Volume 4. Number 12. July 2, 1827, pp. 346-353.

• [Notice of Name Change of Editor's Residence] by Alexander Campbell, p. 346.
• To the Editor of the Christian Baptist by Henry Grew and James Hanmer, pp. 346-347.
• [Reply to Letter from Henry Grew and James Hanmer] by Alexander Campbell, p. 347.
• To the Editor of the Christian Baptist by A Friend to the Restoration of the Ancient Order of Things, pp. 347-349.
• Potent Reply to a Weak Objection by Alexander Campbell, p. 349.
• For the "Christian Baptist" by C., p. 349.
• [Letter to the Editor] by B. Allen, pp. 349-350.
• Reply [To B. Allen] by Alexander Campbell, pp. 350-351.
• Extracts from a Variety of Letters, pp. 351-353.
  • Two Objections from a Correspondent in Richmond, February 8th, 1827 by Alexander Campbell, pp. 351-352.
  • Queries by A Correspondent in Essex County, Virginia, p. 352.
  • Answers by Alexander Campbell, pp. 352-353.
  • Queries [and Answers] by Alexander Campbell, p. 353.

      A POST-OFFICE having been established at my residence, it, became necessary to change the name of this place because of a post-town in Mason county called Buffaloe.

HARTFORD, CONN., MAY 1, 1827.      

      DEAR BROTHER IN THE LORD,--WE have for some time enjoyed the privilege of reading your publication, and have been edified by many of its communications. It has afforded joy to a few advocates for a strict adherence to the doctrine and ordinances of the New Testament in this place, to know that the ascended Saviour is raising up witnesses in different places to vindicate his truth, and bear testimony against those traditions which make void his holy commandments.

      Deeply impressed with a sense of our duty, to keep the ordinances of him who has loved us and given himself for us, as they are delivered to us in his word, we have found ourselves obliged to take the course you have so ably advocated, of renouncing all the diverse creeds of fallible men--all sectarian or denominational attachments, and of fellowshipping, what we understand to be the truth, and that only, wheresoever and in whomsoever we find it.

      Assured of the truth and importance of our Saviour's testimony, "My kingdom is not of this world," and of the corresponding apostolical command, "Be you not unequally yoked together with unbelievers," we have separated from those worldly religious societies, whose origin is so manifestly found in that wisdom which is foolishness with God. We have assembled on the first day of the week to break bread, teaching and admonishing one another from the word of the Lord, in psalms and hymns, singing, &c. We have no desire, however, to separate from any who love our Lord Jesus in sincerity, any farther than we are obliged so to do in order to obey his commandments. We would not overlook, what we indeed conceive to be, a very important principle in our Master's kingdom, i.  e. the law of christian forbearance; and while we desire in the spirit of meekness to come out from, and bear testimony against those things which tend to make void the laws of Zion's King, we wish to unite with all his true subjects in the observance of whatever we mutually understand to be his requirements.

      With these views, you may well suppose we rejoice to co-operate to our humble measure, with those who are endeavoring to bring back the disciples of Christ to that simplicity of doctrine and practice from which they have been so awfully corrupted. We are happily agreed with the general views exhibited in the Christian Baptist; and if in any thing we are otherwise minded, we rejoice that your liberality has assured us of an opportunity for amicable discussion in your pages for the promotion of our union in the truth as it is in Jesus.

      We wish now, we humbly hope for the truth's sake, to make a few remarks on the important and interesting subject of the character of our blessed Master. We have been perfectly satisfied with your remarks generally on this subject, as they have, like your remarks on other subjects, been obviously derived from the word of truth, and not from the systems of men. But we must frankly inform you that, in your last number, in defending yourself against the insinuations of your opponents, you have, in our opinion, adopted a phraseology, and expressed an opinion, opposed to the express testimony of our Saviour, and subversive of the great truth, that he is "the Son of the living God."

      You 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 [346] can conceive of no glory superior to his personal glory and majesty."

      Now we believe and rejoice in the truth, that the whole redeemed church belongs to the Lord Jesus; but, that it is "his own, as it is his Father's," we cannot believe without rejecting the following testimony of our Saviour, "I have manifested your name to the men whom you gave me out of the world: they were yours, and you gave them me."--"You have given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as you have given him." "I pray not for the world, but for them whom you have given me." John xvii. 2, 6,9. Here the testimony is plain, repeated, decisive. The saints belong to the Son by gift. But do they belong to the Father by gift? Who has first given to him? They were originally, and by independent right, the Fathers. "Yours they were, and you gave them me."

      Moreover--to say, "I can conceive of no glory superior to (Christ's) glory and majesty," is, in our opinion, opposing the testimony of the Saviour in the following words, "My Father is greater than 1." "My Father who gave them to me is greater than all."

