Volume 4. Number 10. May 7, 1827, pp. 330-338.

• Deferred Articles by Alexander Campbell, p. 330.
• The Church of Jesus Christ at Nashville, to the Concord Association, Sendeth Christian Salutation, pp. 330-331.
• Review of Tassey's Vindication, &c.--Continued from Page 314 by Philalethese, pp. 331-333.
• The Trinitarian System by Timothy, p. 333.
• To Timothy by Alexander Campbell, pp. 333-335.
• A Restoration of the Ancient Order of Things.--No. XIX.: The Deacon's Office by Alexander Campbell, pp. 335-336.
• To "Paulinus"--Letter III. by Alexander Campbell, pp. 336-338.

      THE following letter is from one of the most intelligent churches in the western states with which we are acquainted. It was addressed to a very respectable Baptist Association in the state of Tennessee, and we are happy to learn that this Association had so much intelligence and liberality as to accept it as the platform and basis of a union with it and the church who wrote it. So long as associations are kept up, we think that were they to act up to the principles herein stated and recognized, much less injury could result to the christian community from their meetings than has hitherto been the result of them. This is a good step and a rapid advance towards the introduction of a better order of things.--ED.

      DEAR BRETHREN,--AFTER an interval of two years, we again address you by letter and messengers. Various circumstances induced us last year not to unite ourselves to any association, which circumstances it is not necessary to enumerate. We again present ourselves before you, and request to be admitted into your body.

      Deeming it perfectly necessary that we distinctly understand each other, upon forming this union, we think proper to state our sentiments concerning associations, and the relation they bear to the churches composing them.

      Your code of government, as published in 1825, declares that the association "shall have no power to lord it over God's heritage, neither shall it have any ecclesiastical power, or infringe upon any of the internal rights of the churches." To all this we cheerfully consent, and consider it an expression of our own feelings. We may not, however, understand it alike, and will therefore beg leave to exhibit our views of it.

      We understand this sentence as saying, that the association has no power to determine what any church shall receive as her creed; or whether she shall have any creed or confession at all, other than the bible; and consequently that she has no power so to lord it over God's heritage, as to condemn any church for holding or teaching any scriptural truths, though they be at variance with the opinions of this body concerning such truths.

      In this view of the subject, we presume it will not be required of us to subscribe to any human instrument of union, as the test of our doctrine or practice. For we cannot but believe, that the Holy Bible is as plain in expressing its own truth as it ought to have been; and consequently that no man can express more clearly than it does, what we are to believe and practise. If this be true, (and we presume it will not be denied,) it is useless for us, as a church, or for any other body, to hold up a twinkling taper to give light to the world, when the sun shines in his meridian splendor. If the fear of God and the love of the brethren will not hold the disciples in union, upon the one foundation, we may forever despair of any such instruments of union as creeds and confessions of faith obtaining so desirable an end.

      Again--We understand the "constitution" of your body as saying, when it declares the association "shall have no ecclesiastical power," &c. that the association does not intend to interfere with any of the internal rights of the churches. That is to say: the association has no power to interfere with the order, doctrine, government, or practice, of any church, governed in all, by the great charter of our religious privileges--the New Testament of our blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. We consider all these to be the "internal rights of the churches"--rights given them by the Great Head of the church--rights expressly defined and limited by Him, "in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge;" and, therefore, rights which are inalienable, and over which no body of men on earth has any control. In short, we consider ourselves at liberty to appoint our own teacher or teachers, and all other officers, without molestation or assistance from any; and to judge for ourselves, when the sentiments delivered by our teachers, so appointed, are contained in the Holy Bible; without acknowledging the right of any others to interfere in the judicial investigation of such sentiments.

      Indeed, brethren, we look upon your "constitution" as guaranteeing to every church connected with it, a full, free, and unmolested liberty of conscience--a liberty unshackled by any authority, except his who has set his people free; a liberty that is not, and will not be, used as a cloak for licentiousness by any one who fears God, and desires to walk by the light of the truth; and a liberty which none other than God who gave it has any right to destroy, and which this association, most certainly, will never assail.

      It is our desire, beloved brethren, to live harmoniously with all our brethren; and while we acknowledge ourselves to be "of you," we think that these are the only principles on which unity can be maintained.

      We do not consider ourselves the guardians of the public faith; nor as having any right to direct what any shall believe. Error requires not human efforts to overthrow it: the exhibition of the truth in its simplicity, has ever been found, in the hands of God, a weapon most mighty to the pulling down of strong holds.

      We trust, brethren, that while we deny the authority of men in matters of religion, we feel bound to endeavor to ascertain the will of our glorious chief; and so far as we know it, to observe it. We are far from supposing that all is known, at the present day, of the Records of Heaven, that can be known; and are therefore willing to learn "what is truth," whoever be the instrument of pointing us to it. That there yet remains much to be known concerning divine [330] things we must believe; for "if any man thinks he knows any thing, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know."

