nation he selected and made his own. They could exclaim, What people like us!! What people has the Lord blessed as he has blessed us!! I say, then, that to my reasoning faculties, the logic of the Baptist Recorder or that of the Presbyterian Luminary now confederated, proves not that the Lord approbates that for which they contend, viz. the present order of things in their respective circles, but that he equally disdains both their orders. I would like to see them try their logic here. He sends his gospel to them all, on the supposition that the work of these revivals is his, and thereby calls them to reformation. I have no idea of magnifying molehills into mountains, nor of consecrating the language of Ashdod into that of Canaan; I have no idea of amalgamating oil and water, of christening pagans, or of paganizing christians; I have no idea of raising up a holy seed from Egyptian or Babylonish wives, nor of proving that the Lord approves the present order of things, because the Methodists and Baptists annually count twenty thousand converts a-piece.
During the ancient order of things there was no church meetings for the purpose of receiving candidates for immersion. There were no monthly meetings to decide who should be baptized. There was no person who held his membership in one church and had the pastoral care of another in which he was not a member, and to which he was not amenable, as is now the case very generally. There was no church in those days of primitive integrity, composed of a hundred members, which, in a case of discipline, gave only eleven votes, six against and five for the delinquent, and they excommunicated him. There was no deacon appointed solely for the purpose of carrying about a plate four times a-year. There was no society whose whole code of discipline was the 18th of Matthew. There was no one who had any formulary, creed, or confession, other than the apostolic writings. Now let him that affirms to the contrary remember that the proof lies upon him. And we will assure him that his proof will be faithfully published by us, should he send it for that purpose. The subjects introduced here are intended for future developement.
EDITOR.
The Creed Question.
THIS question has been long and warmly contested in the United States. In Kentucky an anonymous writer, who it is believed has changed sides on this question more than once, who calls himself "Aleph," and very pertinently too, has thrown down the gauntlet in an extraordinary way indeed. Another, who goes a step higher, even to the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and calls himself "Beth," has severely castigated the temerity of his brother Doctor. It is passing strange that the only two Doctors of Divinity in the West, of the Baptist denomination, should thus become Aleph and Beth, and stand on the two sides of this question. The creed side has lost one hundred per cent. within a year or two past, if I mistake not. Its advocates have deserted the old ground, and Doctor Aleph in his recent challenge has got it fixed on no ground at all, but, like Mahomet's coffin, hung between heaven and earth. It would require a critic to understand his challenge. It is in the following words:--"If Mr. Duncan, Mr. Campbell or the Reviewer, should be inclined to meet the great question fairly in reference to the principle of having a creed, not in regard to the contents of any particular creed, nor in regard to church administration, for these are different subjects; if they will meet the single question above stated, their error shall be made apparent, even to the most ordinary capacity." So, then, Mr. "Aleph" will not contend for the contents of his creed, but for the principle of having one. Neither will he contend about the use to be made of his creed in church administration. But all he will engage to do is to contend for the principle or right of having a creed. This is with him the great question. But unfortunately or accidentally it happens that the Doctor has given his challenge so as to preclude the hope or fear of an opponent. The Doctor is a very amiable man, and I cannot think he designed to play the sophist here, though he has done it to extravagance. I ascribe it to his cause and not to his good sense. Suppose, for example, I had written against polygamy, or against the right or principle of having two wives. Suppose that some polygamist should have said, and defied the world on it, that "If Mr. Duncan or myself should be inclined to meet the great question fairly in reference to the principle of having a wife, not in regard to the number or character, nor their treatment; if they will meet the single question above stated, their error shall be made apparent to the most ordinary capacity"--what answer would it deserve? If it were not an insult to the good sense of the reader, I would say, Sir, you have changed the ground of controversy altogether. I contend not against the principle of having a wife, but, sir, you contend for the principle of having two; and before you will make my error apparent to the most ordinary capacity, you will first produce the divine authority or right reason of having two wives at one and the same time. I contend for one divine and infallible creed, and you argue for a human and fallible one along with it, or for the "principle" of having two creeds. "Now, sir, the proof lies upon the affirmer. Be so good, then, as to produce your divine authority or your good reasons for the principle of having two creeds, and then I pledge myself to make your error plain to the most ordinary capacity. Now, my kind friend Aleph, stick to your text, and, like an honest man, come out, not in the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, but write your name in full.