      We "reason thus:" "To us, there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things;" who "works all things after the counsel of his own will." Therefore, the Father is exclusively the eternal underived, and independent source of all being, perfection, and glory, and is worthy, and demands to be loved and adored as such. To us there is "one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things;" by whom the Father creates, governs, redeems, and judges his creatures, who is the "first begotten," the beginning of the creation of God--"the image of the invisible God"--"the first born of every creature"--the only "mediator between God and man," and is worthy to be loved and worshipped as such, "to the glory of God the Father." We worship and obey the Son as King in Zion, but we worship as the "one God, the Father" who set him there. Ps. ii.6. We joyfully acknowledge him as "head over all things to the church," but we believe the divine testimony, that the Father "gave him" this authority. Eph. i. 22. The Father "has appointed (him) heir of all things;" Heb. i.--"has put all things under his feet;" 1 Cor. xv. 25.--and "has made subject to him angels, and authorities, and powers," 1 Peter iii. 22. We rejoice in the animating assurance that he must reign till he has "put all enemies under his feet:" but we know that "when all things shall be subdued to him; then shall the Son also himself be subject to him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all." 1 Cor. xv. 28.

      Now then, dear brother, we "reason thus:" If we "conceive of no glory superior" to that of "begotten" or dependant existence--if we "can conceive of no glory," of power, or wisdom, superior to that which is derived from, and dependant on another, we must agree with you that we "can conceive of no glory superior to the personal glory and majesty" of the Lord Jesus. But if we can have any conception of a being who is self-existent, underived, (which reason itself teaches there must be) of infinite and independent knowledge, wisdom, goodness, and power; we must say that we can conceive of a glory superior to the personal glory and majesty of our Lord Jesus Christ. What conception, we ask, have you of the words of our Saviour, "My Father is greater than I?" To suppose that he meant (without giving the least intimation of such meaning) that the eternal Jehovah is greater than a man, is, to us, inadmissible. Moreover, it was not true that the Father was greater than he, if he was the eternal God and man. Had this been true, would he not have said, My father is greater than I am in my human nature?

      Has not Jesus Christ plainly taught us that he is dependant on another, even the Father, for the highest glory he ever possessed, by praying (John xvii. 5,) for the glory he had before the world was? Did he not constantly declare his dependence on the Father, and not on the Word, or any second person in the godhead, for all things? And when the Jews charged him with "making himself equal with God," did he not repel the charge in the most unequivocal manner by the assurance, "Verily, verily I say to you, the Son can do nothing of himself?" Is it not manifest that the term God is applied to the Son figuratively, (as it is to beings of vastly inferior order) since it appears from Ps. xlv. and Heb. i. that as God, he has a God who "has anointed" him? These considerations, in connexion with many others, have long since convinced us that the common principle of referring every expression of dependence to his humanity only, is a violation both of scripture and reason.

      To us there is no truth more plainly revealed from heaven, than that Jesus Christ is the SON of God. In this glorious character he was announced to a perishing world, as the object of faith and foundation of hope, by "the only true God," Matt. iii. 17.--by Christ himself, Luke xxii. 70.--and by his apostles, Acts ix. 20. 1 John iv. 15. But to say that the Son of God is God himself, (using the term in its highest import) is as manifest a contradiction as to say that the son of the president is the president himself. And as the affirmation concerning the son of the president, that he is president, would be an implicit denial that he is his son: so the affirmation concerning Jesus Christ, that he is the eternal God, is an implicit denial that he is his Son; and though we may "have found him of whom Moses in the law and the prophets did write, Jesus of Nazareth," we have yet to look elsewhere for the Son of God.

      We submit these free remarks to your candid examination, in the confidence that you have the pure truth in view, and are determined to advocate it, so far as you understand it, however contrary it may be to preconceived opinion, or popular systems. We should have offered much more evidence on the subject, did we not fear intruding on your liberality, by occupying too much room in your pages. Commending you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build us up, and to give us an inheritance among all them that are sanctified, we subscribe ourselves your brethren in Christ.

HENRY GREW,          
JAMES HANMER,      
Members of a Church of Christ in Hartford.      

      THE writer of the preceding letter had not seen our essay on the Preface to John's Testimony when he wrote the above. To this we refer him as an answer to his communication. We have another communication from him on another subject, to which we will attend in its own time.

ED. C. B.      

      DEAR SIR,--STOP one moment and permit a stranger who feels much interest in the reformation that is now beginning to take place in the christian world, to take a short trip with you. I [347] will not be tedious, though I may be a little troublesome. I do not expect to please the fashionable and polite, for I am neither a clergyman nor a schoolman; but, sir, you know that it takes every body to make a world, and it may be there are some like myself. If so, I may be of some use to them.

