Volume 6. Number 4. November 3, 1828, pp. 489-498.

• [Introductory Note to "Remarks on the Bible--No. I."] by Alexander Campbell, p. 489.
• Remarks on the Bible--No. I. by A. S. (Alexander Straith), pp. 489-491.
• [Letter to the Editor] by Thomas, pp. 491-492.
• The Spirit of the Year of Grace, 1828; and the Manners of Latitude 37 by W. C. T., p. 492.
  • Extract of a Letter from N. Elkhorn Church to Elkhorn Association, p. 492.
  • Extract of a Letter from Mount Pleasant Church, p. 492.
• Preface of the King's Translators (Continued) by King James' Translators, pp. 492-494.
• Essays on Man in His Primitive State, and under the Patriarchal, Jewish, and Christian Dispensations.--No. IV.: Primitive State.--No. IV. by Alexander Campbell, pp. 494-495.
• Ancient Gospel.--No. X. by Biblicus, pp. 495-497.
• To the Editor of the Christian Baptist by Barnabas, p. 497.
• To Brother Barnabas by Alexander Campbell, p. 497.
• Ancient and Modern Bishops by Johann Lorenz von Mosheim, p. 497.
• Constantine's Imperial Way of Reconciling Bishops, by [Eusebius], p. 497.
• Character Given Wickliffe by One of the Enemies of Reformation by [William Jones], pp. 497-498.

      THE following epistle needs neither apology nor explanation. It speaks for itself. In the August number we introduced the writer of it to our readers, without asking permission. We have his permission for publishing two letters now received, to the serious consideration of which, we invite our readers.

EDITOR.      

      DEAR SIR--THE intelligibility, or perfect plainness of the sacred writings, just as they have been worded by the communicating Spirit, unaltered by the stupidity or craft of men, undarkened by the impertinent interference, and impious folly of arrogant and audacious mortals; presents a question of the utmost importance to the human family--a question which needs and merits the most dispassionate and thorough investigation. It was this impressive view of the subject, which made me rather regret the appearance of my hastily written and undigested letter in your August number of the Christian Baptist. It did no justice to this important subject. It contained scarcely a hint of what might and ought to have been presented to the consideration of a deeply interested world. It was intended to exhibit but a few hints on the subject of translation. And now it is not a regular and thorough inquiry which I propose. I mean only to offer a few remarks, calculated perhaps to throw some light on the subject, and to excite you and others to favor your fellow creatures with a discussion which may deserve their attention. On this subject my own belief is--

      1. That God has graciously condescended to send into our ignorant, erroneous, and depraved world, a message, devised, worded, and digested by his unerring wisdom, for the avowed purpose of dispelling human ignorance, correcting human error, and removing human depravity; and in place of these pernicious sources of human guilt, degradation, and misery, of diffusing knowledge, truth, piety, and virtue through the human family, as the only means of rendering man truly noble, happy, and useful in this world or the next.

      2. That the perfection of God's nature forbids us to imagine that lie was not able to render his message perfectly intelligible to the most illiterate of his rational creatures: that for its communication he could not select such words and phrases as he knew to be perfectly intelligible to the most illiterate of them; such words and phrases as should neither need, nor be capable of receiving additional clearness from the ingenuity of man.

      3. That the perfection of God's nature forbids us to imagine that any obscurity or ambiguity crept into his message, through the negligence, ignorance, or inadvertency of its author,--as often happens in human compositions. If then, obscurity or ambiguity occur in the sacred pages, it must be admitted that they were introduced not only with the perfect knowledge, but with the formal intention of the inspiring Spirit, when he suggested his words and phrases to his human agents.

      4. The dignity and goodness of the divine character forbid us to imagine that God did send an unintelligible me sage to his perishing creatures. Such a message would have been not an act of divine compassion, but of unfeeling insult; not in fact a message, but a solemn [489] mockery. And can we believe that God, who knew with absolute certainty, every grade of intellect which be had ever bestowed, or would bestow, on his rational creatures; who could with as much ease frame an intelligible as an unintelligible message; who had declared that his message had been framed, and purposely sent to his miserable children for their relief; that it contained the only visible or revealed provision for their deliverance, which he had ever made or I would make; and that if understood and complied with by them, it would infallibly effect their deliverance from all evil, and invest them immutably with all possible happiness and glory; can we, I say, believe that, notwithstanding all this knowledge, capacity, and express declaration, God did send, under the pretext of friendship, compassion, and tenderness, a message which was, in reality, only galling insult, and cruel disappointment? Credat qui potest--Let him believe who can.

