Volume 6. Number 1. August 4, 1828, pp. 461-470.

• The Fathers, the Moderns, the Populars, and the Heretics by Alexander Campbell, pp. 461-463.
• Essays on Man in His Primitive State, and under the Patriarchal, Jewish and Christian Dispensations.--No. I.: Primitive State.--No. I. by Alexander Campbell, pp. 463-464.
• Remarks on Samuel xv. 22, 23 (from Scripture Magazine) by Z., pp. 464-465.
• Extract of A Letter by John Chrysostom, pp. 465-466.
• Ancient Gospel.--No. VIII.: Faith and Reformation by Alexander Campbell, pp. 466-467.
• A Restoration of the Ancient Order of Things.--No. XXV.: On the Discipline of the Church.--No. II. by Alexander Campbell, pp. 467-468.
• The Bible Intelligible by A. S. (Alexander Straith), pp. 468-469.
• A Debate on the Evidences of Christianity by Alexander Campbell, pp. 469-470.

"Our Fathers, where are they? and the Prophets, do they live forever?"

      AT one time we speak of our remote ancestors as if they had been mere children in understanding in comparison of ourselves and our contemporaries; at another, we represent their views and their authority as paramount to all our compeers. If their views were congenial with our own, then they were the wisest and the beet of men; but if we differ far from them, then as duteous sons, we only wish they had been more wise and less superstitious. Thus their authority rises or sinks in our estimation, as they happen to coincide with our sentiments, or differ from us in their views. In all our comparisons we are wont to make ourselves the standard of perfection. If we at all admit that we are imperfect, we are sure to make our "failings lean to virtue's side;" and when compared with the faults we see in others, our frailties are to be attributed to circumstances beyond our control, and so completely eclipsed by the splendor of our virtues, as rather to represent the dark spots in the sun, or the shade in the picture, as necessary to the brilliancy of the whole.

      But if we were to use that reason of which we boast, a little more, and submit less to the suggestions of self-love and self-admiration, we would not only think more humbly of ourselves but we would do more justice to the merits of others. In that case neither the names nor the authority of our ancestors would be plead as a justification of our sentiments or practices, nor would their weaknesses be urged in extenuation of our own. They were men constitutionally like ourselves, and only circumstantially different. Whether they were wiser or better than ourselves or our coevals, depends not upon any constitutional superiority, but rather upon the superiority of their or our circumstances. Their opportunities may have been better or worse than ours, and all the difference of a moral or intellectual nature between them and us must be resolved into their or our superior attention and devotion to truth and goodness.

      Many Doctors of the Church of Rome would have made first-rate Puritans; and many morose Dissenters would have made hierarchical tyrants in other times and other countries. Many in this age, whose illiberality and religious wrath are fully vented in bold invectives and ungenerous detractions, would, had they lived a few centuries ago, have found no gratification to their religious vengeance but in the racks and tortures of inquisitorial cruelty. They who are now sated with burning men's writings, would then have consumed their persons. Those too, who, in this century, are pleased to prove their faith and practice by an appeal to the fathers, would, in the days of Luther, have maintained the infallibility of the Pope and the sovereign arbitrements of clerical councils. And they who would now bind men's consciences to a covenant and creed framed by the fathers of modern traditions, would have argued in the days of John Huss and Jerome of Prague, that the Bible was not to be read by the ignorant laity.

      While, in this age of invention, the winds and the waves, the rivers and the deserts, the mountains and the vallies are made to yield to scientific and mechanical skill; while the human mind is bursting through the shackles and restraints of a false philosophy, and developing the marvellous extent of its powers, it is not to be supposed strange and unaccountable that the moral and religious systems of antiquity should be submitted to the scrutiny of enlightened intellects, and that men of reflection and independence should dare to explore the creeds and the rubrics of ages of less light and more superstition. Truth has nothing to fear from investigation. It dreads not the light of science, nor shuns the scrutiny of the most prying inquiry. Like one conscious of spotless innocence and uncontaminated purity, it challenges the fullest, the ablest, and the boldest examination. On the other hand, error, as if aware of its flimsy pretensions and of the thin veil which conceals its deformity, flies from the torch of reason, and dares not approach the tribunal of impartial inquiry.--She hides herself in the fastnesses of remote antiquity, and garrisons herself in the fortifications erected by those she honors with the title of "the Fathers." When she dares to visit the temples of human resort, she attires herself in the attractions of popular applause, and piques herself upon the number, influence, and respectability of her admirers. But with all her blandishments, she is an impudent impostor, and is doomed to destruction with all her worshippers. But Truth, immortal Truth! the first-born of Heaven! by the indisputable rights of primogeniture, shall inherit all things, and leave her antagonist, Error, to languish forever in the everlasting shame and contempt of perfect and universal exposure.

      To Truth eternal and immortal, the wise and goodwill pay all homage and respect. Upon no altar will they offer her as a victim; but at her shrine will sacrifice everything. What then, is Truth? Momentous question. She is Reality herself. 'Tis not merely the exact [461] correspondence of words with ideas. This is but verbal truth. 'Tis not the mere agreement of the terms of any proposition with logical arrangement.--This is logical truth. But it is the correspondence, the exact agreement of our ideas with things as they are. So that the representations of truth are the exact pictures of all the realities about which we are conversant, or in which we are interested. She leads to happiness all who obey her; but those that disdain her precepts destroy themselves forever.