      Part 2, Section 3d, Page 143. "HAVING fairly, and, we trust, impartially investigated the import and application of the word church, as it occurs in the New Testament, and shewn that no part of the sacred scriptures gives any countenance or support to any description of ecclesiastical representation, or courts of appeal, by whatever name they may be called; we now proceed to inquire more particularly into the nature and constitution of a church of Christ; and to ascertain, from the test of all religious truth, what are its proper officers, ordinances, and particular duties. Long as this subject has occupied the attention of christians, it appears to be but partially understood; and among those who do know it, there are but few who have the resolution to stand forward in defence of what the scriptures represent as the path of duty." In the investigation of this important part of his subject, our author evinces that believers only are the proper and capable subjects of the duties and privileges of a christian church; and that the members of the primitive churches were all considered as such; that, therefore, the constituent members of a christian church are, and must be, professed and manifest believers. He farther adds, (page 149,) that, "In order to become a member of any of the primitive churches, faith in Jesus Christ was the only essential qualification looked for, or acted upon, in that age of christian simplicity." Both these positions Mr. T. fully establishes by quotations and arguments evidently just, pertinent, and conclusive; and proceeds to observe that "We are indebted to the refinement and subtle distinctions of modern times for that long catalogue of terms of communion which the various sects have drawn up, by which they oftener shut out the true child of God from partaking of the children's bread, than they do the dogs which have no right to it." How true this is, every intelligent and attentive observer of the present conduct and state of the churches must be satisfied. He also justly observes, (p. 147,) that "it is not subscription to the same creed, or confession of faith, scientifically framed, according to the philosophical or school divinity of the day, which is to attract the disciples of Christ to one another. The true gravitating principle here, is the love of Christ. They must gather together in his name. Where this is wanting, or any other principle substituted in its place, the assembly, however designated, is not, nor can it be, a church of Christ. They must gather together in his name. Not only must his authority induce them to assemble, but their attachment to him, and love to his name, must be the grand prevailing principle which draws them together, and binds in one compact, united, and indissoluble association, every individual of them, or else they cannot be recognised as being blessed with his presence, nor countenanced by the King and Head of his church. "If any man love not our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema maranatha."

      Having clearly evinced that faith alone, or a belief of the gospel, that is, the belief of what the apostles testified and taught concerning Jesus, is all that can be scripturally required in order to church membership; and that love to Christ, and to each other solely on his account, that is, on account of their common faith in Christ and attachment to him, is "the true gravitating principle, that is to attract the disciples of Christ one to another, and not the love of party nor of system," &c. &c. Our author next proceeds "to inquire into the particular and permanent officers requisite to a fully organized christian assembly." Of this description he finds but two, viz. the bishop and deacon; the former to rule and teach; the latter to receive and apply the contributions of the congregation to their proper objects. As for apostles, prophets, and evangelists, he shews that their offices were temporary, and could not by them be transmitted to others, because they could neither transmit their qualifications, nor yet the special commission under which they acted. That even Paul himself, though an apostle in the most strict and proper sense of the word, did not feel himself authorised to act under the primary commission given to the eleven, (Matt. xxviii.) nor did he assume it. "Christ," says he, "sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel." This he could not have truly said had he considered himself acting under the primary commission, or as included in it; for all such were expressly commanded to baptize as well as to preach the gospel. Our author further observes that all the churches planted and set in order by the apostles were furnished with a plurality of elders and bishops; and also, as far as appears, with a plurality of deacons: consequently, that each church, fully organized, had in itself an eldership or presbytery.