      I subscribed for the new translation and the Christian Baptist without knowing but very little of the character of either; and sorry was I for doing so, until they came to hand. I heard much said against you in relation to your christian character--you were called every thing almost but a christian. No wonder, then, living in Babylon as I did, being enveloped in darkness, and dreaming that all things were going on well, that I should be alarmed when the trumpet proclaimed, "Up! get you out of this place, for the Lord will destroy this city!" At length the Christian Baptist arrived. My fear increased to an alarming degree; for at the first broadside all my rigging went by the board, and I expected the next would send vessel, cargo, and all to the bottom. But after reading awhile, and finding the ship still afloat, my fear began to subside, and I at length became so calm in my mind that I concluded to examine the hull and the cargo. The rigging I did not look after. The hull I found had received no injury. I then examined the cargo. I found that fully three quarters of it was finally ruined. I got very anxious in the examination, and found that all that was damaged was contraband. I wish others would examine; for I do believe that there are thousands in the same situation with myself. Well for me that I examined before I got into port! If I had not, vessel, cargo, and all would have been exposed to condemnation. The christian world are dreaming in Babylon as I was They are infatuated. They are blind respecting the "highway" the prophet speaks of; and oh! what a poor stagger do they make in attempting to travel along that happy road. But ah! I see the cause of all their woes. They are intoxicated. They have been drinking of the wine of her fornication--the cup of her abominations which has caused all the world to wonder after the Beast. They have bought of her merchandize and have hid it among their stuff, and very few of them are willing to acknowledge their crime, or own their relation to the Mother of Harlots; and no wonder, for such is the nature of her bewitching cup, that every one says, "I am not drunk," a sure symptom that they have been tippling. I know that it is unpleasant to claim kin with so base a woman, but the relation we had better own until we have disposed of all her merchandize; for by that we have been detected, and we never shall, with all our priestcraft, be able any more to conceal the relation. I think there is a fire kindling among the plunder. The hay, the wood, and the stubble begin to smoke. And what makes me more sure of it is, the merchants are beginning to scold--(may God grant that soon they may have occasion to lament, saying, Babylon is fallen! is fallen!)--I mean the retailing merchants who live in the suburbs. The wholesale merchants live in the capitol. I am afraid they are out of the reach of your artillery. I hope, however, that you will mount your heaviest ordnance and level on the metropolis and if it should have no effect, I hope you will not be discouraged, but continue to remember her daughters and grand daughters until they remove out of her jurisdiction.

      Many are very free in spending their opinion with regard to the Christian Baptist. I also will show mine opinion. My opinion is that it is by far the most valuable human production that I ever saw. It not only discovers to us our errors, our maladies; but it points out to us the only antidote for all our diseases. It points us to the precious word of God. With us there are a number that have betaken themselves to the book of God as the only resort of safety, as the only standard by which they are to be governed. The church in this place have begun to tear away the rubbish, the commandments of men, and are trying to build according to the pattern left by the apostles of Christ. Some laugh, others mock and say that it will soon be at an end; but the work goes on, and we are in full belief that the church will ere long become the joy of the whole earth, though men and devils may oppose. Let all those that love God immediately lend a helping hand, and especially those that see their errors: Let no worldly interest prevent you from coming up to the help of the Lord against the mighty foe. It would be better not to have known the way, than after we have known to refuse to walk in it.

      I will mention one circumstance that has taken place among us, which will be a satisfaction to you. It is concerning a man who was formerly a Deist. I presented him with your third number addressed to a Sceptic. After reading it all his arguments against the bible were blown away like chaff. He was left without hope; the distress of his mind was depicted in his countenance, and no relief could he obtain until he repaired to his long neglected bible. Here he found relief. He now believes the bible is from God. He now believes with all his heart that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He has been immersed into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He is walking in fellowship with the saints, and looking for that blessed hope, the glorious appearing of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. These, sir, are some of the effects of the above publication alluded to among us. I believe it is a very good criterion to judge of the nature of things by their effects. We cannot expect that the church will come out of Babylon without great commotions in the world. Heaven must be shaken as well as earth. The shaking has begun, and we hope that it will continue until every human invention is shaken out.

      Numbers appear to find fault with your style. They think that you are too harsh, and that your strokes are too severe. One person, however, does not wish to have the points of your arrows cut off; yet he appears to be a little uneasy. I suspect that they wish to have some of the beards taken off. If this is what they wish for, I for one should be opposed to it; for there are some which I have heard of who have been wounded, who have got rid of the spear; the scar, however, I believe they will carry to their graves. I should think that a few more beards would be very beneficial for those people, and I cannot see what harm they would be to any person; but I leave you to manage that matter as you may think proper.

      With regard to the new translation, I am highly pleased with it; and the more I read it the better I like it. It does not, however, escape the censures of the priests, and many others who follow their pernicious ways speak evil of it. It is my opinion that many of those that have got into Moses' seat would make the people believe, if they could, that the old version fell down from heaven just as it came out of the hands of the king's translators. They would feign have the [348] people believe that it is the blackest crime that a man can be guilty of, to attempt a new translation. They talk about men laying their hands on the very word of God; and yet after all their ado, I have not heard of one sentence being justly condemned. Oh what will not priestcraft do? I will answer the question; it never has, nor never will lead the people to their bible and to their Saviour. I have heard of one man that has burnt the new translation--I think that it was a brother to one of the editors in Kentucky. It appears that he has loved the old translation ever since he was a boy. I must think that he has a greater regard for the king of Great Britain than he has for Dr. Campbell. Why he should prefer the king I know not, unless it be for this reason, that he is styled "Defender of the Faith." If the gentleman should be called to part with either his creeds or the old version, I seriously fear that king James would share the same fate with the Doctors of Scotland. But after all, I think that his aim was to give you, sir, a deadly blow. Harmless, indeed, was his weapon, and so will every other one be that is aimed at truth. Their reaction, however, will be severe, for they will fall on their own pates. May Heaven shield you in the day of battle; and when your work on earth is done, may you enter into the joys of your Lord.