      5. The goodness of God is to us a certain assurance and pledge that he has neither introduced, nor suffered his inspired agents to introduce, into his message any obscurity or ambiguity, which was not necessary to limit with precision that quantity of information which he purposed to convey, and which was not actually requisite to promote the happiness of his creature man.--Knowing with absolute certainty the quantity and kind of information which our relief and comfort demanded, he selected and employed such words and phrases as were in his judgment fit and proper to convey in the clearest manner that quantity, and not one particle more. Hence it is, that concerning objects and events, susceptible in themselves of information greatly more extended, scripture gives us only a few hints, and that words and phrases do frequently occur, which convey to us clearly only a small portion of information, but which, under divine management, or by the use of other words or phrases in their stead, would have conveyed to us clearly a great deal more, perhaps all that even human curiosity would presume to ask.

      God's nature then, alone, affords unquestionable assurance that he never sent to man an unintelligible message, nor one that required any other words than his own to render it plain: there are, however, other sources of evidence which it may be not improper to suggest:--

      1. The character and condition of man, to whom God's message is addressed, require that, just as it is contained in sacred writ in the words of the communicating Spirit, unaltered by the impudence of human folly, it be perfectly intelligible, altogether fit to convey in the clearest manner possible, as much of his mind as he intended to reveal to man in this world. Man is by his constitution intelligent, and dependant on his knowledge of the objects revealed to him in sacred writ for the felicity of his mental part in' time and through eternity. But though by nature intelligent and dependant on revelation for his mental happiness, yet man comes into this world, destitute, entirely destitute of the ideas communicated to him in the sacred pages, nor can he even by the most vigorous employment of his five senses, the only organs of information with which his Creator has deemed it proper to endow him, acquire them. And to this original poverty and incapacity we must add the awful and mortifying fact, that the human mind is every where on the subject of religion, over-run with error, laid prostrate and enchained by the most obstinate and pernicious prejudices and delusions, as well as enslaved by the most depraved inclinations, desires and practices. And to all this we must also add, that if the words of the message leave any where the Spirits meaning obscure or ambiguous, by no human sagacity, ingenuity, or learning, can the obscurity or ambiguity be taken away. Mere conjecture about the Spirit's meaning, without the least certainty, is all that man can offer in this case.--Now, can any pious or reflecting man believe that an infinitely wise and compassionate God, the creator, owner and protector of his unhappy creatures, laboring under such intellectual and moral degeneracy as man incontestibly does, could transmit for his liberation and recovery a message that was not perfectly intelligible to every one of them on all points that necessarily concerned their recovery? I presume not.

      2. The object to be accomplished by the message demands its perfect intelligibility. Man's spiritual recovery, which is the object of the message, requires, that on the subject of religion his ignorance be dispelled, his errors be corrected, his prejudices and delusions be chased away, that his conceptions of God, of spiritual and moral objects, be rectified; that, by the presence and influence of these rectified conceptions in his mind, his desires, affections and delights, be elevated to, and fixed on, proper objects, and his actions and pursuits of course be directed to their attainment; or in more popular style, that the seeds of piety and virtue be not only implanted, but nourished and brought to maturity in the human soul. Now can any human folly, inconceivably great as it is, imagine that such a stupendous change in the conceptions of the human mind, in the desires and affections of the heart, in the inclinations and propensities of the soul, in the pursuits and labors of the man, be effected by a string of words, of whose meaning the reformed has no distinct comprehension?--Surely not.

      3. The account which God's message gives of itself in almost every page, establishes its claim to perfect intelligibility, beyond a doubt. It tells us that it makes the simple wise, enlightens the eyes, quickens the soul, directs the path, is a lamp to the feet, alight on the way, gives understanding to the simple; presents words that can save the soul, make wise to salvation, is a light shining in a dark world. Christ is styled a light to the Gentiles, the light of the world, &c. &c. Could these things be true, if the message destined to effect them was unintelligible to any of God's rational creatures? We think no man will say so.

      4. God commands not a few, but every human creature, arrived at sufficient maturity, and in his right mind, to consult, to search, to study, to meditate the scriptures, because in them alone is that testimony concerning the Redeemer to be found that brings sinners to eternal life, and to hear what the Spirit says to the churches. But surely if the scriptures which we are commanded to consult, to search and meditate, and the declarations of the Spirit we are commanded to hear, be exhibited in words and phrases, that are unintelligible to us, God has commanded an impossible act, and threatened us with everlasting ruin, if we do not perform it. Is any prepared to defend this imputation?