I must not close till I have let Beth confute Aleph in his own words. The preceding challenge of Aleph is replied to by Beth in the following words:--
"I have never heard of any christian man who controverted the propriety and even the necessity of having a creed. The only question is, Whether or not Jesus Christ shall be the [323] author of the creed, and of the constitution and laws of his church? or shall a voluntary association o£ men take this business out of his hands and form one to suit their own views and purposes, by either changing the doctrinal statements, facts, and connexions, as they appear in the word of God, or by adding to, or taking from his system of truth, or by epitomising it? It required the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, to write the system of faith in the gospel, and shall a voluntary association of men presume to exercise the power of changing, modifying, or improving it? This would, in my judgment, savor very much of a conspiracy against the kingdom of Christ, and of a presumptuous sin. If one association of men have a right to form a creed, another and another have, and churches formed in accordance with them have equal claims to divine authority. The Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians, and Roman Catholics, all stand upon the same footing. Each one under this divine authority, claims the right to wage war upon the rest in defence of their faith; and thus we have five different organized armies, marshalled under different standards, commanded by different officers, and united by different creeds, in active conflict, by divine authority too, in direct violation of the express commands and authority of Jesus Christ in the gospel. All this is done under the pretext of keeping out Arians and other heretics. Every one assumes the right to be God's commentator and expositor, instead of the apostles; and all differ, and make their differences articles of faith."
EDITOR.
ACTS xx. 28. "Feed the church of God which he
has purchased with his own blood."
Mr. Alexander Campbell, it seems, in his new translation, substitutes the term Lord for God, in the above passage. This, he tells us, he has done on the authority of Griesbach, Ireneus, who flourished A. D. 170, and the Syriac version. According to the alteration, it reads--"Feed the Church of the Lord," instead of "the church of God," as it is in our common version.
It does not appear to me, that any one should oppose the introduction of a various reading into the common text, when the change is evidently for the better, and is clearly supported by satisfactory evidence, as the genuine reading. But when this is not the case, it surely ought not to be attempted; because all attempts to alter the text in common use, tend to unsettle the public mind, in relation to, and destroy the confidence of the people in, the sacred scriptures.
As different opinions appear to be entertained relative to the above passage, permit me to inquire whether the phrase, the church of the Lord, is a New Testament phrase? The church of God, we know to be language quite common with Paul, as the following quotations will show:--
"Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ, through the will of God, and Sosthenes, our brother, to the church of God, which is at Corinth," 1 Cor. i. 2.
"Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor the Gentiles, nor to the church of God." 1 Cor. x. 32.
"But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the church of God." "What! have you not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise you the church of God, and shame them that have not?" 1 Cor. xi. 16. 22.
"For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God." 1 Cor. xv. 9.
"Paul, an apostle, of Jews Christ, by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, to the church of God which is at Corinth." 2 Cor. i. 1.
"For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God." Gal. i. xiii.
"For ye brethren became followers of the churches of God, which in Judea are in Christ Jesus." 1 Thess. ii. 14.
"So that we ourselves glory in you in the churches of God." 2 Thess. i. 4.
"For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?"--"But if I tarry long, that you may know how you ought to behave yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God." 1 Tim. iii. 5. 15.
If, now, it be inquired, "How often is the phrase, the church of the Lord, used in the New Testament?" I believe the answer must be, "Not once." If it be there, I have not been able to find it; and Horne, in his "Introduction to the Critical Study of the Sacred Scriptures," tells us it is no where in the New Testament. These facts render it evident that Paul was not accustomed to use such a phrase as the church of the Lord, but was in the habit of calling, the church the church of God; and that, therefore, the strong presumption is, he did so in Acts xx. 28. in his address to the elders of the church at Ephesus. For it is to be remembered, that although Luke was the penman, yet the language is Paul's. And as it stands in our common version, it is just what we might expect from him. It "smacks" so much of Paul--is so much like him, that I can hardly help thinking we have the very language he used. But to change it into the church of the Lord, necessarily introduces to us a new speaker, and anew New Testament writer.
It is then evident, that the common reading in the passage under consideration is the authorized reading--authorized from parallel passages of scripture, which warrant the phraseology; while the change which Mr. C. has made, is in like manner unauthorized. With this strong and not easily refuted presumption in favor of the phrase as it stands in our bibles, it appears to me we ought to have powerful external evidence (as that which arises from a various reading in ancient MSS. and versions is called) in support of the change before it is introduced.
But when the external evidence is examined, there is no such weighty preponderance in favor of the alteration, that I know of. What if Griesbach does decide in favor of the change? At least one other critic,1 of no ordinary talent and industry, and perhaps full as learned as Griesbach, and who has written since him, and profited by his labors; after having noticed all the various readings, and cited the evidence in favor of each, decides that the weight of evidence from ancient MS. versions, and the fathers, is in favor of the common reading.