      That the term Elder, Bishop, and Pastor, are indiscriminately applied to the same officer, and that the modern distinction of teaching and ruling elders is utterly devoid of scriptural authority--a mere human invention. P. 164. Adverting to 1 Tim. v. 17, upon which the above distinction is chiefly, if not solely founded, our author fairly shows that no such distinction can be intended; because all the elders there spoken of, however distinguished amongst themselves as to their respective talents or labors, are perfectly equalized as to office and maintenance; they all rule well, and are all accounted worthy of the same double honor; namely, respect and maintenance. "Again, we remark," says he, "that as the elders who labor in word and doctrine are evidently included in the general proposition, "the elders that rule or preside well," it naturally follows that all the elders spoken of were of one description; and although the passage plainly intimates that some may excel in one department of the pastoral office, while others may excel in another, yet they were all entitled to maintenance on account of their labor, and, therefore, were perfectly on a level--there was no disparity amongst them. But those who ruled well and devoted more of their time to teaching and preaching, were more particularly entitled to a double portion, because their expences would naturally be much greater." Now nothing could be more reasonable than this; for, as the apostle justly alleges, "the laborer is worthy of his reward." But, as our author observes, (page 157,) "It was the spirit of ambition and domination, which is not confined to secular rulers, but which has been felt with all its diabolical results, to pervade almost every department of trust in the religious community," that gave rise to this distinction, and, indeed, to all the other ambitious and anti-scriptural claims and pretensions of an aspiring clergy. And "that under whatever shape this aspiring spirit has thought proper to appear, the pretext for introducing it to the notice of mankind has uniformly been that of supporting and maintaining the unity of the church. Under cover of this pretended object [331] an aspiring prelate has aggrandized his order, and by his intrigues and largesses, has gotten himself appointed to the head of his sect or party, under the name of pope, archbishop, &c. and in him the visible unity of the church is supposed to be displayed. The Pope is the visible head of the Catholic community, and styles himself universal bishop, as if none existed besides himself. The King is the head of the church of England, and all parts of that denomination are under his control. In him they are united. Episcopalians place at their head some particular leader; and call him archbishop, or primate, or metropolitan; and to him they voluntarily resign their liberties as christians, conceiving that thereby they are promoting the unity of the church. And under the pretence of exhibiting this unity, Presbyterians of every sect have adopted their representative system, that they might have a representative head to their respective denominations, inasmuch as they had become opposed to an individual earthly head. Hence all presbyteries, synods, and congregations, are placed in subjection to one national synod, or general assembly; which constitutes itself the bond of union, peace, correspondence, and mutual confidence among all the churches. (p.242.) Now it must be manifest to every close observer, that there can be but little difference in reality, between all these contending parties. Their real object, the attainment of spiritual power, is the same; their pretext the same; and the means of accomplishing their ends are nearly similar. They all aspire after an earthly spiritual headship, which, wherever it is found, stands opposed to the (sole) headship and government of the Lord Jesus. They talk loudly of promoting the unity of the church, but it is not the church of Christ, but the unity of their particular party is meant. They are all zealous in the support of subordination and subjection, but it is that kind of it, which tends to aggrandize the head of their sect; but which, in proportion, derogates from the authority of Jesus, and from that submission which he most justly demands. The person, therefore, who most anxiously engages in promoting the unity of any one of these particular denominations, thereby proves himself to be the most zealous divider of the true church of God; and, consequently, deserves the name of schismatic or heretic, in the scriptural sense of those words. He is endeavoring to destroy the unity of the spirit, instead of keeping it in the bond of peace. For the more zealously any sect contends for its peculiarities, or those particular forms and ceremonies in which it differs from others, it thereby makes the breach wider betwixt those that adhere thereto, and other christians. It promotes and perpetuates that discord, which is the very bane of christianity, and which affords such cause of triumph to the abettors of infidelity." Our author next proceeds to animadvert upon the striking difference between the scriptural qualifications requisite for the pastoral office, and those prescribed and required by presbyteries, &c. in which, upon a fair investigation, there does not appear a single coincidence. Almost the same, it appears, may be truly said of the whole process of election and ordination. Mr. T's conclusions upon the whole are, that "the two, and the only essential things to be considered in relation to the appointment of officers in christian churches, are, First. That the candidate proposed be fully qualified for the office; that he possess every requisite demanded by the spirit of inspiration. Secondly. That he be unanimously elected or chosen by the church to fill that office, for which he has been nominated. The mere ceremony of inauguration, if we may so call it, is of no consequence at all--it neither fits the candidate for the better discharge of his duty, nor does it communicate any power to him, of which he was not previously possessed. It only fixes the commencement of his official duties. The moment that an undue importance is placed upon this, or any other external ceremony pertaining to the religion of Jesus Christ, we ought to take the alarm, lest innovation and superstition come in like a flood and overwhelm us. P. 178-9. Animadverting upon the assumed prerogatives of presbytery in relation to the settlement and ordination of ministers, our author observes, (p. 189,) that "these modest dealers in spiritual ware can easily make a minister of Jesus Christ, and again unmake him: can induct him into the office, and at pleasure cast him out: can ordain him to the pastoral office, and therein bind him over to their party by oaths and promises; and, anon, if be prove restive and not sufficiently submissive to their will, can dissolve this contract without the consent of either party. Nay if the church and congregation are determine to adhere to him under whose labor they have reaped so many advantages, and on no account will consent to such dissolution; yet the bull (or rather bill of divorce) runs thus, "Resolved, That the pastoral relation heretofore subsisting between the congregation of B. and the Rev. J. M. D. be, and the same is hereby declared to be dissolved." A bill of spiritual divorce! This, indeed, without the consent of either party! Strange!! "Such is one of the documents of religious oppression and tyranny which the nineteenth century exhibits, and in a land in which we boast of being freemen, and talk so loudly of the rights of conscience. Does not this very much resemble the thunders of the Vatican, and the haughty pretensions of the church of Rome! Did not the pretended successor of St. Peter take upon him to absolve subjects from their oath of allegiance, and to dissolve the most solemn contracts? And what less have some of our spiritual courts of late done? They have presumed to absolve congregations from their obligations to their pastors, and declared them vacant when they were not vacant; and this they have done without consulting any of the parties concerned, or having the consent either of the teacher or the taught. Now this is wonderful, and bespeaks a system well digested, and peculiarly adapted to the end proposed, the subjugation of the human conscience to these spiritual dominions." Here the right of ordination is wielded as the great instrument of power; the door by which this ascendency is introduced, and carefully shut over the intellects of men. P. 192. How improper, how superstitious is it, to make the validity of an office, of an ordinance, depend upon the dreams of ecclesiastics about regular ordination! How absurd, how iniquitous is it, to take advantage of the superstitious disposition of ignorant people, in order to erect upon such a visionary basis an ecclesiastical hierarchy, destructive of the union, peace, and liberties of the children of God! A system of ecclesiastical authority subversive of the authority of Christ, and calculated to rob every christian society of the privileges which he has granted them! How domineering, how tyrannical is it, to attempt to dissolve the pastoral relation between an elder and his flock, without the consent of either parties! How false and farcical to declare a congregation vacant, which has its own regularly chosen pastor to officiate! [332]