      "PULLING down every thing, and building up nothing," is an objection often presented against the Christian Baptist. The following reply to it from an English paper, is a perfect expression of our sentiments on the subject. The same things have in substance appeared in this work before.

ED. C. B.      

      "But the charge of pulling down and not building up any thing in its stead, is, unintentionally, the highest compliment that can be paid to us. It is to this building up something, instead of what was pulled down, that we owe the evils of all pretended reformations, and it has served more than any thing else to perpetuate error, as it is a lamentable fact, that from Luther down all parties have set up a system of their own; not always indeed so repugnant to reason as that which they have destroyed, but so encompassed with hedges, that whoever have dared to go farther than they have done, have been considered as enemies to religion.

      "We have nothing to build up. The fair fabric of christianity stands still as firm and conspicuous in the New Testament as ever it did; all we have got to do is to remove the walls, the buttresses, and rubbish, which prevent inquiring men from beholding it in its native purity, splendor, and loveliness; and when this is done, the superstructure will present itself to view--an object deserving of universal admiration; then nothing more will be requisite than to invite men to examine it, as it is fairly and clearly depicted to the New Testament."

      MR. EDITOR,--I HAVE read many of your numbers with much interest; and believe that you have done the church of Christ essential service through the medium of the Christian Baptist. I have been for some years a member of the Baptist church, and have believed it to be as near "the ancient order of things" as any other sect of the day, and indeed nearer. Nevertheless, some of her practices I cannot approve of; for I am not so prejudiced in favor of my own sect that I am insensible to its blemishes. Permit me to mention one which has been adverted to in one of your numbers, viz. the mode of receiving candidates for baptism, on what is denominated their experience before the church.

      The bishop takes his seat in some conspicuous part of the house; the members of the church seat themselves adjacent to him in a semicircle, and sometimes in the presence of unbelievers. The humble candidate is called upon to advance and stand or sit in their midst, and relate over his "travels from nature to grace;" he begins, "A great while ago, I was struck in my mind," &c. But you know the old tale, and the whole process. This weak and trembling individual (perhaps a female) whose mind is in a state of dreadful perturbation, is obliged to give such a detail as agrees with the peculiar feelings of those present, or else she cannot be received as a candidate for baptism. Now it is manifestly certain that such a course was not pursued by the primitive churches. Reason, the propriety of things, nor the word of God will not sanction it.

      Reason will not sanction it. The candidate is so much overawed by the presence of the bishop, deacons, the church, en masse, and unbelievers, that it is impossible that she could have a perfect command over her mind. She is aware that every word she utters, every sentiment she discloses, every feeling she defines, must undergo the rigid scrutiny of all present. One false step and she is rejected. Awful crisis! Portentous moment! She stands as a criminal at the bar in the presence of her judges, who at the end of her confession will pass the verdict of Guilty, or Not Guilty. I have seen men of strong nerves, of good understanding, who could converse sensibly on the christian religion around the social hearth, and could even speak eloquently on other subjects in public, turn pale, shake like the aspen, and be perfectly unmanned in attempting to relate their experience before the church as candidate for admission. But how much more severe is the trial for the young, the poor, the ignorant, and those who have not acquired confidence by mingling in society--if ever they have known the truth, scarcely a vestige of it can be traced by them, in consequence of the ebullition that is going on within their minds. The propriety of things and the ancient order of things alike forbid this practice.

C.      