The same author tells us that the old Syriac version is neither in favor of the common reading, nor of Mr. C'S; but supports the phrase, the church of Christ. If so, there is a slight mistake in Mr. Campbell's piece, published in the Luminary of the 3d of January, which informs us that that version contains the reading which he prefers; and likewise a slight diminution of the evidence on which he makes his change.
From the same source we learn that Ignatius supports the common reading; a father, who [324] flourished considerably earlier than Ireneus, on whose testimony Mr. C. places so much reliance. "Ignatius, as it is testified by ancient writers, became bishop of Antioch, about 37 years after Christ's ascension; and therefore, from his time and place, and station, it is probable that he had known and conversed with many of the apostles." (vid. Paley's Evidences, p. 82, 83.) For the same reason, therefore, that the testimony of Ireneus is relied on for the change of the passage, that of Ignatius should be preferred to retain it as it is.
These considerations ought not to be unknown to a man who undertakes to alter the sacred text in common use. And when we reflect that Mr. C. is considered a man of talents and learning, it is difficult to shut out the suspicion that he has an a priori preference for the term Lord, or some other word, rather than the one which our version contains; which is well calculated to excite a fear, that he has a leaning to the Arian creed.
VINDEX.
Western Luminary, Feb. 7.
WERE it not for the fictitious name and the last period of the preceding critique, we would say that it has some appearance of reasonableness about it. The last period would, in cases of testimony, subtract much from the competency of the witness. There is not only a logical defect, but a manifest prejudice apparent in it. This will appear by substituting the name of Griesbach in lieu of mine. Then his last sentence will read, "And when we reflect that Griesbach is considered a man of talents and learning, it is difficult to shut out the suspicion that he has an a priori preference for the term Lord, or some other word, rather than the one our version contains, which is well calculated to excite a fear that he has a leaning to the Arian creed." Now, as this reading, in the opinion of "Vindex," excites no fears of the orthodoxy of Griesbach and others, it could not in relation to me, were the author as free from prejudice against me as against Griesbach. This, then, is a proof of prejudice, or of a defect in the logical power of this avenger. No man can reason fairly when under the tyranny of prejudice.
I will now, with the utmost frankness, examine his reasoning. It is obvious that his critique is based upon the singularity of the phrase, "church of the Lord." He has very satisfactorily shown that the phrase "church of God" is of frequent occurrence in Paul's style, and the phrase "church of the Lord" does not occur in any other passage. Now all this is well told and reasonable enough. From this he concludes very plausibly that the reading church of God ought to be preferred to the church of the Lord. This is much more specious than solid. To argue on this principle may, in his estimation, suit a case of this sort exactly; but I well know he would not abide by its application in many other passages. There are many phrases which occur but once in Paul's writings, which I know he would not like to see excluded on this account from the apostle's writings, though Paul uses others frequently which are nearly of the same effect; such as "the blood of Jesus," "one mediator," "the man Christ Jesus."
The strength of his objection is simply this, that the words "church of the Lord" occur no where else in his writings; but this equally applies to many other phrases; and consequently, as he would not exclude them on this account, to be consistent, he ought not here to object on this ground.
But I proceed to notice another and greater objection to his criticism. I will apply his own principles of reasoning to another clause or phrase in the common version of this disputed text. This is the phrase "blood of God," or "his blood," applied to God. Now I affirm, in my turn, that this phrase occurs no where else in the whole New Testament, but that other phrases as kindred as the phrases church of God and church of the Lord, are quite common on this subject. If then his logic be sound, it equally militates against the common version of this text as against the new: "Vindex" himself being judge. We have the phrases "blood of Jesus," "blood of Jesus Christ," "blood of Christ," "his blood," applied to the Lord, and "thy blood," "blood of the Lamb," and "blood of the Lord;" but no where have we the phrase "blood of God," or "his blood," applied to God. Some of these occur often, and all once, independent of the disputed text. Now if I have any reason about me, Mr. Vindex is confuted by his own argument. For his reasoning will exclude one part of the disputed text which he wishes to retain in the common version, for the same reasons precisely which he urges against the new. It is a good rule that works both ways. Indeed, the phrase blood of God, or his blood, applied to God, is just as great a solecism in the inspired style, as the phrase death of God, or his death, applied to God, would be. This, then, authorises me to conclude my criticism on Vindex, critique, in his own words: "To change it into the blood of God, or his blood, necessarily introduces to us a new speaker, and a new New Testament writer." Is not this another proof that "the legs of the lame are not equal?"