      In treating of the ordinances our author remarks, (page 211,) "that the Lord's supper was observed in apostolic times every Lord's day, may be established by the clearest evidence. The passage already referred to, Acts ii. 42, in Luke's account of the primitive christians, represents the breaking of bread as a permanent and continued practice to their assemblies. For their steadfastness in the apostles' doctrine, and fellowship, and breaking of bread, can be understood in no other sense consistently with the connection. Perhaps the best comment we can have on this passage is a statement given in the Apologetic of Justin Martyr, who wrote about forty-four years after the death of the Apostle John. He tells us, (page 98th,) that "on Sunday all christians in the city and country meet together, because it is the day of our Lord's resurrection, and then we hear read to us the writings of the prophets and apostles. This done, the president makes an oration to the assembly to exhort them to imitate and do the things they hear; and then we all join in prayer, and after that we celebrate the Lord's supper, and they that are able and willing give alms." Nothing can more expressly determine the uniform course pursued in the stated worship of God than this. And the statements both of the inspired writer, and of this ancient disciple, go to prove that the Lord's supper, formed as regular and permanent a part of the worship of God, as did the apostles' doctrine and prayer." Again, (p. 213,) "the same arguments that go to overthrow the weekly observance of the Lord's supper, will subvert the weekly observance of the Lord's day. For we affirm, that the evidences are of the same nature, drawn from the same sources, and consequently of the same force by which the weekly observance of the Lord's supper is proved, as those by which the first day of the week is established. What is the reason then that we attend to the one institution with an almost invariable unanimity, whilst we neglect attending to the other with that frequency which the authority of Christ requires? It cannot be supposed that this arises from any defect in the evidence. This is impossible; for it is completely and justly satisfactory in the parallel case alleged. It is prejudice, therefore, that prevents christians from following up their duty in this case as they do in the other." I am sorry that I cannot do more ample justice to the argumentative merits of Mr. T.'s performance, not only upon the above, but also upon other important topics which justly demand the attention of christians, and imperiously call for reformation. I could heartily wish that the work itself were not only in the hands of all the readers of the Christian Baptist, but of the religious public at large. Though not without its faults, a few of which, with the permission of the editor, I design to point out in a future number, it calls aloud for "the restoration of the ancient order of things." It is one of the many publications of the present day, that indicates the awakening of the human mind out of the letheal slumber of ages, and happily betokens the speedy approach of that radiant morning of universal light which will never henceforth give place to the darkness of superstition and error, but will shine more and more to the perfect day.

PHILALETHES.      

      DEAR SIR,--IN one of your fireside conversations, when interrogated on your views of "the Trinity," you gave an exposition of the first verse of the first chapter of John's Testimony, with which myself, and, I believe all present, were much delighted. In conversing with those present on that occasion, I found that they, as well as myself, had forgotten some of the more prominent ideas. You will confer no ordinary favor on us all, and no doubt it will be pleasing to many of your readers, to give it in writing as nearly as possible to what you spoke on the subject. Do, then oblige us so far as to give us the same in your next number of the Christian Baptist.

	Yours, most affectionately,
	TIMOTHY.
Kentucky, March 1, 1827.

      DEAR SIR,--YOU will recollect that when I was interrogated on that subject, I gave sundry reasons why I felt reluctant to speculate on the incomprehensible Jehovah. It was also stated that there was no topic in common estimation so awfully sacred as that of the doctrine of "the Trinity," and if a man did not speak in a very fixed and set phrase on this subject, he endangered his whole christian reputation and his own usefulness. At the same time I remarked that I was very far from being afraid either to think upon this subject or to express my thoughts, although it was deemed so unpardonable to depart even in one monosyllable from the orthodox views. I moreover stated that I disliked any thing like speculation upon this topic in particular, because, if I differed in the least from the orthodox, I introduced something like a new theory, or something that would be treated as such, and either approved or rejected on theoretic grounds. If, however, you will neither make a new theory out of my expositions, nor contend for any speculations on the subject, nor carry the views farther than where I leave off, I will gratify you and other friends with my views of the first sentence in John's Preface to his Testimony--"In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God."

      1. In the first place I object to the Calvinistic doctrine of the Trinity for the same reasons they object to the Arians and Socinians. They object to these, because their views derogate in their judgment from the eternal glory of the Founder of the christian religion. They will not allow the Saviour to have been a creature, however exalted, because they conceive this character is unbecoming him, and contrary to the scriptural statements concerning him. They wish to give him more glory than they think the Arians are willing to do. Now I object to their making him and calling him an "Eternal Son" because I think that if he were only the Son of God from all eternity, he is entitled to very little, if any more glory, than what the Arians give him. I wish to give him more glory than the Calvinists give him. They are as far below his real glory, in my judgment, as the Arians are in their judgment.

      2. But in the second place, I have an insuperable objection to the Arian and Calvinistic phraseology--On the doctrine of the first relation existing between the Father and the Saviour of Men, because it confounds things human and divine, and gives new ideas to bible terms unthought of by the inspired writers. The names Jesus, Christ, or Messiah, Only Begotten Son, Son of God, belong to the Founder of the christian religion, and to none else. They express not a relation existing before the christian era, but relations which commenced at that time. To understand the relation betwixt the Saviour and his Father, which existed before time, and that relation which began in time, is impossible on [333] either of these theories. There was no Jesus, no Messiah, no Christ, no Son of God, no Only Begotten, before the reign of Augustus Cesar. The relation that was before the christian era, was not that of a son and a father, terms which always imply disparity; but it was that expressed by John in the sentence under consideration. The relation was that of God, and the "word of God." This phraseology unfolds a relation quite different from that of a father and a son--a relation perfectly intimate, equal, and glorious. This naturally leads me to the first sentence of John. And here I must state a few postulata.