      5. Had the Spirit's message, just as it is presented in his own words, been considered by him as not intelligible, perfectly intelligible to all concerned, he would most certainly have qualified, appointed, and accredited in all ages expositors for the express purpose of rendering it intelligible: we do not find, however, that such agents were ever thought of. Neither in Egypt [490] nor in the wilderness did Moses ever employ an agent to explain any of his numerous addresses to the Israelites; nor did any of the subsequent rulers, priests, or prophets, employ such a character to explain any of their addresses to the same people afterwards. Certain it is that Christ employed no such character to explain any of his innumerable discourses, nor did his apostles after him. When Matthew, Mark, Luke and John published their memoirs, or proofs that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah; when the author of the Acts published his account of the manner and means by which the new or christian institution was introduced among Jews and Gentiles; when Paul, James, Peter, John, and Jude wrote their letters to the christian congregations, it is not so much as insinuated that such an agent was ever employed by any of them. They evidently acted as persons who were confident that every word which they had written or spoken was perfectly intelligible to all converted. With their several publications, addresses, or letters, they sent no expositors; nor among those to whom they were directed, did they nominate or appoint any. In short, scripture knows nothing of such an office, or of such an officer: nor in it is any human being commanded or authorized to attempt such a work, or offer such an insult to the all-wise God. With commands to proclaim or publish the Spirit's message, or good news, called the gospel, and to teach, instruct and exhort persons concerned by that proclamation to the christian faith, we meet in almost every page; but to proclaim or publish, to teach, instruct, or exhort, are acts very different from explaining, and need a very different qualification. To be able to read well, or to remember and pronounce distinctly what has been heard, is all the qualification, as to learning, which a preacher, proclaimer, or publisher, a teacher, instructor, or exhorter needs; but to explain, requires a knowledge of the subject not inferior to the, original author. The residue will be found in the next letter.

A. S.      

SEPTEMBER 27TH, 1828.      

      DEAR BROTHER CAMPBELL:--I HAVE read your letters addressed to Bishop Semple, with close attention, and find you have treated him with great respect. If I be not mistaken Bishop Semple complained in his letter to you of December, 1825, of the want of a New Testament spirit in the Christian Baptist. I am sorry to say that many of your readers think Bishop Semple has not shown that spirit towards you, or those who differed with him. When I read an extract from a letter of his, in the Recorder of June, 1827, my spirit was cast down, for I looked up to him as a father in the gospel. The course he had taken to give vent to his views, I did not approve; and the language he used, I was certain would injure his standing. "It is one thing to reform popery, and another to reform the reformation." I saw he left a door open for an attack from the Lutherans and Calvinists, for Bishop Semple will not admit that he is a Lutheran or Calvinist, or that the sect to which he belongs is the same with those reformers. His letters to Doctor Noel of the 3d and 26th of September, 1827, I was sorry to see, knowing the consequences that would follow, among those mighty regulars, or would-be popes, had they the power. In one of his letters he charges you with "sowing the seeds of discord among brethren, and that there is much less ground for fellowship with your principles, than with Presbyterians, Methodists, or even evangelical Episcopalians." In your fifth letter, you in a masterly and christian-like manner, refute this charge. 'You promise if he will explain to you the nature, extent and malignity of the mischief you have done, you will arise and make an effort to undo it.' Will Bishop Semple say as much? will he arise and undo all the mischief he has done by publishing these letters, and making use of sundry speeches? such as if the Baptist denomination were to adopt the sentiments of Paulinus and yourself, respecting the Old Testament, he would withdraw from the society, or words to that amount, and that he held no fellowship with your sentiments. Before the publication of these letters we were at peace among ourselves. What has followed? Resolutions of disapprobation from those churches which knew very little of your sentiments, against some of your readers, for expressing their views of the gospel and defending your principles from these fireside traducers. What has followed these resolutions? Discord and disunion amongst brethren. Who produced this disunion? not those who were willing that their brethren should enjoy their sentiments until they were better instructed, but these friends of Bishop S. who were unwilling that the friends of the ancient order of things should enjoy the rights of conscience without letters of proscription. Is this his New Testament spirit? When I read his letter of the 26th September, and your truly dignified appeal to him, to set you right, "inviting him to show you where you have erred, and if you could not present reason, scripture and good sense to support you, you would yield to his superior discernment, age and experience." I then expected to see his New Testament spirit. But it seems we must wait for the physical operations of that spirit, before he will show you "are palpably on the wrong side, although it would be no hard task to make it manifest." Did Bishop S. say these things with a belief they would pass as oracular, or with an intention to make them appear to every inquirer after truth? If I am to judge from his silence, you are mistaken in your opinion of "his not wishing to live in a community which had no more mind than to cease its inquiries, when he said desist." Should I be mistaken in Bishop S. I ask why he has not come forward agreeably to the request of Querens and make good his assertion? Why does he, as a shepherd, suffer you, (as many would make us believe a wolf in sheep's clothing) to destroy the sheep and the lambs? He may talk about his unwillingness to enter into controversy. If he was not prepared and willing to support his assertions, he ought to have kept silence, and not to have set all the bigots and diotrephan spirits, at war with the sheep and lambs. He knew there were many ready to seize upon any pretext to harass those who were hungering and thirsting for the bread and water of life. They had lived upon horns and bones and alcohol until their countenances and conversation indicated a perishing condition. The picture you have drawn of the state of the churches is undeniable. Thousands there, are who never attempted to learn the contents of the book of God, and would rather go twenty miles to hear a man preach all the meanderings of his dark and foolish mind, than learn, at his own door, those sacred and divine lessons which are able to make him wise to salvation. This way of preaching themselves is the cause of the ignorance amongst us: to teach them the contents of the book of God, is considered an innovation in the church, and unprofitable to their souls. The teachers know how to keep the hold they have upon the consciences of the people, and the [491] people are flattered in their ignorance, that all is well, all is right with them; that none but those who are called and sent can understand the mysteries of the gospel, and all they have to do, is to listen to their teachers, and if their experience agree with the preacher's, they may rest assured they are the children of God. Thus ignorance and idleness are encouraged in the church.