      But "the fathers" are often urged as decisive evidence, superseding the necessity of farther inquiry. All sects have their fathers, to whom they are wont to appeal. There is father Ireneus, Origen, Ambrose, Austin, Tertullian, Athanasius, of high repute amongst the more ancient sects. There is Father Calvin, Luther, Zuinglius, &c. &c. among the moderns. There is father Wesley, Fletcher, Asbury, Coke, amongst the more recent. There are, too, Fathers Gill, Fuller, and Booth, amongst those who say they have no father on earth. Yea, even amongst these are already enrolled some whose graves are not yet green, and whose errors are not yet forgotten. Thus one of our Stars of the first magnitude, if we are to enumerate the square inches of its surface, has recently quoted in support of the popular schemes of ostentatious benevolence, Fathers Baldwin, Furman, and other Doctors, concerning whose standing in the unseen world we have as yet heard nothing. How long it may be before Drs. Holcomb, Rogers, and Allison are enrolled amongst the Fathers, we cannot guess; but from the spirit of some of our father-making writers already exhibited, it cannot be but a few days. But, methinks, those reputed wise and pious, who are yet with us, should here be admonished to take good heed to what schemes they lend their names and the weight of their influence. In this way they may see that good or evil of wide and long extent must result to posterity from the application of their reputation, however well or ill earned it may be, to those schemes which almost every month gives birth to. The good or ill that men do generally long survives them. The defects and weaknesses of great men are more frequently appealed to in justification of errors and mistakes, than their more wise and excellent actions. And such is the relaxing influence of the bad examples of men reputed great and good, that their admirers are much more wont to transcend their defects than their virtues. They are content with falling a little short of their excellences; and without much compunction, can go a little beyond their infirmities. One good example is worth a thousand lectures, but a bad one defeats the object of many admonitions.

      "Our Fathers, where are they?"--Some of those looked up to as Fathers in Israel, were doubtless ignorant and evil men. And who in remote ages and countries can tell which of those men were real saints, and now in the presence of God? And before their names can sanction any thing, it ought to be ascertained whether God has approved of their views and behavior, and whether they have been rewarded with a place at his right hand; for would it not appear worse than ridiculous for us to quote as authority for any religious tenet or practice, men whose names are not found enrolled in the records of Heaven, but are now the associates of those who are reserved in chains of darkness until the judgment of the great day? The mere suspicion that such may be the unhappy fate of some canonized saints, forbids any appeal to the Fathers as decisive of any question affecting the faith or practice of christians.

      A few men in the United States, not more perhaps than half a dozen of Doctors of Divinity, have done more within forty years to divest the Baptists of their ancient simplicity and love for the Bible, than all the Doctors of modern Divinity among them will restore in one century. Scarce a relic of the ancient simplicity of the Waldenses, Albigenses, and those persecuted christians, from whom the Baptists in these United States are proud to reckon their descent, or to identify with themselves as fellow-professors of the same gospel and order of worship, now remains. These modern good, and wise, and leading men, being intoxicated with titles and worldly respectability, have co-operated to become imitators of their more respectable neighbors, the Presbyterians and Episcopalians. They have formed a young St. Giles for every old St. Giles amongst the Paidobaptists: and have actually got the whole machinery of the popular establishments in full employment to build up great meeting houses, parsonages, and colleges; to have a learned priesthood, tithes, and offerings; conventions, missionaries, tracts, and education societies, with all the "benevolent schemes" of the day. And those who will not say Amen to the whole paraphernalia, are heretics, unregenerated sinners, like myself. Their more fortunate and more respectable neighbors are pleased to see them follow up in the rear, for they want to see them of the same spirit with themselves, knowing full well that they can always keep them in the rear! Yes, they have the money, and the learning on their side, and this train of things going on for two centuries. When they wish to make a new levy for a new theological school, they can enforce their claims with a new argument. Yes, they say, "See, brethren, all christendom is awaking from its slumbers to the importance of marshalling an army of effective clergymen. Even the Baptists are now convinced of their supineness and errors in former times in relation to their teachers, and now they are making great efforts to educate and support their clergy as they ought always to have done. Let us, then, advance in the even tenor of our way, stimulated, as we ought to be, by the exertions of those who have felt the force of our example, and feel it to be their duty to go and do likewise." So pleads a Paidobaptist; and what Baptist of the Old School would not blush in his presence! For my part, I feel no anxiety for the result. The children of the flesh will manifest themselves, and it is right that they who are of the world should speak of, and like, the world. But those who believe the good confession which the King of Martyrs confessed before Pontius Pilate, will delight to know and to teach that "Christ's kingdom is not of this world." And they do know that no carnal crowd of worshippers will be owned by him as a church of his. But some there are who would rather commune with orthodox Presbyterians and Episcopalians in building colleges, making clergymen, issuing tracts, raising funds for theological schools, and in the Lord's supper, than with such heretics as those who contend for carrying out the above good confession into practice.

      In commencing the sixth volume of this work, I feel myself emboldened to say that my labors have not been in vain; and I do thank God that I have been enabled to persevere in one undeviating course, aiming at the restoration of the ancient order of things, and that he has given me so much success in my efforts, as to authorize me to [462] look forward with large expectations to a liberal harvest which is whitening all around. The number of my readers has regularly augmented from the first sheet until now, and every volume of this work has been commenced under an increased patronage. Many have solicited its enlargement, and numerous propositions have been made for changing its name, size, and terms of publication. Some of the reasons are weighty: but as we have not yet got through the items in our original proposals, we will continue it in its present form for at least the present volume. Our opponents are generally all silenced, and it is likely that those who are devoted to the present order of things will have, by this time, learned so much prudence, (if it can be learned,) as to allow us to proceed without opposition, except when and where they know we cannot hear them; and no doubt they are convinced that their own cause will best succeed when its merits are kept from investigation.

EDITOR.      

      "KNOW thyself," was the wisest maxim of the wisest philosopher of the wisest pagan nation of antiquity. "Know thyself" is inculcated by all the prophets and apostles of all the ages of revelation. And while the wisest man of the wisest nation in theology taught as his first maxim, that "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom;" and while the Saviour of the world taught, that "it is eternal life to know the only true God, and his Son Jesus Christ whom he commissioned," both concur in inculcating the excellence, and in teaching the utility and importance of self-knowledge. Our origin necessarily engrosses the first chapter of self-knowledge; and here the bible begins. This volume, replete with all wisdom and knowledge requisite to the happiness of man during every period of his existence, in time and to eternity, wisely and kindly opens with the history of man's creation, and closes with his eternal destiny. To it we are indebted for every correct idea, for every just sentiment on this subject in all the volumes and in all the intellects on earth. Destroy it and all that has been deduced, borrowed or stolen from it, and man is not only a savage in disposition, but as rude and ignorant of his origin as the beasts that perish. This is an assertion made with full knowledge of all that is claimed by sceptics, and alleged by unbelievers, from the days of Celsus down to the era of Mental Independence. And the day is not far distant in which we trust this will be universally admitted.