      BROTHER CAMPBELL,--I READ, with a great deal of pleasure, your Christian Baptist. Your April No. was truly pleasing. On some topics, however, introduced into that work, I have doubted whether the editor has not, in opposing error, sometimes gone to an extreme. I will specify one case--that of receiving members into the church on the bare expression or declaration made by the eunuch to Philip, the evangelist. Now, that, amongst the Baptists, there are sometimes many unnecessary questions asked, and many, very many unnecessary and enthusiastic things told, is admitted and lamented. It is also admitted that in the New Testament there is no example of any being received into the church or churches by the relation of a christian experience. But, brother, you admit on some other cases, (and that of divine command too) that a change of circumstances and customs may justify a change of practice, where the manifest design and spirit of the practice or command of Christ and his apostles are not violated; as in the case of the "holy kiss," five times enjoined by the apostles, [349] being strictly obeyed by the christian shake-hands, and this is argued from, the change of custom and circumstances. Now that here is a change in the circumstances of the people in christian countries, when compared with those of apostolic ages, is manifest. Then the great question was, Is Jesus of Nazareth the Christ, or is he not?--Did he really rise from the dead, or did he not? The apostles and disciples of Christ, on the one part, affirmed; the unbelieving Jews and Gentiles, on the other part, denied and contradicted--and so unpopular was the bare confession that Jesus was "the Christ," that it subjected the person to infamy and reproach, if not to death. Under these circumstances, a bare declaration that they did believe Jesus was the Christ, and a desire publicly to obey him, was a sufficient evidence to the apostles and brethren that there was a change of heart. Add to this, also, the notable case of Ananias and Sapphira, his wife, who, for deception, were struck dead, producing fear on all the people, "and of the rest durst none join themselves to them."--But now circumstances are very different, (at least in some of these things;) now no great disgrace to profess that Jesus is the Christ; no great dishonor to obey him; no great fear of scourgings, imprisonments, and torturing deaths; no signal judgments on hypocrites and impostors, to make others fear. If, therefore, the apostles required the strongest evidence that then could be given of sincerity of heart, is it not reasonable that we should require the strongest evidence that can now be given of a real change of heart in those whom we invite into our union and fellowship as members of the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ? You will not understand me as supposing that the strongest evidence of a change of heart consists in a systematic experience, or that in this matter we are to measure ourselves by ourselves, or compare ourselves among ourselves: but as you admit that men must be born again, and that this change is more or less known, or knowable to the subjects of it, in proportion to their age and circumstances, and that such change is always followed by correspondent fruits of love to Christ, to holiness, and to christians, with a manifest abhorrence of sin, whether discovered in themselves or in others; of joy in believing in Christ, and in doing his will; of peace with God the Spirit, in the heart, crying Abba, Father! with men, in seeking their good, &c. &c. Shall we not, I say, require such a confession with the mouth, as will give us a charitable conviction that they have "believed with the heart unto righteousness;" and that according to their age, or the circumstances under which they have been raised, or in which they have lived. These remarks I submit to you with the confidence of a brother in Christ, believing, when understood, there will be no material difference of sentiment on this subject. Indeed I think I already understand you, but wish you to be more explicit for general satisfaction. You can make what use you please of any part of this letter; and as my name affixed to any composition of mine will likely never bring me to great honor, I wish it always to appear. I remain your unfeigned brother in Christ Jesus our Lord.

B. ALLEN.

April 23d, 1827.

      BROTHER ALLEN--I perfectly agree with you "that we should require the strongest evidence that can now be given of a real change of heart in those whom we baptize." The only question then is, what is that evidence? We must remember that we have no right, no law, nor precedent for putting off an applicant for one single day. The applicant may, and indeed ought, to solicit baptism the hour he believes. We cannot say to him, Go and shew us by your works for a week, a month, or a year, that you are a genuine convert. This would be a glaring infraction of every principle, law and precedent in the kingdom of Jesus. What then? Shall we require the testimony of others respecting the character of the candidate? This cannot be satisfactory. They may tell us he is moral, virtuous, and was always so; or they may tell us that he is reformed; but still this is not sufficient evidence. Nay, should they testify that he is known to be devout, still a question arises, Why was he not long since immersed if so good a man--if so devout? We are at length reduced to a necessity of taking his own word and acting upon that. Now the question is, in reference to what shall we take his word? Shall we require him to declare what he believes or what he feels, or both? For the first we have apostolic example, but for no other. Suppose, however, that we have found a safer way, (the apostles were deceived sometimes,) and that circumstances have changed so far as to render the ancient order obsolete or unsuitable; for there is now no shame in professing, no danger of all those evils and terrors which you very properly enumerate--how shall we prove our way to be safer than the good old way? They never told their experience in order to baptism; but it is supposed that this new way is not liable to the same objections as the old way. But will you please consider that all the shame and terror which you have very properly detached from saying, "I believe with all my heart that Jesus is the Son of God," is also detached from a narrative of our feelings, of our journey from nature to grace." Now if the shame and terror prevented hypocrisy then, they might, if they still existed, prevent it still. But they do not exist, either in relation to the confession of faith or the narrative o£ experience and consequently can have no effect in the one case more than in the other. If, from the love of honor and absence of human terrors, men will solemnly declare a lie in professing their faith, they will solemnly tell a lie in narrating an experience which they never felt, and which, if they did feel, is to us not so sure an evidence of a change of heart as a declaration of the precious faith. For we are assured that all who believe what they confess, are begotten by God;but we are not sure that all who have felt as that candidate feels, are begotten by God. I am, therefore, dear brother, fully convinced that the good old way affords us the strongest evidence that the nature of the case admits.

      A change of circumstances cannot be plead against the ancient, nor in favor of the new way--for circumstances equally affect both. Nor would I carry the argument from a change of circumstances so far in relation to the topic which you mention against any instituted item of religious worship. A brother in Maryland wrote me a long letter in favor of the holy kiss, which was received after my departure from home last Fall. I had intended it for publication, but it has been jostled out. He lays great stress upon the five times commanded, and inveighs against my reasoning on a change of circumstances or customs. Had I published his letter, I should have illustrated one point not stated in my remarks upon "the holy kiss, and which would have shown that a change of [350] circumstances and customs was not the reasoning which sets aside a holy kiss in our country. Advocates for this usage deceive themselves by inserting a definite article and by rejecting the indefinite which always precedes the terms holy kiss. It is not the holy kiss, but a holy kiss. All instituted acts of religion are characterized by the definite article, as, the Lord's table, the Lord's day, &c. It is one thing to command a holy kiss, and another to command the holy kiss. The former style is decisive evidence that it was no stated institution, while the latter would most certainly have shown it to be established--against which no change of circumstances could be plead; but as it is, a change of circumstances can be plead with good effect. This, in passing, is a caveat against a licentious principle of reasoning in opposition to plainly and solemnly ordained usages and sacred institutes.