      I have read somewhere in the Christian Baptist, that Doctors of Divinity make deists--how this could be, I could not tell, until I heard of the arguments of one, when he was reasoned with on the evidences of the christian religion, in a manner which was unanswerable; he replied, that although the arguments were unanswerable, yet it was no proof of its being true; and to support him in this assertion, referred to your writings--that to your unprejudiced readers, your reasonings upon the ancient order of things were unanswerable, yet the Baptist Recorder and the Columbian Star, with those great Doctors of Divinity, considered you in error--therefore it was possible for a man to make error appear so plausible, that the human faculties cannot produce a clear and effectual refutation. If this be true, then error has the victory over truth, and deists have now such advocates as they desire. Is this the New Testament spirit? Among the number of teachers with us, there are a few who are advocates for a reformation. It appears they want courage to meet those regulars with their popish bulls, seasoned with what they call christian affection. To forsake the popular system is too great a cross, it would be attended with the loss of character, to the estimation of the populars. It would be as difficult a matter to get justice done them as to get their opponents to live upon the book of God, which is a thing impossible, so long as the present order of things continues.

THOMAS.      

FAYETTE COUNTY, KY. September 8, 1828.      

      DEAR BROTHER CAMPBELL,:--Judging from the specimens I have seen of the letters you receive, I dare say you have by this time become sufficiently accustomed to such as the following, to be able to read them without much wincing. Being myself sent as a messenger to the Elkhorn association which met on the second Saturday in last month, my attention was particularly caught by two of the letters read on this occasion, and being somewhat of a curious turn of mind, I felt a disposition to procure an extract from each, and accordingly obtained a loan of the aforesaid letters from the clerk, and as 1 sat on my seat at intervals extracted as follows:

      "N. B. In as mutch as this association in committee at Town Fork, and in committee of the whole at Paris, agreed to a correspondence with the Licking brethren, and agreed to maintain the doctrine of grace as contained in the Bible, and set forth in the Philadelphia confession of faith, as the minutes of the association show, should not this association protest against Arminianism and Cammelism and his new book as Cammel is against creeds and confessions, how can his sentiments be tolerated amongst us, and we be true to the above cited obligation."

      "Your object will be to consult the well being of society, to guard against heresy, and to study the dignity of the Baptist cause, by holding sacred the doctrine of sovereign grace as revealed in the scriptures of the old and new Testament, and set forth in the Philadelphia confession, and as much as possible to hold original ground, and to guard against those churches that are throwing their creeds and confessions of faith, (as they cantingly call them) away. We as a church hold a particular atonement, and a special application of the same by the Holy Ghost to regeneration--we as a church profess not to understand what is meant by immersing into the name of the trinity, instead of baptizing by the authority or in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. The latter is our belief and no other. We hope the Lord will enable you promptly to oppose every false way.