      Considering the bible, therefore, as the only oracle on this subject; viewing it as containing the whole sum total of all that mortal man can know of his origin, we shall only hear and attend to its representations of the origin of man. And first we shall attend to his creation:--After God Almighty had formed the heavens and the earth, and fitted the latter for the abode of that creature for whom it was made, he proceeded with singular deliberation to create this most august of all the creatures of his vast empire. When suns were to be lighted, and all the hosts of the heavens and the earth marshalled, he was pleased, without a preamble or a preface, to command them into being; but when man, the sovereign of this globe, was to he fashioned, he pauses, and retires within himself for a model, and makes his own image the grand archetype of man. He builds his body from the elements of the earth. He gives him a soul or animal life in common with all the animals created; but he infuses into him from himself directly, without any intervention, a spirit, a pure intellectual principle. So that man stands erect, one being possessing body, soul and spirit. His body was as earthly as that of any other creature, only of more delicate and exquisite organization. His soul or animal life, which gives him all the passions, was like theirs, save that it was not the governing principle; but at the head of all, and above all, his intellect or spirit was enthroned, which placed him incomparably above every other inhabitant of the earth. Thus Adam stood a triune being, having a body, a soul, and a spirit, each of them perfect in every respect, and perfectly united and subordinated in one sublime constitution; the spirit enthroned in the head and as the head; the soul resident in the heart, and not only animating but energizing the whole body in perfect obsequiousness to the intellectual department.

      By the way, we may observe, that the Jews, the Greeks, the Romans, as well as the English, have had three terms which they used as distinctly expressive of these three. These are the body, soul and spirit, of the English; the corpus, anima and animus, of the Latins; the soma, psuche and nous, of the Greeks; and the nerep, nepesh and ruth, of the Hebrews. These in each language are representatives of each other; and the most of the modern languages have the same distinctness of phraseology in marking each of the constituents of man. The body is the organic mass, animated and pervaded by the soul or animal life, which, as the scriptures say, is in the blood; and the spirit is that pure intellectual principle which acts immediately upon the soul and mediately upon the body. We know that in popular use, the terms soul and spirit are generally used as synonymous, and have been so in the practice of all languages; but when we wish to speak with the greatest perspicuity or emphasis, we distinguish these from one another. Thus Paul prays for the Thessalonians, that God would sanctify them wholly, their body, soul and spirit. The body and soul, in common usage, denote the whole man; but when we speak philosophically, we say, body, soul and spirit. Each of these has its respective attributes and powers. The spirit has the faculties we call the powers of understanding; the soul has its passions and affections; the body has its organs and their functions. In man reason and all intelligence belong to the spirit, together with volition in its primary character. All the passions and affections belong to the soul, and are identified with animal life; all the appetites and propensities strictly belong to the body. But so united are these constituents of man, that what one does the others do likewise. So that while we define thus, we know that in all the acts of the man there is such a combination of energies that the whole spirit, soul and body, move in perfect concert in all those acts which are properly called human. A hint or two of this sort, without an elaborate disquisition, illustration, or proof, we suppose necessary to a correct view of man; but to enter largely into this matter, would require a volume itself, and would not, perhaps, repay for either the trouble of writing or reading it.

      The government belonged to the spirit; its ministers were the passions, and the whole body moved in subordination to these. So intimate were the soul and spirit in all their acts and movements, that they became perfectly identified with each other, and the one term became the [463] representative of both--as one family name represents both husband and wife. But while contemplating man in his first state, we must call in all the helps we have to conceive of him in accordance with his primitive dignity. As a perfect being, then, his reason, his passions, and his appetites existed in the most regular and harmonious connexion with each other. Their natural and necessary dependance was duly felt and acknowledged; and their subordination was founded in perfect reason.

      Capable of deriving pleasure from a thousand sources in the material system by means of his senses, he was also qualified to enjoy the most intimate relation and acquaintance with the spiritual system by means of his intellectual faculties. Thus the pleasures and enjoyments of two worlds were made accessible to man in the state in which he was created.

      Being thus constituted capable of enjoyments so numerous and multiform, he was the most perfect creature in the universe, as far as human knowledge extends. He was the last, and if we may judge by the regular gradation of all the works of creation, as narrated by Moses, he was the best work of God. But as he was endued not only with the powers of acquiring and accumulating enjoyment from two worlds, but with the faculties for communicating it, he was in his very nature social, and required co-ordinate beings for the gratification of his powers of communication. Hence from himself God created a co-ordinate being of the same endowments, but of still more delicate organization.

      Kindred society became the consummation of human bliss, because necessary to fill up all man's capacities for enjoyment. A male and a female, possessed of one common nature, mutually dependent on each other for all the higher enjoyments of that nature; in their creation inseparably allied to each other; and in all their wants, desires, and enjoyments, reciprocal, finish the picture of primitive bliss in man's original state. Thus was man created and circumstanced; and after the intelligent, pure and happy pair were introduced to each other, God, their Creator, inducted them by his own hand into the garden of delights, which for them he had previously formed and beautified with all the exquisite charms which the combined influences of virgin heaven and earth were capable of producing. Then "the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy." And here we shall leave them for the present.

EDITOR.      

      "And Samuel said, Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold to obey is better than sacrifice; and to hearken, than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry: because you have rejecters the word of the Lord, he has also rejected you from being king."