      1. No relation amongst human beings can perfectly exhibit the relation which the Saviour held to the God and Father of All anterior to his birth. The reason is, that relation is not homogenial, or of the same kind with relations originating from creation. All relations we know any thing of are created, such as that of father and son. Now I object as much to a created relation as I do to a creature in reference to the original relation of God and the word of God. This relation is an untreated and unoriginated relation.

      2. When in the fulness of time it became necessary in the wisdom of God to exhibit a Saviour, it became expedient to give some view of the original and eternal dignity of this wonderful visitant of the human race. And as this view must be given in human language, inadequate as it was, the whole vocabulary of human speech must be examined for suitable terms.

      3. Of these terms expressive of relations, the most suitable must be, and most unquestionably was, selected. And as the relation was spiritual and not carnal, such terms only were eligible which had respect to mental or spiritual relations. Of this sort there is but one in all the archives of human knowledge, and that is the one selected.

      4. The Holy Spirit selected the name Word, and therefore we may safely assert that this is the best, if not the only term, in the whole vocabulary of human speech at all adapted to express that relation which existed "in the beginning" or before time, between our Saviour and his God.

      These postulata being stated, I proceed to inquire what sort of a relation does this term represent? And here every thing is plain and easy of comprehension. I shall state numerically a few things universally admitted by the reflecting part of mankind:--

      1st. A word is a sign or representative of a thought or an idea, and is the idea in an audible or visible form. It is the exact image of that invisible thought which is a perfect secret to all the world until it is expressed.

      2d. All men think or form ideas by means of words or images; so that no man can think without words or symbols of some sort.

      3d. Hence it follows that the word and the idea which it represents, are co-etaneous, or of the same age or antiquity. It is true the word may not be uttered or born for years or ages after the idea exists, but still the word is just as old as the idea.

      4th. The idea and the word are nevertheless distinct from each other, though the relation between them is the nearest known on earth. An idea cannot exist without a word, nor a word without an idea.

      5th. He that is acquainted with the word, is acquainted with the idea, for the idea is wholly in the word.

      Now let it be most attentively observed and remembered, that these remarks are solely intended to exhibit the relation which exists between a word and an idea, and that this relation is of a mental nature, and more akin to the spiritual system than any relation created, of which we know any thing. It is a relation of the most sublime order; and no doubt the reason why the name Word is adopted by the apostle in this sentence was because of its superior ability to represent to us the divine relation existing between God and the Saviour prior to his becoming the Son of God. By putting together the above remarks on the term word, we have a full view of what John intended to communicate. As a word is an exact image of an idea, so is "The Word" an exact image of the invisible God. As a word cannot exist without an idea, nor an idea without a word, so God never was without "The Word," nor "The Word" without God; or as a word is of equal age, or co-etaneous with its idea, so "The Word" and God are co-eternal. And as an idea does not create its word, nor a word its idea; so God did not create "The Word," nor the "Word" God.

      Such a view does the language used by John suggest. And to this do all the scriptures agree. For "The Word" was made flesh, and in consequence of becoming incarnate, he is styled the Son of God, the only Begotten of the Father. As from eternity God was manifest in and by "The Word," so now God is manifest in the flesh. As God was always with "The Word," so when "The Word" becomes flesh, he is Emanuel, God with us. As God was never manifest but by "The Word," so the heavens and the earth, and all things were created by "The Word." And as "The Word" ever was the effulgence or representation of the invisible God, so he will ever be known and adored as "The Word of God." So much for the divine and eternal relation between the Saviour and God. You will easily perceive that I carry these views no farther than to explain the nature of that relation untreated and unoriginated which the inspired language inculcates.

      These views place us on a lofty eminence whence we look down upon the Calvinistic ideas of "eternal filiation," "eternal Generation," "eternal Son," as midway betwixt us and Arianism. From this sublime and lofty eminence we see the Socinian moving upon a hillock; the Arian upon a hill; and the Calvinist, upon a mountain; all of which lose their disproportion to each other because of the immense height above them to which this view elevates us. The first sentence of John I paraphrase thus: From eternity was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was, I say, from eternity with God. By him all things were made, and he became flesh and dwelt among us. He became a child born and a son of man. As such he is called Emanuel, Jesus, Messiah, Son of God, Only Begotten of the Father.

      I can give the above views upon no other authority than my own reasonings. I learned them from nobody--I found them in no book. It is true, indeed, I have held the idea for sixteen years that Jesus is called the Son of God, not because of an "eternal generation," (which I conceive to be nonsense,) but because he was born as the angel described to Mary. This is now pretty generally received by a great many christians. Nor would I dispute or contend for this as a theory or speculation with any body. I could, indeed, amplify considerably, and perhaps obviate some difficulties by following up farther the hints submitted; but such are my views of [334] the import of the beginning of John's testimony. You will remember that I make no systems, and although there are some abstract reasonings upon terms (as indeed much of our reasonings about language are) in the preceding, it is only for the purpose of getting into the sacred import of a style from which we have been proscribed by a speculating philosophy. I have acceded to your request with more ease than I could have done, had it not been for a few prating bodies who are always striving to undo my influence by the cry of Unitarianism, or Socinianism, or some other obnoxious ism. From all isms may the Lord save us!