      I am willing, brother Allen, to give to your reasoning all due regard, and I have no doubt but what you have written is as much to the purpose as any man can adduce; but you will see that while we equally agree that the strongest evidence which can be adduced ought to be demanded, the only question of moment is, What is the strongest evidence?

      I will admit that if there is any ground to suspect the sincerity of the applicant, or any intimation of any improper motive impelling him to solicit the ordinance, I would sift him to the bottom, and, on suspicious evidence, say to him, Go and bring forth fruits worthy of your profession. But where there is no ground of suspicion, and the person freely comes forward and solicits baptism upon a solemn declaration of what the eunuch professed, I would say nothing should hinder his baptism, and no experience be inquired after. A person can have little or no christian experience until he is born of water and of the Spirit; and it does appear to me preposterous to demand the experience of a christian from a person who has not yet put on Christ, not dead by sin, nor buried, nor risen with Christ. When a person has come out of the bath of regeneration, and has been born of the Spirit and the water, we look for the experience of a christian; but it will take more logic than all the colleges in your state possess, to persuade me that it is reasonable to demand a narrative of christian experience from a person who has never publicly confessed the Lord Jesus, nor assumed his name.

	Yours, most affectionately,
	EDITOR.

      IT is objected to the adoption of the term contribution instead of the term fellowship, (Acts ii. 42.) "that the disciples at that time had all things common, and consequently there was no need for a contribution." We admit that where a perfect community exists, there is no need nor means for a contribution to create a fund. But even then there is need for a distribution from the common stock, and this distribution amongst the individuals is a contribution to their wants. But if a community of goods in the Jerusalem congregation did not divest the disciples of the means of their feasting in love from house to house, it could not supersede the necessity of statedly joining in contributing to the necessity of saints; either by a distribution from a common stock, or by a contribution continually augmenting both from new accessions and from the household portions of those who still superabounded. It is not necessary in order to a contribution that every individual must have something to give--there must be some to receive before there can be a fellowship in giving and receiving. The koinwnia or fellowship, (Acts ii. 42.) is something obviously distinct from every other part of the worship and order of the congregation in Jerusalem. They had what we call fellowship in every thing; but there was a certain joint participation in one work of religious obedience and brotherly love which emphatically was the fellowship, contribution, or distribution. The term contribution we yet think is the most appropriate, because it includes in the sacred usage the idea of distributing--of giving and receiving.

      "I allude to the note to Galatians iii. 20. "Now a mediator is not a mediator of one; but God in one." I cannot help thinking there must be an error in both translations, (or all given) and in your reasoning on the passage also; and that the error mainly consists in connecting the mediator with the law. I was, and still am, unable to see the propriety of this; and an examination of the text and context, particularly in the common translation, induced me to think that the error had arisen from a slight inversion of the words in the sentence. The term law, seems to carry with it nothing like the notion of an agreement of parties, either existing or proposed; but is the language of unconditional command, addressed by him who has full power and authority, to him who is bound to receive and obey. What place or propriety is there here for the office of a mediator? I can find none. The term mediator, however, while it necessarily supposes a variance, presents at once the idea of a proposed healing of that variance, and reconciliation of the parties--and to effect this is the great purpose of the mediatorial office. It appears to me then that the meaning of the passage will be given thus--"Wherefore then the law? Because of offences, it was added, to be in force till the seed should come, to whom was made the promise of the inheritance; which promise was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator; or thus--which promise, being ordained through a mediator, was made known by the hand of messengers, (Moses and the other prophets.) Now a mediator necessarily implies two parties, and without the consent of both, a covenant between them cannot be annulled: but God, who gave the law, is only one party; therefore this covenant of promise cannot be impaired by the law." The seed and the mediator, I suppose, mean the same person; and though the promise be, in form, to him, it is, in substance, through him, to mankind, the offenders, and one of the parties at variance; and who, by reason of sin, were disqualified (as in worldly concerns are infants and femes covert) to covenant in person. The apostle has argued, that faith in Christ delivers from the law: and to remove the apparent objection to this position, presented by the question, To what end then was the law given? he recalls to their minds the fact, that the inheritance was promised through a mediator; a person whose name not only infers two parties at variance, but the proposed reconciliation of those parties; that this term mediator, then necessarily includes the idea of the concurring will of two parties uniting and centering in [351] the person of the mediator: and affirms, that the law was added, to operate only until the mediator should appear and the reconciliation of these parties be effected by him; and that this law, which was the act of only one of these parties, could not possibly have the effect of diminishing the certainty and stability of the promise, which could only be annulled, altered, or impaired, by the will of both parties; and proves the necessity of the concurrence of both parties, to effect any such alteration, by the introduction of the mediator, the personal representative of both. Thus, I think, the apostle effectually removes the objection to his position, that faith in Christ delivers from the bondage of the law, supposed by the question, Wherefore then the law? by showing that there is nothing in the nature, or end, of the law, at variance with that position. I cannot regard Moses as possessing any of the great characteristics of the mediator. He was a faithful servant of God, as a messenger to the people; but had none of the distinguishing powers of the mediator, no power to negotiate any permanent peace between the parties. Of this office, though faithful, he was not worthy. Nor do I believe that the term is applied to him in any instance; unless, indeed, in that we have been considering, which I consider a mistake. 2d Timothy ii. 5. Paul says, "There is one God, and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus." And as there is certainly but one God, I suppose Paul may be regarded as affirming that there is only one mediator."