      WHEN the mind is not in complete subjection to the authority of God, it is easy to find excuses to apologize for disobedience to the plainest injunctions. It is not easy to conceive a plainer command than that which was given to Saul with respect to the destruction of the Amalekites and all their possessions; yet he obeyed it only so far as it appeared reasonable to himself, and even attempted to cover his iniquity by a show of zeal for the institutions of religion. He conceived that he was not limited to exact and punctilious obedience; and that having performed what he considered the substance of his commission, he was at liberty to use his discretion in things of less importance. The part in which he failed appeared to him so trifling, that, on meeting Samuel, he declared that he had "performed the commandment of the Lord." The trivial instances in which he departed from his instructions were not worth mentioning as an exception. He had paid due attention to what he looked upon as the fundamentals of his commission. He did not think that it was likely that he should be called to account for using his discretion as he had done, with respect to things of so little importance; and especially, as he had altogether consulted the interests of religion in the liberties he had taken. So far was he from seeing any criminality in the slight deviations which he had made from his instructions, that when Samuel charged him with disobeying the voice of the Lord, and laid before him the instances in which he had done so, he continued confidently to affirm that he had obeyed the commandment of the Lord; "yea, I have obeyed the voice of the Lord;" and notwithstanding the exceptions which he could not altogether conceal, he still pleaded that he had substantially fulfilled his commission. This was indeed a discriminating obedience, but it was not on that account the more acceptable to God, and although he had conceived that he had fulfilled the chief object of his mission, and that therefore small exceptions would be overlooked, we find that the Lord does not give him credit for fulfilling his instructions at all, but charges him with complete disobedience; "Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, he has also rejected you from being king." Temptation is never more dangerous than when it pretends to set aside obedience to certain divine injunctions for the sake of the general interests of religion. The covetousness of Saul and the Israelites was here cloaked by an apparent concern for the glory of God and gratitude for their victory. The command to destroy all the possessions of the Amalekites would appear unreasonable to human wisdom, and therefore they thought to evade it by destroying the most worthless of the property, and by consecrating the remainder to the service of God. If they did not exactly obey the word of the Lord, they considered that they had made a sufficient amends by devoting these costly sacrifices to his worship. But their carnal policy was utterly detestable in the estimation of God. "And Samuel said, Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold to obey is better than sacrifice; and to hearken, than the fat of rams: for rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness as iniquity and idolatry." The conduct of Saul and the Israelites on this occasion, cannot but remind us of those Christians who make the pretence of usefulness a justification of their conduct in not fully obeying the voice of the Lord. Some will not quit their connexion with anti-christian churches because by giving up their stations, they would give up their usefulness. They have now an extensive field for labor, from which they would be excluded if they should give up their situation. "The chief thing is the salvation of sinners: we must sacrifice things of inferior moment to this great consideration? I would ask such persons how they can condemn Saul, and think to stand excused themselves? Is not their conduct rebellion against the Lord? Does it not charge him with giving commands inconsistent with the extensive propagation of the gospel, and exalt our wisdom above his? Has the Lord as much delight in our silly schemes of usefulness as he has in our obeying his voice? What should we think of a female who should allege, as a justification [464] of her infidelity to her husband, that, by this means, she provided for him and his family?--And is it not the same thing to disobey God under a pretence of serving him more effectually? At first view it might appear that, of all the servants of God, the persons I allude to were the most useful and successful propagators of the gospel, as they make this the ground of their disobedience. But in general we shall find it to be the reverse. They are usually toiling, and mourning the want of success throughout their lives. I beseech such persons to consider whether they are not deceiving themselves, and whether usefulness to their own temporal interest does not, as in the case of Saul, lie concealed under the pretext of usefulness to the cause of Christ. If worldly interests and honor were as much engaged to bring them out of their present situation as they are in holding them in it, I verily believe that the arguments of usefulness would appear in another light.--Scripture Magazine.

Z.      

"Kentucky, June 25, 1828.      

      ----"YOUR Christian Baptist of June has just come to hand, containing your expose of Bishop Semple's unwary sayings relative to the C. B. At the time those letters first appeared in the Star, the writer was sitting by the side of a white-headed and venerable Bishop, who, after the reading of those letters of Bishop Semple's, remarked that he regretted to hear such sentiments fall from the lips of any Baptist; especially from the pen of a man renowned for his wisdom, piety, and divinity that he thought him very vulnerable, and that he expected you would wound him deeply, as your readers here think you have done. The writer has not those letters by him; but, as well as he recollects, the Bishop says that "there is much room left in the New Testament for conjecture upon the subject of church government." This is sound Episcopalian or Erastian divinity, but unsound Baptist divinity. This sentiment is more fully and clearly expressed by two learned Episcopalian or orthodox divines, Mosheim and Scott. The former is celebrated for his erudition, and for exhausting the vocabulary of his slander against the poor, defenceless, heretical, enthusiastic, and ungovernable Anabaptists; for whom he seems to heat his furnace sevenfold hotter than it was wont to be heated. The latter was renowned for his "deep-toned piety," and for adapting his divinity to the taste of doctrinal Calvinists and practical Arminians, two irreconcilable parties; rara avis in terris; an extraordinary talent. These Divines say that no form of "church government" can be proved to be exclusively of divine appointment. The Baptist Bishop has improved upon the Episcopalian Bishops, and says that "much room is left for conjecture." It was said long since that great men (Doctors of Divinity) are not always wise; neither do the aged understand judgment. "Therefore, said I, Hearken to me: I also will show mine opinion. Dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary to send forth a stinking savor; so doth a little folly him that is in reputation for wisdom and honor." Notwithstanding this declaration, Dr. Scott, in his commentary upon the Ephesian Bishops, (Acts. xx.) says that Congregational episcopacy was that appointed by the Apostles, and that Catholic, English, and Methodistic episcopacy was introduced shortly afterwards, gradually and imperceptibly, by the superior age, experience, abilities, and services of the senior Bishops. Mosheim speaks definitely of John's immersion, and calls immersion the primitive institution; and of faith being required before immersion in primitive times, and of bishops presiding over one congregation, who were remarkable for their simplicity in doctrine, inculcating faith, hope, love, and for their zeal and faithfulness; yet he practised sprinkling before faith, and was a dear and ardent lover of metropolitan and diocesan episcopacy. Dr. Scott studied and prayed two whole years upon the subject of baptism, during which time he sprinkled no infants, his conscience was so tender; yet, with all his ample opportunities for research and investigation, and stores of ancient ecclesiastical literature, and his vast powers of comprehension, and his superabundant share of orthodoxy, he decrees that "in the Jordan," "into the water," can mean, (not does,) but can mean at Jordan, at the water, by a long charitable stretch of language, criticism, and divinity. He was also a satellite, revolving round metropolitan or city bishops, and ultimately lost all his tenderness and scruples of conscience about sprinkling babies. Doctor Semple, who has spent thirty-five or forty years of his useful and exemplary life in building up the Congregational and Independent form of Baptist "church government," in the republican state of Virginia, now, in his last days, throws his well-earned and dear-bought influence into the scale of latitudinarianism, by saying that "there is much room left for conjecture," and by calling the Christian Baptist "wild chimeras." All these, to say the least of them, are dead flies in the medicines of these physicians, and do now, and will continue to send forth a stinking savor.