      This last church is under the pastoral care of Edmund Waller, of conflagration memory; which is enough to account for such a nondescript production. During preaching, on Sunday, from the weeping in the congregation it was manifest there were many persons present of a broken and contrite heart; and old brother Vardeman came down off the stage, and invited such as felt disposed to come up to be prayed for. Many of the preachers also came down and co-operated; but Edmund Waller, although in the midst of the people of his charge, retired to the most remote part of the stage, and sneered at what was going on, with as much contempt and apparent malignity as Satan need have done had he been there in person. I could but ask myself while contemplating the scenes before me, "how dwelleth the love of God in such a man?" It is said that the Turks hate all those who are not mussulmen; more especially those that they are pleased to call "Christian dogs;" and so it seems there are those called Christians, who feel themselves at liberty to hate all such as they are pleased to call heretics In the estimation of many among us, you are considered the arch-heretic, and did you live in other lands and other times, woe would be to you. I do rejoice, my brother, that the taper you have lighted up is not to be extinguished, or even obscured by the puny efforts of such. You have done much already in ridding the minds of many of those fetters which priestcraft and other crafts had fastened upon them--and so far as I understand your object, I do most heartily wish you God speed. Forgive my trespassing--I have a wish to send you the extracts, and having begun, I could not well stop short of what I have said. May the Lord in his great mercy grant that you may live to see your labors crowned with success, is the sincere prayer of your brother in gospel bonds.

W. C. T.      

      BUT now what pietie without truth? what truth (what saving truth) without the word of God? what word of God (whereof we may be sure) without the scripture? The scriptures we are commanded to search, John 5.39. Isa. 8.20.--They are commended that searched and studied them, Acts 17. 11. and 8. 28. 29. They are reproved that are unskilfull in them, or slow to beleeve them, Matth. 22. 29. Luke 24. 25. They can make us wise unto salvation, 2. Tim. 3. 15. If we be ignorant, they will instruct us: if out of the way they will bring us home; if out of order, they will reform us: if in heaviness, comfort us; if dull, quicken us; if cold, enflame us. Tolle, lege; Tolle lege, Take up and reade, take up and reade the Scriptures, (for unto them was the direction) it was said unto S. Augustine by [492] a supernaturall voice. Whatsoever is in the Scriptures, beleeve me, saith the same S. Augustine, is high and divine; there is verily truth, and a doctrine most fit for the refreshing and renewing of mens mindes, and truly so tempered, that every one may draw from thence that which is sufficient for him, if he come to draw with a devout and pious minde, as true religion requireth. Thus S. Augustine, and S. Hierome Ama Scripturas et amabit to sapientia, &c. Love the Scriptures, and wisdom will love thee. And S. Cyrill against Julian, Even boyes that are bred up in the Scriptures, become most religious, &c. But what mention we three or foure uses of the Scripture, whereas whatsoever is to be beleeved or practised, or hoped for, is contained in them? or three or foure sentences of the Fathers, since whosoever is worthy the name of a Father, from Christs time downward, hath likewise written not onely of the riches, but also of the perfection of the Scripture? I adore the fulnesse of the Scripture, saith Tertullian against Hermogenes. And again, to Apelles an heretick of the like stamp, he saith, I do not admit that which thou bringest in (or concludest) of thine own (head or store, de tuo) without Scripture. So S. Justin Martyr before him, We must know by all means (saith he) that it is not lawful (or possible) to learn (any thing) of God or of right pietie, save only out of the Prophets who teach us by divine inspiration. So S. Basil, after Tertullian, It is a manifest falling away from the faith, and a fault of presumption, either to reject any of those things that are written, or to bring in (upon the head of them, emeircgein) any of these things that are not written. We omit to cite to the same effect, S. Cyrill Bishop of Jerusalem in his 4 Catechis, S. Hierome against Helvidius, S. Augustine in his third book against the letters of Petilian, and in very many other places of his works. Also we forbear to descend to later Fathers, because we will not wearie the Reader. The Scriptures then being acknowledged to be so full and so perfect, how can we excuse ourselves of negligence, if we do not studie them? of curiositie, if we be not content with them? Men talk much of eiresiwnh how many sweet and goodly things are had hanging on it; of the Philosophers stone, that it turneth copper into gold; of Cornu-copia, that it had all things necessarie for food in it; of Panaces the herb, that it was good for all diseases; of Catholicon the drug, that it is instead of all purges; of Vulcans armour, that it was an armour of proof against all thrusts, and all blows, &c. Well, that which they fastly or vainly attributed to these things for bodily good, we may justly and with full measure ascribe unto the Scripture for spirituall. It is not onely an armour, but also a whole armourie of weapons, both offensive and defensive; whereby we may save our selves, and put the enemie to flight. It is not an herb, but a tree, or rather a whole paradise of trees of life, which bring forth fruit every month, and the fruit thereof is for meat, and the leaves for medicine. It is not a pot of Manna, or a cruse of oyl, which were for memory onely, or for a meals meat or two: but as it were, a showre of heavenly bread, sufficient for a whole host, be it never so great, and, as it were a whole cellar full of oyl vessels; whereby all our necessities may be provided for, and our debts discharged. In a word, it is a panary of wholesome feed, against fenowed traditions; a physicians shop (S. Basil calleth it) of preservatives against poysoned heresies; a product of profitable laws, against rebellious spirits, a treasury of most costly fuels, against beggarly rudiments; finally, a fountain of most pure water, springing up unto everlasting life. And what marvell? The original thereof, being from heaven, not from earth; the author being God not man; the editer, the holy spirit, not the wit of the Apostles or prophets; the pen-men such as were sanctified from the wombe, and endued with a principall portion of Gods spirit; the matter verity, pietie, puritie, uprightness; the form, Gods word, Gods testimonie, Gods oracles, the word of truth, the word of salvation, &c. the effects, light of understanding, stablenesse of perswasion, repentance from dead works, newnesse of life, holiness, peace, joy in the holy Ghost; lastly, the end and reward of the studie thereof, fellowship with the saints, participation of the heavenly nature, fruition of an inheritance immortall, undefiled, and that never shall fade away: Happy is the man that delighteth in the Scripture, and thrice happy that meditateth in it day and night.