      I have three insuperable objections to this interpretation of the passage:--

      1st. It subverts the idea of the law being a covenant. This it most certainly was. It is repeatedly styled "the covenant;" the tables on which it was engraved are called "the two tables of the covenant;" and it is always kept in contrast with the new and better covenant, established on better promises; but this is not all--the whole circumstances of its promulgation make every precept a separate item of one grand national covenant. The preliminaries were distinctly stated and acceded to by the Jews before an item of it was pronounced; and when the whole was written on parchment, Moses, its mediator, by a divine command, sprinkled the book with blood, saying, "This is the blood of the covenant which God has enjoined upon you." They who violated these precepts were said to have "broken the covenant;" and so soon as the nation apostatized to idolatry, as a nation, they broke the covenant and were given over to their enemies.

      2d. It destroys the character of Moses as a mediator. Moses most unquestionably was a mediator. He describes his office at the time of the giving of the law most minutely, (Deut. ii.) "The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. I stood between the Lord and you at that time to shew you the word of the Lord." And Jesus is in contrast, as the antitype, styled "the mediator of a better covenant." Heb. viii. 6. The ministry of Moses as the mediator, is inferior to the ministry of Jesus as a mediator, and a correct idea of the latter can only be obtained through a scriptural view of the former. Independently of the passage under consideration, Moses is represented in the character and office of a mediator.

      I beg leave to correct a popular mistake relative to mediation and the office of mediator. It never was necessary nor compatible with the relations between Heaven and Earth, that any person should be appointed both by Heaven and Earth to the office of mediator. The mediation and the mediator are gracious appointments of "one of the parties" only, if we may so use the term; nor is the mediation conducted on the same principles as if parties offended and of equal dignity were to be reconciled. The mediation of Moses and of his antitype are gracious appointments of the Father of Mercies, and are not to be exactly measured by our practices.

      3d. It is at variance with the fixed principles of all languages I know any thing of, and most assuredly with the original, to substitute promise instead of law in the hand of angels. The word answering in grammatical construction with diatageis, "ordained," is not epangelia, "promise," but nomos, "law." To affirm that George IV is queen of England, is not more at variance with our idiom, than to say that the promise was ordained by angels, or through a mediator. Law is masculine in Greek, and promise is feminine, and ordained is of the same gender with law and not with promise. I have sundry other objections to this interpretation, but these three I deem quite sufficient. I am still of opinion that the Note, No. 78, Appendix to the new translation, is the correct view of this passage. This opinion does not, however, stand the least in my way of hearing and examining any other that may be offered, nor of adopting a more satisfactory one when it comes documented with superior claims upon my reason. I have great respect for the writer of the letter from which the above extracts are made. He thinks closely on the great subject of christianity; but this passage has puzzled many commentators, and for many years I could see no meaning in it. I do not know that any commentator gives the views in the new translation.

EDITOR.      

      The following four questions are from a correspondent in Essex county, Virginia:--

      1. Has the gospel, as it now stands on record, influence or power to itself, without the agency of the Holy Spirit, to regenerate and make a man a new creature? And if it has or has not, please to tell us how that change is brought about.

      2. Is not saving faith wrought in the heart by the influence of the Holy Spirit; and can a man have saving faith without that influence on his soul? I say saving faith, because it is evident that the New Testament speaks of two sorts of faith, let the Philadelphia bishop say what he may to the contrary.

      3. What does the apostle mean when he says, "If by grace, then it is no more of works, otherwise grace is no more grace?"

      4. And when he says, "Unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God," what sort of a calling does he here allude to?

      1. To answer this question with a yea or a nay, might comport with a system already received or rejected by the querist; but either a yea or a nay would be incompatible with the genius and spirit of the inspired volume. To separate and distinguish the Spirit from its own word is the radix of unhallowed speculation. What the gospel, written or spoken, does in regenerating or purifying the heart, the Spirit of God does, and what the Spirit of God does, the gospel spoken or written does. Those who resist the gospel proclamation, resist the Spirit of God; and those who resist the Spirit of God, resist and reject the gospel [352] proclamation. Suppose I were asked, "Has the sun, the earth, the water, and the air, power or influence of themselves, independent of the influence of God, to make an ear of corn from one grain deposited in the earth," I could not answer it by a yea or a nay; but I could say that God creates the corn, and that the sun, the earth, the water and the air were media through which, and through which only, the divine influence was exhibited. So that they stand to the corn planted as the power of God. And if I were asked, Why does not the word written or spoken exhibit the same power in all who read and hear it, I would say it was owing to the same cause why every grain of wheat or corn which is deposited in the earth does not produce a ripe ear. The Saviour himself justifies this analogy between things natural and moral. See his parable of the sower and his seed.