Now, admitting that the phrase church of the Lord occurs no where else in the New Testament, it militates no more against its genuineness than it does against the phrase blood of Jesus, which also occurs but once. But this is not all: there is no such incongruity between this phrase and the whole New Testament style, inasmuch as the phrase church of Christ is quite in the inspired style, as there is between the phrase blood of God, or his blood, and the apostolic phraseology. Here, then, we have the advantage in the new version over the old on the principle assumed by Vindex himself.
Vindex alleges, on the authority of Horne, that while Griesbach and Ireneus have it church of the Lord, the Syriac version has it the church of Christ. But in equipoise to Dr. Horne, I affirm that Dr. Whitby asserts that the Syriac version has it church of the Lord. This, however, on Vindex' own acknowledgement, affects not the merits of the question. I cannot at this time affirm, from my own inspection, that the Syriac version has it on the side of Dr. Horne or Dr. Whitby; but on either side, it is on the side of the new version rather than the old. Against this, prejudice itself cannot cavil. I cannot equal Horne to Griesbach with so little ceremony as Vindex seems to do. I subtract nothing from the merits of Horne, when I give it as my opinion that he does not rank at all with either Griesbach or Michaelis or any of the first collators. That was not his business, nor is it his merit.
I should like to see the words of Ignatius which favors the common version. I have not seen them; and if the allusions to them are similar to those in Paley, Dupin, Eusebius, and other ecclesiastic writers, they are not worth a grain of sand. It is not plead by Horne that Ignatius quotes those words of Paul directly, nor do I [325] know of any reference to them in Ignatius' works which would establish any reading. Nothing short of a direct quotation will, or can be admitted in this case.
But in the last place on this subject, I have a greater reason to prefer Griesbach and other authorities to the common Greek, than any yet mentioned. And, strange as it may appear, it is for the very reason why many short-sighted critics prefer God to Lord. They conceive, like Matthew Henry, whom I esteem as a good man, but a very weak commentator, that the reading of God rather than Lord, exalts the dignity of the Saviour--exalts him more than reading Lord in preference to God. Now I conceive that there can be no higher dignity, personal nor official, than is contained in the phrase church of the Lord; especially when the same church is called the church of God by the same speaker. Here we have all that can be argued from the name, in favor of his dignity from the common reading.
I reason thus: There is more value in one human being than there is in one million of globes such as this we inhabit. If, then, the whole assembly, or church, or congregation of purified and glorified human beings belongs, jure divino, or by inheritance, or by redemption to the Lord Jesus; if it be his own, as it is his Father's, I can conceive of no glory superior to his personal glory and majesty. I can conceive that he is worthy, infinitely worthy, to receive all blessing, adoration, and thanksgiving from every rational and glorified being in the universe. I conceive that all the paltry criticisms and puerile notions about the phrase blood of God, fall infinitely short of those masculine and sublime contemplations, originating from the apprehension of that ineffable glory couched in the proprietorship of the whole assembly of immortal saints. For, when I scan, by all the lights of astronomy, the worlds and systems of worlds of matter which glimmer over the vast immensity of the spangled firmament; when I add to their real magnitude and grandeur all that the loftiest flights of imagination can bestow, and reflect that one immortal, one deathless spirit is of infinitely more value than they all; how inconceivable and inexpressible your dignity, glorious Lord, who claim them all as your own, by a right which no creature in all the orders of intelligence can ever, dare ever, or will ever dispute!
Thus I reason, and till better informed, must reason on the sublime view presented to my mind in Paul's farewell address to the elders of a congregation in Ephesus. But still I contend that no ideas I could entertain of the propriety of the phrase, nor of its accordance with the style of the speaker, and congruity with the sentiment of the whole volume, would authorize me or any one else in preferring the reading in the new translation, were it not supported by authority equal, or paramount to the other, which I think will appear to all who will or can weigh the authorities on both sides.
If I could expect any thing like candor or justice from Mr. Skillman, editor of the "Luminary," I would demand the insertion of this article in his paper; more especially as he gathers into his paper all the febrile, jejune, splenetic, and pusilanimous effusions of the masked tribe of reamers which have honored the "Baptist Recorder" with their impalpable and nameless denunciations.
EDITOR.
The New Translation.