	Yours truly,
	EDITOR.

      THE time once was that every christian congregation had a treasury. In those days they required a steward, a treasurer or a deacon, or more than one, as the exigencies demanded. For, although the terms steward, treasurer, almoner, and deacon, are not perfectly synonymous, they nevertheless express the office and duty of the scriptural deacon. The term deacon, as all know, is equivalent to the English word servant, but the word servant is a very general term, and in the state signifies every public officer, from the President down to the constable. They are all servants of the state. So the apostles, evangelists, prophets, and bishops were all servants of the Lord and of the church. But there was one set of servants in the apostolic churches who were emphatically the servants of the church in its temporal concerns. These were the deacons, or stewards, or treasurers of the church. For as the deacon's office had respect to the temporalities of the church, and as these are in general some way connected with pecuniary matters, the office of treasurer and almoner is identified with, or is the same as that of deacon; so much so that some translators have, out of regard more to the application than to the literal import of the term diakonoV, uniformly translated it almoner.

      The plain and simple state of the case is this: Christian congregations in primitive times, had need of money or earthly things as well as we. They had rich and poor members. Their poor were such as could not, either through bodily infirmities, or through the inadequate proceeds of their labor in times of embarrassment, furnish their own tables. Those who had to spare were then called upon to supply their wants. And in many instances they not only contributed to the wants of their own poor, but to the wants of those of remote christian communities, in times of general scarcity or pecuniary difficulties. Contributions, generally called the fellowship, were statedly attended to in all their meetings. So Paul gave directions to all the churches in Galatia and elsewhere to replenish the treasury every first day, as the Lord had prospered them in their temporal avocations. A deacon or deacons had the charge of this treasury, and were ex-officio treasurers; but this was not all. They were not only to take care of the contributions, but to dispense or appropriate them according to the directions of the brethren. Thus they were stewards. And as the poor were those in whose behalf this fund was created, and as the deacons dispensed to them, they became ex-officio almoners of the poor.

      As they had not in those days of primitive simplicity so many different sorts of funds and officers as we have in this age of complexity; the deacons attended to all pecuniary matters, and out of the same fund three set of tables were furnished. These were the Lord's table, the bishop's table, and the poor's table. A plurality of deacons was in most instances necessary because of the attention required from them and the trust reposed in them. It was not so much per annum to the bishop, nor so much per annum to the poor, nor so much per annum to the Lord's table; but according to the exigencies of each and the ability to contribute, was the extent of the treasury and the distributions of the stewards or deacons of the congregation. In this state of things the deacons had something to do. They were intimately acquainted with the families and wants of the brethren, and in paying a christian regard to these and the duties of their office they obtained an honorable rank and great boldness in the faith, or fluency in the doctrine of Christ. Conversant with the sick and the poor, intimate with the rich and more affluent brethren, familiar with all, and devoted to the Lord in all their services, they became eminent for their piety and charity, and of high reputation amongst their brethren. Once every week these contributions were made, and as often were the appropriations made in times and circumstances that required them. Out of the church's treasury, then, the poor and distressed widow above three score, or the sick and afflicted disciple was relieved. The Lord's table was continually furnished with bread and wine. The bishops' also, according to their labors and their need, were supplied. And thus every thing was promptly attended to in the Lord's institution which could afford spiritual and temporal comfort to all the subjects of his kingdom.

      Amongst the Greeks who paid so much regard to differences of sex, female deacons, or deaconesses, were appointed to visit and wait upon the sisters. Of this sort was Phebe of Cenchrea, and other persons mentioned in the New Testament, who labored in the gospel. The seven persons mentioned and appointed to the service of tables, Acts vi. though not so denominated, were nevertheless invested with and fully possessed of this office. The treasury was entrusted to them--the widows' tables, and every table which required service was attended by them. The direction given to the Corinthians respecting the treasury, and the instructions to Timothy and Titus concerning the choice of deacons, also concerning the support of widows and bishops, all concur in furnishing the above views of this office and work.

      But how has it degenerated in modern times into a frivolous and unmeaning carrying about a plate once a quarter, in all the meagre pomp of a vain world!--a mere pompous etiquette, without use or meaning. Often we find the office of treasurer and deacon contradistinguished, as that of moderator and bishop in the same congregation. It is a scriptural insult to appoint a moderator where there is a bishop, and the same to appoint a treasurer where there is a deacon. The deacon is, ex officio, treasurer, and the bishop, ex officio moderator or president. To appoint a president in any meeting where there is an appointed bishop, it is in effect saying that the bishop is not qualified to keep order; and to appoint a treasurer where there is a deacon, it is in effect saying he is not to be trusted, or not qualified for his office. The office itself suggests the propriety of those directions and qualifications laid down for both the deacons and deaconesses in Paul's letters before mentioned. What a wise, benevolent, and independent [335] institution, a christian congregation is! Nothing is left out of view which can contribute to the temporal and spiritual weal of the brotherhood. They meet in full assembly once every week to remember, praise, and adore the Lord; to share in the participation of his favors. The temporal state of the brotherhood is not overlooked in these meetings. Contributions are made for the necessities of saints. The deacons are acquainted, and, through them, the whole fraternity, with the circumstances of all. Under its wise and wholesome discipline care is taken that every member capable of labor, work with his own hands, diligently at some honest calling. The contracting of heavy and oppressive debts is proscribed. No brother is allowed to enthral himself or others in any sort of worldly speculations which incur either anxiety on his part or inconvenience to others. The aged, feeble, and helpless are taken care of by the brethren. The indolent, slothful, and bad economists are censured, admonished, and reformed, or excluded. The Lord's table is constantly furnished. The bishops' wants and necessities always supplied, and no one deprived of any necessary good. There are persons fitted for every service; and those who attend continually on this good service, become eminent in the faith, and after refreshing others are again in turn refreshed themselves. In this view of the deacon's office, we cannot but concur with the sayings and views of the primitive fathers who considered the deacons as the treasurers of the congregation, and as appointed to the service of tables, viz. the Lord's table, the poor's table, and the bishop's table.