      But how shall men meditate in that which they cannot understand? How shall they understand that which is kept close in an unknown tongue? as it is written Except I know the power of the voice, I shall be to him that speaketh a Barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a Barbarian to me. The Apostle excepteth no tongue, not Hebrew the ancientest; not Greek the most copious, not Latine the finest. Nature taught a naturall man to confesse, That all of us, in those tongues which we do not understand, are plainly deaf; we may turn the deaf eare unto them. The Scythian counted the Athenian, whom he did not understand, barbarous: so the Romane did the Syrian, and the Jew (even S. Hierome himself calleth the Hebrew tongue barbarous, belike because it was strange to so many,) so the Emperour of Constantinople called the Latine tongue barbarous, though Pope Nicolas do storm at it: so the Jews long before Christ, called all other nations Lognasim, which is little better then barbarous. Therefore as one complaineth that always in the Senate of Rome, there was one or other that called for an interpreter: so lest the Church be driven to the like exigent, it is necessary to have translations in a readinesse.--Translation it is that openeth the window, to let in the light; that breaketh the shell, that we may eat the kernell: that puteth aside the curtain, that we may look into the most holy place; that removeth the cover of the well, that we may come by the water, even as Jacob rolled away the stone from the mouth of the well, by which means the flocks of Laban were watered. Indeed without translation into the vulgar tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacobs well, (which was deep) without a bucket or something to draw with: or as that person mentioned by Esay, to whom when a sealed book was delivered, with this notion, Reade this I pray thee, he was fain to make this answer, cannot, for it is sealed.