THE first edition of this work is, with the exception of a very few copies, disposed of. It has been well received and highly approved of by many competent judges, alike distinguished for their piety and erudition.2 The objections made to this translation are not in the proportion of ten per cent to those made to former translations; and I presume were it generally received, or rather circulated, the objections from all parts of the union would not proportionally amount to more than they now do. Many objections and petitions against the common version, it is said, were presented on its first appearance. The king's decree silenced them at first, or until use had rendered it familiar, and the youth accustomed to read it at school when they arrived to manhood thought well of it, and esteemed all the points and letters in it of divine authority. It is to be hoped that no such means will ever again be resorted to, to give currency to any translation. That only should obtain general reading whose merit deserves it. We have been often requested, (and it is probable at some future day it may be undertaken) to publish a pocket edition of this version. But before a second edition, either of a larger or smaller size, will be proposed or attempted, we wish to receive all the criticisms and emendations which can be proposed by the learned and pious of all denominations. We therefore humbly solicit from all concerned or interested, whatever light they have to throw upon the subject. We will be thankful for objections and criticisms, candid or uncandid, even as plausible as the article copied into this number from the "Luminary." Such investigations and criticisms, from whatever motive they proceed, are beneficial to the public, who are desirous of understanding the book. The weak-minded only are afraid of new translations, or, at most, those who have not thought much upon the subject. I think the illiterate have stronger faith who read many translations, than the same class have who read but one. The reason is obvious: Faith has to do with facts and events attested. Now as all translations, even the most imperfect, present all the same facts, and personages, and every thing historical to the mind of the reader, he, though unacquainted with the original tongue, becomes more assured of the certainty of the facts he believes, because he finds that all translators, which are to him as so many witnesses, give the same historical statements. Suppose, for example, an Englishman unacquainted with Greek, understands the French, Spanish, and German Languages, and reads in them all the New Testament. He finds that all the persons, events, places, and occurrences--all the lives, labors, and successes of the apostles--in a word, every thing historical precisely the same--would not such a person have more rational ground of assurance of the correctness of any translation than he who has read but one version? Improved translations do not introduce any new articles of belief, because they attest no persons nor facts, no historical matters that were not attested before; but they have their value and importance from the plainness, force, beauty, and simplicity in which they present the testimony of God to the reader. In every thing that concerns faith, all translations are the same; but as respects [326] a clear and comprehensive understanding of the book, there is as great difference as there is, or as there can be, in any number of witnesses giving testimony in any case. While nine of them declare all the same facts, it may happen that the tenth expresses himself with so much more perspicuity, that there is incomparably less difficulty in understanding him than the other nine. So much for the objection to new translations, as supposed detrimental to the faith of the reader. We solicit most earnestly all criticisms; objections, or emendations, which piety, biblical knowledge, or general information can present. We wish to live for the benefit of our contemporaries, and of the next generation. We are indebted to those that have gone before us, and that debt we can only discharge so far as we labor for the benefit of those who are to live after us.
EDITOR.
Mr. Robert Owen and the Social System.
No. I.
MR. OWEN has attracted much attention in this country as well as in Britain from the singularity of his views, and the benevolent nature of his efforts for the amelioration of society. He has afforded evidence of "mental independence" never perhaps surpassed before. His talents, education, fortune, and extraordinary zeal in the prosecution of his favorite object, entitle him to a very liberal share of public respect. It is, I believe, very generally admitted that he is perfectly disinterested as far as respects pecuniary gain, in all that he has done, and is doing, for the establishment and developement of the social system. He has not been treated, however, with over much courtesy by many editors, both political and religious, who have animadverted on his principles and his plans. For my own part, I have felt some degree of sympathy for him, and of mortification too, at the nibblings of his opponents. I have waited for a better acquaintance with his principles and managements before I even ventured to form an opinion for myself, either of their wisdom or practicability; and am not yet able to form a satisfactory opinion of the social system as advocated by him. I have long endeavored neither to condemn nor approve any opinion either because it is old or new, popular or unpopular. Paul's maxim I esteem of equal importance in all things--"Bring all things to the test, and hold fast that which is good."
The benefits resulting from a co-operative system have been apprehended in theory and proved by experience, before we heard of Mr. Owen is this country. A social system of cooperation may be grafted on any system of religion, true or false; but that a social system of co-operation can at all exist without religious obligations has never yet been proved; but this appears to be the experiment now on hand at New Harmony, Indiana. In this Mr. Owen has afforded the most convincing proofs of "mental independence." The annals of the world fail to present one single league or confederation for any purpose that was not perfectly ephemeral, without religion of some kind or other. I have no notion of getting angry with Mr. Owen, or of belaboring him with harsh epithets for hazarding an experiment of this sort. It is true, indeed, that I regret that any person born in the eighteenth century, and educated in the kingdom of Scotland, should have profited so little by the circumstances around him, and should have learned so little from all that has gone before him, as to suppose that a being such as man is, could be happy in any circumstances, without the hope of immortality beyond the grave.
I regret very much, indeed, that Mr. Owen has found it necessary to the completion of his plans to abolish every vestige of the religion of the bible--from the divine ordinance of matrimony down to the observance of the Lord's day. This I regret from my regard for the social system in particular, and also because of its pestiferous influence on certain classes of society, who need the benefits of something more than the social system to improve their morals and their circumstances.