      2. From the answer above given to query first, I am authorized to say that "saving faith" is wrought in the heart by the Holy Spirit, and that no man can believe to the saving of his soul but by the Holy Spirit. I waive the question about two kinds of faith. Unfeigned faith or true faith is what is meant by "saving faith;" and feigned faith, "false" faith, or "dead" faith, are not saving.

      3. Paul means that grace or favor, and desert are antipodes. Whatever is of the one cannot be of the other. Every thing in our salvation is of pure favor. A. by a mere act of favor, or a deed of gift, invests B. with a large farm amply sufficient for all the purposes of life. He afterwards writes him a letter, informing him that if he does not practise temperance, if he does not take exercise, if he does not mingle labor and rest, and avoid every excess, he cannot live nor be happy. Now he that argues that B. obtained the estate by his works, is in error; and every one who says that, without the works enjoined by A. in his epistle, B. can live and be happy, is in an error; and every one who says that B. got the farm as a reward of his works, says what is not true.

      4. Christ is the power of God to all the called. The term called is used in a twofold sense in the New Testament: 1st. As descriptive of all who hear the word of life--and 2d. As descriptive of all those who receive it. The former is its general--the latter, its special acceptation. The "many called" are all who hear, the "few chosen" are all who obey. The former slight the call--the latter make it certain. The former treat their calling and election as idle and unmeaning compliments--the latter make them sure and enjoy the special benefits thereof. To the latter only, to those who accept the call, is Christ the power of God to salvation. The obedient are the "effectually" called, and the disobedient are the ineffectually called.

      The writer of the above queries had not read the second volume of this work when he proposed them. Were it not for the extreme sensibility of some taught in human schools, either old or new, on these topics, we should exclude them from our pages, as the most fatal of all the speculations in religion which generated in the dark ages. That man has true faith or saving faith who obeys the Lord Jesus Christ, and he that disobeys him has either no faith at all, or a dead faith. He is regenerated who believes and obeys the Lord Jesus sincerely, and he is unregenerated who does not. The truth believed purifies the heart--and no heart can be purified without it. And every question, which, when answered, does not lead to some good practice, is as idle as the theory of captain Symmes. His theory of the earth is of as much use to my corn field, as the grand things sought after in the above four queries are to the soul of the querist. The next generation will admit this; but few of the present can. Many seem to be more concerned about my regeneration than they are about their own; than they are about the many good things I am habitually calling their attention to. While I cannot but feel grateful to them for their solicitude, I should like to see them evince very clearly the purity of their hearts by a holy life; that is, by a life of obedience to the Son of God, in all the commandments and institutions of the King, whether of an individual or social character. Happy only are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.

EDITOR.      

      1. WHAT is the work of an evangelist? It was the business of proclaiming the gospel to those who never heard it. It is the same thing still. Before the gospel was generally announced persons were devoted exclusively to this work. And now-a-days much of this work is done by christian parents to their children, and by the overseers of the churches. So that in christian countries there is not the same reasons existing for an order of persons exclusively devoted to this work as there was in the apostolic age. See the essays on the work of the Holy Spirit, volume second.

      2. What should be the qualifications of those who administer the ordinances of the christian church? "The administration of ordinances" is a popish phrase, and ought to be cashiered from the christian vocabulary. Persons appointed by the church or christian congregation, having the qualifications which Paul lays down for overseers, and public servants, or deacons, when attending their respective duties, are "administering all the ordinances" of the christian church. The election or appointment of the church is that which gives them an official right to act in an official capacity. Any person appointed by a church to baptize, has a right to do it.

      3. Did not Philip and other primitive preachers usually take "a text?" Philip's text was in Isaiah 53. when he converted the eunuch. And Paul preached in Athens from a text. This is more like a quiz upon the textuaries than any thing else. One might more easily make a pope out of Paul than a textuary. If there was any thing like a text in the case of Philip, it was the eunuch that selected it; and if answering a question upon any passage out of the Old Testament or New, or out of a Grecian poet, furnishes a model for text-taking and sermonizing--then the sprinkling of bells, and the wearing of official vestments, and the laying of corner stones, and the consecrating of grave yards, can easily be proved from scriptures. This query does not merit a serious reply. No prophet nor apostle nor divinely called preacher ever took a text or made a sermon in our sense of the words, from the days of Moses till the days of Origen, the inventor of a thousand errors. The quoting of any passage or the commencing with any sentence, no more makes that sentence a text in our usage, than the preaching of Balaam's ass made him a christian evangelist.

EDITOR.      

[TCB 346-353]