      "As this is an age of hard study and deep-toned divinity, and as thousands are now upon the big theological wheel, in the different sectarian factories, who will shortly be thrown upon the community, full of sweet-toned theology, we shall proffer a few themes for them to ruminate and write upon, in their devotional hours:--If there is nothing but "a charter of church government" in the New Testament, without any specific rule or bye-laws, are there any bye-laws upon any other subject? And if there be not, can there be any thing wrong in the religious world? Is not Shasterism and Mahometanism as right as any other ism? And are not their forms of "church government and bye-laws" as good as any ever made since the New Testament was finished? If the peace, order, government, and bye-laws of God's kingdom are left to conjecture, or are indefinite, does this idea not prove him deficient in wisdom and benevolence to legislate definitely? and does it not derogate from, and materially reflect upon his character, as the King eternal, immortal, and invisible?--What would the Americans think of a colossal and cedar-like politician, who would tell them that after electing, empowering, compensating, and sending their sages to Philadelphia to frame their constitution, to define and establish their laws--that now no person could divine whether oligarchy, aristocracy, monarchy, or democracy was the government of the United States? That great and good men had chosen and administered all four of these kinds of government, and that the government of England, France, Spain and America, were all authorized by the constitution of the United States, and that they could all exist and all be administered at the same time by the Americans? Would he not either pity the ignorance or detest the dissimulation of the politician who would call a different opinion [465] "wild chimeras?" The publication of these sentiments is doubtless owing to Dr. Noel's political adroitness and insincerity, and not to Bishop Semple's well known prudence. If not, a man of Bishop Semple's dignity, generosity, and penetration, must have seen and lamented the folly of such management.

      Hoping that you may possess, and manifest, and cultivate that love which covers the blemishes of those who love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity, I subscribe myself your friend and brother.

"JOHN CHRYSOSTOM."      

      I HAVE written seven essays under this head, on Immersion. I now proceed to Reformation. In the evangelical order, Faith is the first and capital item. But as we have said so much upon this item in the preceding volumes of this work, we thought it most expedient to call the attention of our readers to Christian Immersion, as exhibiting the gospel in water. Having exhibited the scriptural import and design of this christian institution in general terms, I feel at liberty to proceed to the other grand items associated therewith. And before we proceed to Reformation, we shall again call up the subject of Faith to the attention of our readers. As we have often said, no subject has been involved in greater mystery and darkness than the nature of faith. The labors of many commentators and of thousands of sermonizers have been employed to show that faith is something more than the mere belief of testimony, or something different from it. The people have been so often told what it is not, and what it is, that few of them know any thing certain about it. Before the age of metaphysical refinement, there was no difficulty in understanding this subject. Hence there is not an instance on record in the New Testament of any person inquiring of the Apostles what they meant when they proclaimed "reformation towards God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ." This is a striking proof that their hearers understood the Apostles as using this word in the common acceptation of their times; as denoting the persuasion of the truth, or the conviction of the certainty, of what they proclaimed. But to consider attentively the reason why so much stress or emphasis is laid upon faith or belief by our Lord and his Apostles, will do more than any definitions or descriptions, to render faith plain and intelligible to all.

      And here let it be noted that the philanthropy of God, sometimes called his grace or his favor, must be known before it can reconcile, please, or comfort any human heart. This is the golden secret which unlocks all the bars of ignorance and superstition. I repeat it again--God's love of the world, his benevolence towards his ignorant, erring, and rebellious offspring, must be apprehended, known, and relied on, before any change in our views of his character, or of our conduct can be effected. And as the testimony given of the person, character, mission and work of Jesus Christ his Son, is that which developes this kindness, grace, favor, benignity, or philanthropy of God our Father, that testimony must be known, understood, or relied on, before it can operate upon our hearts, upon our understandings, wills, passions, appetites, and conduct.--Now as this testimony was first oral, then written; and as it is, and was from necessity oral or written, it cannot be known or acted upon as certain and sure, unless believed or relied upon as certain and true. This is just what renders faith necessary, and it is just precisely that which prevents any living man from enjoying the favor of God in this life, or the blessings of the salvation of the gospel without faith. For if it could have been possible that men could have enjoyed the favor of God without knowing it, or known the favor of God without hearing of it, or heard the favor of God without a report or testimony concerning it--faith never would have been mentioned, required, or made a sine qua non to our enjoyment of salvation. For as Paul says about the law, we may say of faith: If there could have been a righteousness obtained by law, then faith would not have been preached; and if salvation could have been conferred with out believing the report thereof, faith or belief had never been proclaimed to mortal man. But in no other way than by testimony, oral or written, could the love of God, through his Son, be known to men; and therefore in no other way than by believing the testimony, can the salvation of God be known or enjoyed in this life.--Now be it known to all men, that, so soon as any one is convinced, or knows certainly, that God will forgive sinners all offences, and accept of them through the mediation of Jesus Christ, upon their submission to the government of the Messiah, then that person has the faith or belief which the gospel proclaims; and upon the personal application of that individual for pardon and acceptance, then through immersion into the name of the Lord Jesus, remission of sins is granted. So that faith is understood when the necessity of it is understood and felt. Without it no man can know God; and, consequently, without it, no one can fear him, trust in him, love him, or please him. For he that comes to God or applies to him, must first know or "believe that he is, what he is, and that he is a rewarder of all who diligently seek him." Faith, therefore, is just to the mind what eating is to the body. The food must be discriminated before it can be eaten, and it must be eaten before it can contribute to the life of man. It is not the eating of it--we mean, the action of eating it; but the food, when eaten, that supports life. So it is not the action of believing, but the truth which is believed, that renews the heart of man. Eating brings the food in contact with the organs of life; believing brings the truth in contact with the spirit of man. And as the food, when adapted to the human constitution, nourishes, invigorates, and animates it; so truth adapted to the mind of man, (as the gospel exactly and perfectly is) nourishes, invigorates, and imparts new life to the spirit of man. So that as man lives by eating bread, his soul lives by eating, or receiving, or believing the love and mercy of God. Faith then is just the belief or persuasion that the gospel is true: which persuasion comes by hearing, perceiving, or understanding what the Holy Spirit imparts or teaches concerning the Lord Jesus.