It appears that the human mind may be so intensely applied to a favorite object of study or pursuit, as to lose its own equilibrium, so to speak; and that a man may become a downright enthusiast on any other subject as well as religion. There is a deistical, atheistical, political, economical, as well as a "christian" enthusiast. And Mr. Owen seems to have paid so much attention to the influence of circumstances upon human character, an influence very great indeed, as to have ascribed omnipotence to it, or rather to have deified it. This I presume to be the cause of his "mental independence." I know, indeed, it is not very easy to bound or limit the influence of surrounding circumstances, but still they have limits, even in forming human character. To make every thing in human character depend upon the power of circumstances, is to me as great an error as to make nothing depend on it. These are the two extremes. "Media tutissima est." The true and safe way lies between. Education may do as much for the animal man as cultivation may do for plants, and I think it can do little, if any thing more. That moralist who conceives that he could, by an entire change of circumstances, effect an entire change of character, is not less deceived than the botanist who thinks he could make grapes grow on thorns, or figs on thistles, by a change of climate and of culture. No change of circumstances could make a goat produce wool, or convert a lion into a lamb. So no change of circumstances could make a Nero out of Mr. Owen, nor a Bonaparte out of Gen. Hull. There is more born into the world than flesh and blood, and yet a great deal depends upon corporeal organization. No change of circumstances could make a painter or a musician where the eye and the ear are not bestowed by nature, so no change of circumstances can make the naturally indolent, selfish, envious, ambitious, the contrary characters. I cannot, then, ascribe the attributes of Deity to the circumstances of birth or education, and therefore I cannot be so mentally independent as Mr. Owen. But Mr. Owen only dates the era of "Mental Independence" from the fiftieth year of political independence, consequently he does nor owe his "mental independence" to the circumstances that surrounded him more than forty years ago.
Out of this "mental independence" has arisen the hostility to the Bible which so much characterizes the New Harmony Gazette. Free agency, responsibility, marriage, and every religious institute are exiled from the city of Mental Independence. These are not the circumstances which are to surround the infants born there. No, these are all inimical to "mental independence."
I am glad to see, upon the whole, that a series of essays against the Bible has commenced, and that an "Enquirer" has published his number one on the subject. I do not rejoice in the thing [327] itself, but that we shall have a chance (as we are not free agents) of hearing all that mighty evidence in favor of no religion, and against the Bible which "the first year of mental independence" can bestow upon the world. If no abler hand will appear on the side of the Bible, I shall be compelled to volunteer in the service, for I am indebted more to the light which it contains than to all the circumstances else which surrounded me from infancy to man; and I am as certain that this new era of "mental independence" with all the circumstances to which it may give birth, will not be worth the testimony of John to the illuminated citizens of New Harmony, as I am that Mr. Owen did not create himself. But I will wait a few weeks until the work has progressed a little, and till I see the strength which is to come into the field.
I will only add that it is the deistical or rather atheistical part of Mr. Owen's system to which I am compelled at present to object, I should like to have his definition of the term "morality," for I think it is wanting to make his paper intelligible to most readers.
EDITOR.
To "Paulinus."--Letter II.
MY DEAR SIR,--My absence from home at the time of the publication of your favor of November last, will, I hope, be accepted as an apology for the delay of in reply. Your remarks upon the discourse on the abrogation of the Legal Dispensation perfectly meet my approbation. I do not object even to your placing the unregenerate descendants and neighbors of christians "under the whole of God's revealed will according to the dispensation under which they live." Nor, if I recollect right, does this militate with the doctrine of that discourse. In placing the unregenerate Gentiles under what is called the Law of Nature, as explained in that discourse, we had respect to them in the mass, without regard to specialities in their condition. But were I asked where I would place the unconverted Virginians, on the principles asserted there, I would answer under the New Testament. I would, in addressing them, demonstrate, that the principles, laws, or light in that volume, would prove their awful condemnation in the day of vengeance, if they obeyed it not. I would assure them that the first commandment obligatory on them, was, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ." That disobedience to this commandment would prove their condemnation. If asked for the second commandment, I would reply, "Be immersed, every one of you, in the name of the Lord Jesus, for the remission of your sins." Until these two commandments were obeyed, I would shew them that they are not in the kingdom of Jesus Christ, and that they were worthy of condemnation, if on no other account, on this, that light was come into the world, and they loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. These commandments not obeyed, I would endeavor to convince them that they could promise themselves nothing on any rational principle, but an eternal separation from the presence of the Lord, and the glory of his power in the day of righteous retribution. In addressing such a people, I would give such an exhibition of the matter, always emphasizing on the first commandment of the New Dispensation, without obedience to which no other commandment could be acceptably obeyed. Viewing the matter, then, in the light of law, I would proceed thus; To preach the law or decalogue of Moses to the citizens of Virginia, appears to me as irrational and unscriptural as it would be to command them, upon the authority of Moses, to emigrate to Canaan.