      While God would be known only in Jacob, and have his name great in Israel, and in none other place; while the dew lay on Gideons fleece only, and all the earth besides was drie; then for one and the same people, which shake off them the language of Canaan that is Hebrew, one and the same originall in Hebrew was sufficient, but when the fulnesse of time drew neare, that the Sunne of righteousnesse, the Sonne of God should come into the world, whom God ordained to be a reconciliation through faith in his bloud, not of the Jew onely, but also of the Greek, yea, of all them that were scattered abroad, then lo, it pleased the Lord to stirre up the spirit of a Greek Prince (Greek for descent and language) [493] even of Ptolomee Philadelph king of Egypt, to procure the translating of the book of God out of Hebrew into Greek. This is the translation of the Seventy interpreters, commonly so called, which prepared the way for our Saviour among the Gentiles by written preaching, as S. John Baptist did among the Jews by vocall. For the Grecians being desirous of learning, were not wont to suffer books of worth to lie moulding in kings libraries, but had many of his servants, ready scribes to copy them out, and so they were dispersed and made common. Again, the Greek tongue was well known, and made familiar to most inhabitants in Asia, by reason of the conquests that there the Grecians had made, as also by the colonies, which thither they had sent. For the same causes also it was well understood in many places of Europe, yea, and of Africk too. Therefore the word of God being set forth in Greek, becometh hereby like a candle set upon a candlestick, which giveth light to all that are in the house, or like a proclamation sounded forth in the market-place, which most men presently take knowledge of; and therefore that language was fittest to retain the Scriptures, both for the preachers of the Gospel to appeal unto for witnesse, and for the learners also of those times to make search for triall by. It is certain, that that translation was not so sound and so perfect, but that it needed in many places correction; and who had been so sufficient for this work as the Apostles or Apostolike men? Yet it seemed good to the holy Ghost and to them, to take that which they found, (the same being for the greatest part true and sufficient) rather then by making a new, in that new world and green age of the Church, to expose themselves to many exceptions, and cavillations, as though they made a translation to serve their own turn; and therefore bear witnesse themselves, their witness not to be regarded. This may be supposed to be some cause, why the translation of the Seventy was allowed to pass for currant. Notwithstanding, though it was commended generally, yet it did not fully content the learned, no not of the Jews. For not long after Christ, Aquila fell in hand with a new translation, and after him a Theodotion, and after him Symmachus, yea, there was a fifth, and a sixth edition, the authors whereof were not known. These with the Seventie made up the Hexapla, and were worthily and to great purpose compiled together by Origen. Howbeit the edition of the Seventie went away with the credit, and therefore not onely was placed in the midst by Origen (for the worth and excellency thereof above the rest, as Epiphanius gathereth) but also was used by the Greek Fathers for the ground and foundation of their commentaries. Yea, Epiphanius above mentioned, doth attribute so much unto it, that he holdeth the authors thereof, not onely for interpreters, but also for Prophets in some respect; and Justinian the Emperour enjoyning the Jews his subjects to use especially the translation of the Seventie, rendereth this reason thereof, because they were, as it were enlightened with propheticall grace. Yet, for all that, as the Egyptians are said of the prophet to be men and not God, and their horses flesh and not spirit so it is evident, (and S. Hierome affirmeth as much) that the Seventie were interpreters, they were not Prophets; they did many things well, as learned men, but yet as men they stumbled and fell, one while through oversight, another while through ignorance; yea, sometimes they may be noted to adde to the originall, and sometimes to take from it; which made the Apostles to leave them many times, when they left the Hebrew, and to deliver the sense thereof according to the truth of the word, as the Spirit gave them utterance. This may suffice touching the Greek translations of the Old Testament.

      There were also written a few hundred years after Christ, translations many into the Latine tongue; for this tongue also was very fit to convey the law and the gospel by, because in those times very many countreys of the West, yea of the South, East, and North, spoke or understood Latine being made provinces to the Romanes. But now the Latine translations were too many to be all good: for they were infinite (Latini interpretes nullo modo numerari, possunt, saith S. Augustine.) Again, they were not out of the Hebrew fountain (we speak of the Latine translations of the Old Testament) but out of the Greek stream; therefore the Greek being not altogether clear, the Latine derived from it must needs be muddy. This moved S. Hierome, a most learned Father, and the best linguist without controversie, of his age, or of any that went before him, to undertake the translating of the Old Testament out of the very fountains themselves; which he performed with that evidence of great learning, judgment, industry, and faithfulnesse that he hath for ever bound the Church unto him in a debt of special remembrance and thankfulnesse.