      Hence the prophets and apostles say that the gospel or the truth concerning Jesus, converts the soul; for its admission renovates the moral character, and when apprehended as indubitable certainty, it must act and operate in reforming the life. And this leads to a remark or two upon Repentance or Reformation.

      Repentance denotes a mere change of mind, generally accompanied with sorrow for the past; not necessarily, however, implying a reformation. But the term Reformation includes not merely a change of mind, but a change of life.

      It is remarkable with what distinctness and precision the writers and speakers of the New [466] Testament use the terms metanoew and metamelomai. They never use these terms as synonymous; though, in the king's translation, they are indiscriminately rendered by the term "repentance;" which, as all critics know, is not consistent with the true and distinct import of these terms. The former signifies such a change of mind as issues in a change of conduct; the latter includes nothing more than change of mind or sorrow for the past. Hence Paul, when speaking of his repentance for having written such a letter to the Corinthians as gave them so much sorrow; when the repentance of Judas for having betrayed the Lord; and when the repentance of the son in the parable, who at first refused to go and work in the vineyard, but afterwards repented and went--are spoken of, and in all similar places, metamelomai is used; but when a real reformation, resulting from a radical change of mind is spoken of, it is always metanoeo which is employed. Therefore Dr. Campbell and other learned translators preferred reformation to the vague term repentance, as the proper representative in our language of the term used by the inspired writers when preaching or commanding that change of mind and behavior resulting from faith. Now this reformation of which we speak is the first fruit of believing, and hence the first act of reformation which was intended in the apostolic addresses to the Jews and Gentiles, was to be immersed in the name of the Lord Jesus. "Reform and be immersed everyone of you in the name of the Lord Jesus for the remission of your sins." This, by a circumlocution, was equivalent to saying, 'Change your views of the person and character of the Messiah, and change your behavior towards him; put yourselves under his government and guidance, and obey him.' Or to the Gentiles, 'Change your views of the character of God and of his government towards you, and receive the Son as his Ambassador; and yield him the required homage by receiving his favor and honoring his institutions.' This is reformation towards God, and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. An entire change of views, of feelings, and affections towards the Messiah, and an entire change of conduct, according to his gracious requirements, in submitting to him as our Teacher, Guide, Priest, King and Saviour, is the true import of that reformation enjoined by the ancient preachers of the Ancient Gospel. This is what we mean by "reformation," and not those movements of animal passion, those sudden panics of fear, or gusts of sorrow, which, like the repentance of Judas, frequently issue in no reformation of life, but leave the unhappy subjects of them in the same state of mind, and of the same character and deportment, as before. Let our readers bear in mind that such is our usage of this term, and let them apply it in this sense in its occurrences in the New Testament, and thereby test its importance.

EDITOR.      

      SUNDRY letters have been received on the subjects of associations, conferences, laying on of hands, family worship; all either objecting to some things advanced in this work, or seeking further expositions and elucidations of arguments already offered in this work on these subjects. These letters are too numerous and too long to be inserted in any reasonable time. We have therefore concluded to prosecute our inquiries on the order and discipline of the church, and intend meeting all these objections in the course of our essays as they may naturally occur. In the mean time we proceed to some matters of greater importance in the discipline of the church, and must solicit a due degree of patience on the part of our correspondents.

      All matters of church discipline are either private injuries or public offences; sometimes designated "public and private offences," or "public and private trespasses." Private injuries, trespasses, or offences, are those which in the first instance directly affect individuals, and are known only to individuals. For a private injury or trespass, so soon as it is generally known, becomes a public offence. Now the object of the precepts in the New Testament concerning private trespasses, is to prevent their becoming public offences; and that by healing them when only felt and known by the parties;--the person injured and he that commits the trespass. The directions given by the Saviour in the eighteenth chapter of Matthew, section ix. page 48, New Translation, belong exclusively to this class of trespasses. Thus, according to this law, if A injure B, either by word or deed addressed to him alone, B, who is injured, privately tells A the injury he has received from him; and if, after expostulating with him, A confesses his fault and professes repentance, or if he explain the matter to the satisfaction of B, the affair ends, because the parties are reconciled to each other. But if neither acknowledgement, explanation, confession, nor repentance can be elicited, and B still feels himself aggrieved, he calls upon his brethren, D, E, and F, and in their presence states his grievance. They also hear what A has to offer. After having the case fairly before them, they are prepared to advise, expostulate, explain, and judge righteously. Now if A hears them, is convinced by them, and can be induced to make reparation either by word or deed for the trespass inflicted, or if they can effect a reconciliation between the parties, the matter terminates, and is divulged no farther. But if A cannot or will not hear or be persuaded by D, E, and F, but despise their interposition, expostulation, or advice, B must acquaint the congregation with the fact that A has trespassed against him. Then the congregation must inquire, not into the nature of the trespass, but whether he have taken the proper steps. He answers in the affirmative and calls upon D, E, and F, for the proof. On the testimony of D, E, and F, every word is established or confirmed. The congregation being satisfied with the standing of D, E, and F, and having heard their testimony, proceed to admonish, expostulate with, and entreat A to make reparation to his brother B. If he is then persuaded and B is reconciled to him, the matter terminates, and both are retained; but if otherwise, and A will not hear nor regard, but despise the congregation, then he is to be excluded. It does not appear that the original quarrel, misunderstanding, or trespass is to be told to the whole congregation, and they made to sit together in judgement upon it. If this were so, there was no necessity for having any thing established upon the testimony of D, E, and F. Whereas the Saviour said that, by the testimony of two or three witnesses, every thing may be ascertained or established. Nothing would be ascertained or established if A and B were permitted now to disturb the congregation by a recital of the whole matter; for in this way, it is more likely to distract and injure the peace and harmony of the congregation, than to reconcile the parties. But if A complains of injustice in the case, then the congregation must appoint two or three others to [467] bear and judge the matter; and upon their declaration to the congregation the matter terminates. But it does not appear, either from what the Lord enjoins in the passage before cited, or what Paul lays down in his first letter to the Corinthians, chapter vi. that the nature of the trespass is to be told. "When you have secular seats of judicature why do you make to sit on them those who are least esteemed in the church?" "Is there not among you a wise man, not even one who shall be able to decide between his brethren?"