The metaphysics of that discourse I am glad to find you disapprove. It is for the same reason that I disapprove of the metaphysics on the influence of the Spirit in renewing the human heart. In my last to you on this subject, I went to the utmost line, as I conceive, marked in the Bible, and perhaps a little beyond it. I attribute a good deal of the general satisfaction which it has given, both in the West as well as in the East, to its having reached the threshold of the temple of metaphysics.
Still you think I ought to have answered "in a more direct manner" that part of your letter on the subject of divine influences, and you state that you "are 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." Neither am I, provided the subject in religion be a subject on which the bible treats. But at present there are two sorts of subjects in religion--one on which the bible says not one word, and one on which it says something. I was asked, on my late tour, very many questions on what are called religious subjects, to which I could give no answer from the bible, because the bible said nothing about them. It is true I gave direct answers to some of those queries, but they were answers derived from the same cistern whence the queries came. You are not ignorant, my dear sir, that in this catechetical age we have many queries of this sort.
A very zealous divine, who, before my arrival in his parish, had published a bitter, little, unmeaning piece, against my views of faith, as he called them, asked me at our first interview, "whether saving faith was an act of the intellect or of the heart"--whether it was an intellectual or approbatory act. This question was asked me, too, after he had published me as contending for a faith merely intellectual, and after he had declared himself pleased with all that I had said in the only discourse he had heard me deliver, being only "displeased with the things I had not said?" Having previously published me as altogether intellectual, he had the kindness to call on me for the proof. It is true his letter was signed only with the initials of his name; but when I lately saw it in a very religious newspaper, I doubted not who the author was; for it was a fac simile of his views. Now, my dear air, what answer from the bible could I give to such a query? I told him I could give him a metaphysical answer, but none from the book. Not waiting for this, he went on to talk about believing with the heart, as a scriptural phrase, and contrasted this with believing with the head. The former he called "approbatory faith"--the latter "intellectual faith." I found it very difficult to convince him that the contrast between the head and the heart was one of his own making; that Paul knew nothing, and said nothing about believing with the head. Paul, I added, contrasted the mouth and the heart, and not the head and the heart; or, in other words, that it required "the confession of the mouth" as well as the belief of the heart, to make a christian. "If you shall confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and shall believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you shall be saved. For with the heart man believes to righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made to salvation." I would not admit that there was such a thing at all as believing with the head. I hope I removed some of his prejudices, and might have removed them all, had he not first committed [328] himself in the aforesaid publication. I give the above as a sample of such questions as can not be answered out of the bible. If answered at all, the terms must be changed, and a new form assumed. You will not understand me as arranging your question on the Spirit's work under this head. I merely intend distinctly to mark the difference between those subjects in religion of which the bible says nothing and those on which it speaks.
In reply to those queries on subjects in religion of which the bible speaks, more is necessary than to say, "I believe what the bible teaches." That is not the question. The question is, What does the bible teach on such a subject? Such a question merits a direct reply. It sometimes happens that the subject is one on which the bible says so much that little more than the outlines can be given in the compass of an ordinary reply. This is the case on the subject of the operations of the Holy Spirit.
On this subject much has been said in the second volume of this work, because there is a great deal said by the apostles on this subject, and a great deal said in the present time not authorized by the apostles. The subject has not been exhausted; but there may be questions proposed on subjects of which the bible speaks, which the bible will not answer. For example; How does the Spirit influence the minds of men? is a question I cannot answer from the bible. But if I am asked, Does the Spirit regenerate the human heart? Does it influence the minds of men? I answer, The bible teaches it does. But I have a great scrupulosity of mind in going beyond what is written on this subject in particular. The reason is, some speculative theory of spiritual operations is the very essence, the very soul, of every system of religion in christendom. The deist, the lifeless formalist, the "rational christian," and the flaming enthusiast; have all their theories of spiritual operations. The "rational christian" you will perceive I rank among the others. I admit of no such a distinction. The bible knows nothing of rational or irrational christians--of good or bad christians. A christian designates all that the bible approves. A bitter sweet or a sweet bitter is not more incongruous; nor is a sweet sweet, nor a bitter bitter more redundant than these epithets attached to that name. When I hear a man contend that he is a rational christian, I know that he is in Babylon.