EDITOR.      

      MY DEAR SIR--THE sentence in the Preface to the Epistle to the Romans, which to you appears objectionable, is the following: "And here let it be noted that the justification by works, and that by faith, of which Paul speaks, and of which our systems speak, are quite different things. To quote his words and apply them to our questions about faith and works, is illogical, inconclusive, and absurd." When I penned this sentence, I anticipated objections to it, and knew that it would be out of place to obviate them in that preface. The question then was whether should I withhold or bestow it. The fact of its appearance shews my decision of that question. I am glad you have called upon me for an exposition of it. I trust I will be able to satisfy you and others who have objected to it. W e shall now make the attempt.

      The 4th chapter was that portion of the epistle to which I referred in that sentence. Now it must first be asked, What were the works of which the apostle there speaks? It will be admitted in the case of Abraham, from whose works and faith the apostle here argues, that the faith of Abraham was a belief that his seed would be as numerous as God had promised him: "so shall thy seed be." This promise he believed, notwithstanding all in nature and experience was against it. He considered not his own body now dead, neither the deadness of Sarah's womb.--Against all hope founded on the nature of things, he believed in hope of being the father of nations by the aged Sarah. It was not his faith in a Messiah which was accounted to him for righteousness as our systems speak. It was not his faith in a Messiah that constituted him the father of all believers. Others believed in the Messiah as firmly as he. But relying on the faithfulness and power of God alone, he was confident that his offspring by Saran would be as innumerable as the stars, or sands on the sea shore--"therefore it was counted to him for righteousness." By a reference to the 11th Heb. it will appear that the faith by which the ancients obtained a good report was as different as their names. In other words, the faith spoken of was the belief of particular promises or revelations made in their days. Their believing was the same, but the things believed were different. In every age of the world the faith of the approved consisted in the truths revealed to them and of the promise given them. So Paul, after speaking of Abraham's faith in God's promise to him, being accounted to him for righteousness, adds, "It was not written for his sake; but for us also, to whom faith shall be accounted for righteousness, if we believe the promise made to us, viz. that Jesus died for our sins, and was raised for our justification." Paul argues here that not his fleshly works of circumcising himself nor his children, nor his servants, justified him; but his faith in the promise, "So shall thy seed be." Again, the law was not given to the seed of Abraham with a reference to Canaan. "The inheritance was not by law, but by promise." Canaan was unalterably promised four hundred and thirty years before the law; or the law was four hundred and thirty years after the promise--consequently no works of that law were spoken of in the case of Abraham. Neither the faith of Abraham nor the works of Abraham, here spoken of, are akin to our systematic faith and works. The affirmation in the above sentence is therefore true.--But what is gained by the affirmation? I answer, Accuracy in noticing the meaning, and correctness in applying the sentiments of scripture. A loose and indiscriminating citation of scripture words, without regard to their scriptural meaning, is the cause of nine-tenths, at least, of the errors of this age. And I would not prove a scriptural truth, by misquoting a scriptural passage, for the sake of the dearest sentiment I hold. Some quote the scriptures as if they thought it right to bring every word that can be cited from any similarity, in proof of a favorite point. Now a good cause is often more injured by one misapplied text, than it can be aided by a dozen of good arguments. On this subject I would be precise even to squeamishness. I would, in other words, object as much to a citation of scripture made at variance with the design of the passage in aid of my own most favorite topic, as I would to an erroneous argument advanced by an opponent.

      But again, more is at issue than has yet been noticed. "Good works," "trusting to works," and "justification by works," are words and sentences of general currency. Many class under the head of good works--prayers--praises--baptism--the Lord's supper, and all acts of devotion; and seeking to be justified by these is often viewed as seeking justification by works; and it is supposed that Paul had such works in view when he spake of works of law and justification by works.

      Once more, "good works" are identified with "works of law" and works of human contrivance; and the consequence is, that what is said about good works in scripture is very generally misunderstood and confounded with works of law. All these mistakes can only be corrected by a minute attention to the scripture style.--And, as you know, I deal much in assertions sometimes, especially when I have neither time nor room for the proof, I will assert that all works called good in scripture have men for their object; [336] and that no act of devotion, or any work which has God only for its object, is called a good work. That may be an act of devotion, but a good work in the scripture style it cannot be. The kind offices performed to the Saviour when he was poor and needy, the kind offices performed by one disciple to another, and every work which has man's comfort or happiness in view, is, in the sacred style, a good work. The settlement of this small matter is with some mere trifling; yet such persons admit that ten mills make one cent, and one hundred cents make one dollar, and that one dollar and one-fourth will purchase one acre of land forever. Let the above view of good works be fairly established in the mind of a Catholic and he becomes a Protestant.