      The practice of telling all private scandals, trespasses, and offences, to the whole congregation, is replete with mischief. It often alienates members of the church from each other, and brings feuds and animosities into the congregation, and it is very seldom that a promiscuous congregation of men, women, and children can decide so unanimously or so wisely upon such cases, as two or three either called upon by the parties or appointed by the congregation. This moreover appears to be the true import of all the laws upon this subject in the New Testament. On the 18th chapter of Matthew the only question which can arise of any importance, is, whether B is to tell the original trespass to the whole congregation, or whether he is to tell the fact that A has injured him, and will not reform or make reparation. I think the original and the English version authorize the latter, viz. that he is to tell the congregation that A had trespassed against him, and would not hear D, E, and F. This is the immediate antecedent to the command, "Tell the congregation." But on this I would not lay so much stress, as upon the other regulations and laws found in the volume concerning trespasses, and upon the necessary consequences arising from each method of procedure. Very often, indeed, the affair is of such a nature as ought not to be told, and could not be told in a public assembly of christians without violating some law or rule which the volume enjoins; and not unfrequently are whole congregations distracted by the injudicious, and, as we think, unscriptural practice, of telling the whole congregation a matter of which but few of them are able to form correct views. And such is the common weakness of the great majority of members of any community, that but few are able to judge profoundly in cases requiring the exercise of much deliberation.

EDITOR.      

      DEAR SIR--ON Monday last I received your letter, and was much pleased to learn that you have determined to publish a translation of the New Testament, so divested of technical terms, as to destroy the only pretext, unintelligibility which can be set up for clerical explanation. To aid you in such an all-important attempt would give me the sincerest pleasure; but I have reason to fear that my ability extends rather to the discovery than to the remedy of defects.

      Some time ago an occurrence took place, which led me to reflect more closely on the subject of scriptural intelligibility than I had formerly done. For many years I had doubted the truth of the allegation that the scriptures were "a sealed book" till the seals were undone by clerical ingenuity; and I have now no doubt of the absurdity and gross impiety of the imputation. That God should send a message to mankind, on such an important subject as their eternal happiness, in language not intelligible to the most illiterate of them, is utterly incredible, and to impute such conduct to the Deity is manifest impiety. If, then, the scriptures do contain a divine communication, it follows of course, that the words chosen by the Revealing Spirit must be the fittest to convey the ideas which he meant to communicate, that could be selected, and such as he knew to be perfectly intelligible to those to whom he addressed them, so far as he intended them to be understood. This granted, we are certainly authorized to consider the words of Scripture as they stand in the connexion formed by the Spirit as calculated to convey with perfect clearness and certainty, all the information which he designed to convey by them, and of course as insusceptible of additional clearness or certainty by any change of terms which man can devise. These remarks, however, I need not tell you apply only to the words in which the scriptures were originally written in Hebrew and Greek, for they alone are the choice of the Spirit. Of every translation the words are but the choice of man, and of course no sacrilege can be committed in the alteration of them. It is evidently then the duty of every translator to make himself as fully acquainted as possible with the two original tongues, that he may gain a distinct comprehension of the ideas which the Spirit has condescended to communicate to the human family, and then to select such words of the language into which he translates for the conveyance of the Spirit's ideas, as will place, in regard to intelligibility, the persons for whom the translation is made, on the same footing with those addressed directly by the Spirit's own words. This task performed, the words employed by the Spirit justly and clearly rendered, all, in my judgment, is done to render the scriptures intelligible to every rational creature, however illiterate, which can be done. For if the Spirit has seen fit to introduce either obscurity or ambiguity into the original, or his words correctly rendered leave either in a translation, it is not in the power of uninspired men to remove them. From their attempts all we can rationally expect, and all we have actually obtained, is a mass of dubious, conflicting, shall I say, impious conjecture in which no confidence can be reposed. But to be brief, whatever information the Spirit of God has designed, determined, and attempted, to communicate to the human family, he has employed for his purpose language perfectly intelligible to the most illiterate among them, and has actually accomplished his object. He has left no part of his communication dark or ambiguous, which he did not intend to leave in that state, as being most fit and proper in itself, and really necessary and useful to mankind. In no instance is the obscurity or ambiguity introduced into his intelligences to be ascribed to inadvertency, to negligence, to incapacity, but to design: and if designedly introduced, every attempt to remove either is not only vain, but excessively impious. My belief, however, is, that if we desire not more information, and of course attempt not to compel the words of the Spirit to give us more information than God intended to give us, we shall have little cause to complain either of obscurity or ambiguity; indeed, as to the latter, it is always used with much beauty and advantage; for in either sense of the ambiguous expression, the information it conveys will be found both true and important: and on the passages deemed by us obscure, the Spirit has no doubt conveyed clearly all the intelligence he meant to convey, or we stood in need of.

      If in the preceding remarks there be truth, it evidently follows that all attempts to explain the scriptures, to remove from them either obscurity or ambiguity by translations, commentaries, [468] or any other means, are not only absurd, but detrimental and grossly impious: every such attempt being founded on the supposition that God has by inadvertency, incapacity, or design, sent to his perishing creatures an unintelligible message for their relief, but from which, as being incomprehensible by them, they can derive no benefit. To what purpose, then, are the countless legions of explanatory sermons, lectures, expositions, commentaries, annotations explanatory, or books of any name? Are they not all chargeable with the absurdity of undertaking to render that clearer which is already as clear as words can make it; nay, of rendering the meaning of the Spirit more clear and definite than he was himself able to do? yes, to outdo the Omniscient God? or to remove what he had inserted as irremovable? It appears, then, that the office of a translator is to exhibit the meaning of the original text neither more nor less clearly, neither more nor less definitely than the words employed by the Spirit conveyed it, and in such words and phrases in his own tongue as are in the most familiar use, and of course perfectly intelligible to the most illiterate ear. To effect such a translation of the New Testament will be no doubt a very difficult work, and will require the expulsion of an endless number of terms, either exceptionable as single terms, or as combined with others, which are to be found in our common translation. The causes which affect the familiarity, and, of course intelligibility of words, are very various. Some of them I hinted at in my last letter; one, however, I presume I omitted, which has darkened numberless passages of the Book of Life--I mean technicalness, if such a word there be. When we translate, for example, diakonoV not servant the familiar, but minister the official or dignified term; presbuteroV not aged man or aged christian, as its etymology imports, but Presbyter, an animal of which we literally know nothing.