But to return. The popular theories about divine influence, or the operations of the Spirit, terminate either in one or the other of these two similitudes. A sea captain and his crew, intent on a voyage from New York to Palestine, had got all the tackling of the ship and all the necessary sea stores for the voyage aboard. Every thing was ready on the appointed day. But there was no wind. The captain and his crew amused themselves every day, sometimes in the city and sometimes in the ship. Thus day succeeded day, until the time arrived when the voyage should have been finished. The owner of the ship demanded of the captain why the voyage was not made. The captain replied, he and his crew were every day ready and every day at their post, but that there had not been a single breeze of wind. The ship, he added, was rotting and the provisions were daily consuming; but inasmuch as he could not create the wind, nor cause it to blow, he could neither blame himself nor his crew. The owner was chagrined but could not censure the captain or his crew.
Another captain bound from Egypt to Corinth, so soon as he had collected his crew and fixed upon the day of his departure, determined to make the voyage in a given time. Finding that there was no wind and that wind was necessary to his success, he invented a large pair of bellows, and set all his crew to work to blow upon the sails. They succeeded in getting the vessel, the tide being favorable, out of the harbor. But so soon as they had cleared the promontory, and fell into the current, their strength and their bellows inadequate to the current, they were carried off by it, and ultimately perished in the sea. The interpretation and application is easy to him that understands the secrets of the reigning systems.
Any theory on this subject which countenances the listless and inattentive, which disheartens the anxiously desirous, which emboldens the arrogant and presumptuous, is not of God, is not countenanced by the bible. I often think of a saying of old brother Asher's in Kentucky. He told me, in December last that he "believed in the doctrine of the final perseverance of the saints, and yet he believed that this doctrine would be a means of the damnation of thousands in Kentucky." In this laconic way I would speak of the operations of the Spirit.
If any man ask me how the influence and aid of the Spirit is obtained, I answer, By prayer and the word of God. Thus I will give direct answers, so far as, I think, the oracles authorize.
But I am governed more in speaking upon this subject by the following, than by all other considerations. The apostles preached Christ and not the Holy Spirit; or rather, they preached the Holy Spirit when they preached Christ. So the Saviour instructed and commanded them. They preach the Spirit with most success who say nothing about his work in conversion. So did the apostles. In all the sermons pronounced by the apostles to unregenerated persons, of which we have so many samples in the Acts of the Apostles, they never once spoke of the works of the Spirit in conversion. Not one example in all the volume--not one model of the discourses we every day hear about the work of the Spirit. The apostles remembered that the Spirit was not to speak of himself, his own office and work, but of Christ. Their good news, therefore, was about Christ crucified. The gospel most admired in many places, is not the gospel of Christ, but the gospel of the Spirit, or the gospel of the preacher's experience. Because I do not in every sermon tell the people how bad I once was, and how good I am now, some of these new gospelizers declaim against me as unregenerate. And they pass themselves off as spiritual men and good teachers because they tell of the work of the Spirit upon their own hearts, instead of telling what Jesus has done for the world. Thus their hearers go home, looking into their own hearts for some consolation, instead of looking off to Jesus, the author of salvation. They rejoice in themselves and in their holy spirit, and not the Lord.
But I must break off to the midst of my reply, begging you, my dear sir, to have patience with me and I will pay you all. I cannot, however, close this part of my reply without assuring you of my perfect accordance with you on your remarks upon conjectures, theories and systems: and that the continuance of your correspondence affords me peculiar pleasure. I hope in my next to give you full satisfaction on the sentence to which you object in the preface to the Epistle to the Romans.
Wishing you health in soul, body and spirit, I remain your fellow-servant in the gospel,
EDITOR. [329]
Fictitious Names.
IN my late tour I found that some teachers who, in conversation and in their public discourses, sometimes approved of the sentiments published in this work, were wont to write against them under fictitious names. The assuming of a fictitious name, when writing against a person who appears in his own proper name, appears to me a cowardly and unjustifiable course: and I do think that every christian should be like Nathaniel, "an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no guile;" I therefore declare it my intention henceforth to make no replies to anonymous opponents, always considering them as unworthy of notice, because of the suspicion inseparably connected with the anonymous. Howbeit, this is not to be understood of my private correspondents, nor of those whom I have already noticed under the mask of an assumed name. This resolution will be carried into effect in relation to all those who may rationally be supposed to have seen it before they wrote. For in that case we will be authorized to conclude that they expected when writing to pass unnoticed, and feared to hazard an exposure.
EDITOR.
[TCB 320-330]
|
[Table of Contents] [Previous] [Next] |
Alexander Campbell
The Christian Baptist (1889) |