      But what I fixed my attention chiefly upon in that passage was the meaning of the justification by faith and that by works which Paul and James taught. To understand which has been with many theologists a matter of such immense trouble. Faith and works must be apprehended in the apostolic sense before justification by either can he understood in that sense.

      Sinners are justified by faith, and christians by works. But this is too laconic for the mass of mankind. It is one thing, however, to introduce a person into a state of acceptance, and another to live acceptably in that state. It is one thing to enter into the married state, and another to make a good wife. Now faith in God's promise through Jesus Christ, is argued by the apostles, as that which brings men into a state of intimacy, friendship, and familiarity, or, in other words, into a state of acceptance with God. Thus faith is accounted to a man for righteousness, by the mere favor of God. But the continued enjoyment of such a state is by the same favor made to depend on our behaviour. On this principle is founded all the apostolic exhortations. All that is addressed to the hopes and fears of christians is derived from this consideration. So that when Paul and James are understood, there will be no occasion for an effort to reconcile them, as Luther and Calvin laboriously attempted. Paul speaks of the justification of sinners, and James of the justification of christians. It is an astonishing act of favor to account faith in Jesus as righteousness to a sinner, and then to teach this justified person how to live as eternally to enjoy the favor of God. In the final judgment when men's actions and not their states will be examined, faith is not then accounted to any man for righteousness. But, I was hungry and ye fed me, naked and ye clothed me, &c. These shall go away into everlasting life, &c. This is an important point. Without holiness, then, no man can enter the heavenly kingdom--"If any man, therefore, draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him." Instead of attempting to show that these persons had not "true faith," let us endeavor to show that we have works. Was not Abraham justified as a sinner by faith in God's promise? And as a servant of God, was he not justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son upon the altar? But I must not attempt to write a treatise on faith and works. Nor need I attempt to satisfy all the lovers of systems. What rendered the faith of Abraham so remarkable was his belief of a promise which was beyond the power of nature to accomplish, and what rendered the work so famous, on account of which he obtained a good report, was that it was an act of self denying and unreserved obedience growing out of his former belief. I am not now speaking of how the just man lives by faith; but of the faith which justifies a sinner--nor of the works by which sinners seek to be justified; but of the works which justify the faith of christians. Without faith it is impossible for a sinner to please God, and without works it is impossible for any to be justified in the day when every man shall be rewarded according to his works.

      With regard to what you say of a writer in epistolary communications "expressing a truth, a maxim, a position of general application," I would observe, that there is no incongruity, no impropriety in so doing, and I admit that the apostles frequently did so. But you will please to observe, as indeed I doubt not but you have frequently observed, that these maxims, truths, and positions of a general nature, are no more general than the object he has in view, or the drift of his remarks; and that they are never abstracted from the subject on hand. But it may happen that they have a general bearing upon other subjects from analogy, and as such they are to be interpreted and applied by the most exact rules of analogy. To say, for example,, that no man is justified by works is a general truth. But general as it is, it must, from its context, be restricted to unbelievers, for it is just as true and as general that every christian will be justified by his works. Nothing else comes in review on the day of judgment; if the Lord's account of the separation of the sheep and the goats is to be applied to that day. A great deal of wisdom and knowledge is requisite to the application of general truths. So sensible were the sacred writers of this that they most generally restrict those general truths either in their own exposition or application of them.

      I see every day the ill effects of the two popular systems of faith and works. Some seem to be afraid of doing good works lest they should trust in them, and some have no use for faith nor a knowledge of the scriptures; but talk of doing justly, loving mercy, and walking humbly with their God. Again others call prayer, praise, baptism, and all religious observances, good works--and dehort men from trusting in them as they would the fleshy works of the Jew or of the law.

      I will be asked, Are these bad works, and are not all works either good or evil? To the captious or weak disciple I would reply in your sense of the terms, All works are either good or bad; but this is not the distribution of them made in the scriptures--Good works are of the following classes: "A widow well reported for good works," of what species? "if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, &c. i. e. if she have diligently followed every good work" From this style there is no deviation in the sacred writings. Acts of devotion towards God though we may call them good works are not so distinguished in the holy oracles. To most readers these remarks will appear hypercritical; but I know, my dear sir, that you will concur with me in saying that the time will come when a pure speech will be restored, and that as by a correct speaker the pronunciation of a monosyllable is a matter not to be overlooked, so to a correct devoted biblical student, every thing is of importance that throws light upon any sentence in the sacred books.

      I am constrained to be much more succinct in this part of my reply than I had projected. To give the reasons is not now necessary. If, in any thing, these remarks are not satisfactory, I rejoice to know that your frankness and candor will prompt you to write me your criticisms and [337] objections. I wish for, and anxiously solicit from you, dear sir, all the criticisms, objections, and inquiries which you may think expedient, either on the New Translation, or on the contents of this work.

      In great haste, but with much affection, your brother in the hope of immortality.

EDITOR.      

[TCB 330-338]