      For if such an officer did exist in the apostles' days, as we know nothing of the acts of which his office consisted, the naked name can convey no useful information to us, and therefore, without absolute necessity, ought not to appear in a translation. In like manner, when we translate episkopoV bishop, a foundling of unknown origin, a mere theological brat, of which the illiterate know nothing, instead of the familiar and well understood term overseer; with innumerable other terms, we utterly ruin the perspicuity of the sacred volume. Indeed the literal or etymological sense ought to be preferred in all cases in which metaphorical or official interpretation is not absolutely required. The literal meaning of euaggelion is good news, glad tidings, terms, most unfortunately for perspicuity, changed into gospel: agioV literally denotes, set apart, and with infinite advantage in my opinion would these two plain words occupy the place of every term by which either it or its derivatives are now translated. When we say a person is set apart, or has set himself for God's service, we immediately understand what is said to us; but when a person is styled a saint, or holy; a dictionary, a theological doctor, catechism, or sacred manual becomes necessary, before we know what sort of character is intended. Substitute delivered for justified, deliverance for justification, taken into God's family for adoption, and mark the influence of the change on perspicuity. The literal import of kaqisthmi is to appoint in any way; but translate it ordain, and make that term denote the transaction now termed ordination, and the official authority now attached to it; and you have a transaction and institution conjured up, of which the faintest trace is not to be found in the word of God. Proisthmi literally signifies to stand before, lead the van, occupy the foremost place and discharge its functions, implying, I presume, rather the authority of example, than command; in our translation, however, it is made to denote command only. Diaqhkh literally denotes disposition, arrangement, institution, terms which imply the agency of one individual or party only, and an action expressive of the will of only one person or party; yet we translate it covenant, a term which denotes a transaction of a very different character. Indeed it is impossible that a transaction such as the word covenant denotes in common use, could ever occur between God and any of his creatures, and when we attend to the transactions which did occur, as recorded either in the Old Testament or in the New, we discover none that justifies the use of that term. In all God's transactions with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, not excepting Moses, we perceive neither more nor less than declarations on the part of the Deity of certain purposes which he had determined to execute either absolutely or conditionally: and what is the transaction at Sinai itself, but a declaration of the latter kind? After declaring on that ever-memorable occasion, what he had already done for the people assembled before him, as an aggregate body descended from Abraham, he proceeds to declare himself ready to become their political sovereign, to define the conditions on which he would consent to act as such, and specify the treatment which they were to expect on his assuming that character; namely, that if obedient to his orders, many political advantages and benefits would be conferred on them; if disobedient, many political evils would be inflicted. But what in the whole of this divine communication can be discovered that in any degree partakes of the essential properties of that transaction which we term in common language a covenant. The import of the term diaqhkh, when used to denote any transaction which relates to God, appears to be much more justly translated by declaration, or institution, than by covenant. But I must stop for the present.

A. S.      

      IT will be remembered that Mr. Robert Owen, of New Harmony, did, in the month of January last, challenge the clergy of New Orleans (as he had in effect the teachers of religion every where) to debate with him the truth of the christian religion. In his public discourses, as well as in the words of that challenge, he engages to prove that "all the religions of the world have been founded on the ignorance of mankind; that they have been, and are, the real sources of vice, disunion, and misery of every description; that they are now the only bar to the formation of a society of virtue, of intelligence, of charity in its most extended sense and of sincerity and kindness among the whole human family; and that they can be no longer maintained except through the ignorance of the mass of the people, and the tyranny of the few over that mass." This challenge I have formally accepted, believing it to be my duty so to do in existing circumstances; and I stand pledged to prove, in a public discussion, that the above positions are every one untenable; that Mr. Owen cannot prove any one of them by any fair or legitimate process of reasoning whatsoever.

      There are four grand positions assumed by Mr. Owen in the above challenge:-- [469]

      "1. That all the religions of the world have been founded on the ignorance of mankind."

      "2. That they have been, and are, the real sources of vice, disunion, and misery of every description."

      "3. That they are now the only real bar to the formation of a society of virtue, intelligence, sincerity, and benevolence."

      "4. That they can be no longer maintained except through the ignorance of the mass of the people, and the tyranny of the few over the mass."

      To each of these I say, Nay; and am prepared to show that it is not in the power of any man living to prove one of them true, by any documents, facts, or just reasonings in the compass of human power or human knowledge.

      Since my acceptance of the above challenge, I had the pleasure of a visit from Mr. Owen, on his way eastward; and, after an agreeable and desultory conversation on the premises, and various matters, we have agreed to meet, all things concurring, in the city of Cincinnati, on the SECOND MONDAY OF APRIL NEXT, in some large and commodious place in that city. Mr. Owen being on his way to Britain, and not contemplating his return to the United States as practicable before the beginning of winter next, requested the delay of the discussion to so remote a period. It is hoped that the season fixed upon will prove acceptable to the public in general, as it is to be expected that facilities of steam boat navigation, and the mildness of the weather at that season will be favorable to such as will feel interested to attend.

      From the talents and acquisitions of Mr. Owen, we have no doubt but he will be as capable of defending his positions as any man living; and when we consider his superior opportunities from age, traveling, conversation, and extensive reading for many years, added to the almost entire devotion of his mind to his peculiar views during a period as long as we have lived, we should fear the result of such a discussion, were it not for the assurance we have and feel of the invincible, irrefragable, and triumphant evidences of that religion from which we derive all our high enjoyments on earth, and to which we look for every thing that disarms death of its terrors, and the grave of its victory over the human race.

A. CAMPBELL.      

[TCB 461-470]