      ADAM, after his exile from Eden, begot a son in his own image, and after his own likeness. Naked, defenceless, and imbecile, the infant man commences his mortal career. The circumstances under which he makes his appearance upon the stage are incomparably more unpropitious than those amidst which his original progenitors made their entrance. Reason in its zenith, enthroned in the unpolluted temple of a sentient body, controlled all the actions of the animal nature of the illustrious progenitors. But the infant man feels the rod before he sees it. His delicate and unprotected body smarts beneath the very elements upon which he must live, and with which he must wage an interminable war while his heart is able to react. Upon the first invasion of the elastic fluid, his lungs heave, and with sighs and tears, the little sufferer begins his pilgrimage to the tomb. He feels before he reasons. He cries before he smiles. His first idea of ease, improperly denominated pleasure, is drawn from animal gratification. Thus his appetites and passions are first called into action by an unavoidable necessity. He remains, for months and years, almost a mere animal in all his impressions, feelings, desires, pains, and pleasures. The mind, by a wise accommodation to its companion, is not permitted to put forth its energies; the body is yet deficient in physical strength to sustain its activities. This law of our nature gives a fearful odds to all animal propensities in the future struggles between reason and passion. Hence the old complain of the sallies of youthful appetites, while the young lament the rigorous restraints of maturer years.

      Were there no other difference between Adam in Eden and any of his natural descendants, than what arises out of his disparity in the commencement of life; this alone would constitute an immense dissimilarity between him and any [494] of his posterity. Adam, when he first opened his eyes, was in the zenith of his mental faculties; but twenty-one years of our time must pass in the turmoil of passion, appetite and reason before we can safely trust a human being to the keeping of his own reason.

      As sensation first, and reflection afterwards, give man all his simple ideas or first views of things; so the symbols or types of all his ideas are the material objects around him. By comparing these objects with one another, by abstracting, classifying and compounding their qualities or properties he forms all the complex ideas of which he is possessed. So that all his simple ideas are the images of things which do exist, and he has not a single idea, the archetype or pattern of which is not to be met with, in the materials around him. His imagination may create a great many new forms, but the materials out of which it creates these new forms were originally presented him in the great magazine of nature. He may now fancy a tree, the roots of which are iron, the trunk and branches of which are brass, the leaves of which are silver, and the fruit of which is gold. But had he not obtained by sensation or observation the idea of a natural tree, he never could have imagined this unnatural one.

      The inlets of all human knowledge are the five senses. Reflection upon the ideas thus acquired gives birth to new ones, akin, however, to those received by sensation. Imagination may now combine these ideas without any restraint but its own power. It may associate those ideas with, or without regard, to natural fitness, congruity, or consistency. It may create a Polyphemus or a Centaur; but it cannot create an idea perfectly new. As human skill and human power may new modify, but cannot create a particle of matter; so the imagination may vary or new modify the ideas acquired by sensation, but cannot create a new one. And here ends the chapter of all human science.

      Revelation opens a new world, a new order of relations, and gives birth to new ideas, which, as the great apostle to the nations says, "The eye of man never saw, the ear of man never heard, nor the heart of man ever conceived." But this commences a new chapter in human knowledge. The first chapter contains all natural knowledge. The second, all supernatural. These things premised, we proceed to the consideration of the patriarchal age of the world.

      However numerous the ages may be imagined, or however diversified in their character, yet as respects man's religious relations, they are scripturally distinguished into three. And these maybe fitly styled the Patriarchal, the Jewish and the Christian. The Patriarchal continued from Adam to Moses; the Jewish, from Moses to the Messias; and the Christian from the Messias till now, and is never to be superseded by another. Religion is one and the same thing in all ages of the world as respects its distinguishing character and design. And a good man has been essentially the same sort of a being in all ages, and under all the instituted acts of religion which have ever been preached by divine authority. Faith, or confidence in God according to the developement of his character, has always been the basis and controling principle of all religious homage. A good man has ever been the man who paid a just regard to all the relations in which he stood to God and man. The principles of all true piety and humanity are as invariable as God himself. But the developement of the divine character, and of all our relations to God and each other, has been progressive, and not consummated at once. Like the path of the just that shines more and more to the perfect day, has been the development of the character of God and the extent of human relations and obligations. Thus the patriarchal age was the star-light of the moral world; the Jewish age was the moonlight; the ministry of the harbinger the twilight; and the Christian age the sun-light of the moral world. If any object to this gradual and progressive exhibition of spiritual light: and impertinently ask why these things should so be; let him ask the heavens and the earth, why at one time the stars only are visible--at another the moon--and at another the sun. Let him ask the earth why there is first the tender germ; next the vigorous shoot; next the opening blossom; and by and by the mature fruit. Let him ask why God did not give us the milk and the honey as he gives the dew and the rain, or the baked loaves as he sends the hail and the snow. Let him ask rather why he has shown any kindness to a race of beings so ungrateful in their nature, and so desirous to exclude him from the honor of creating or of governing the universe of which we are a part. Of one thing we are certain, that the distribution of the globe into oceans and continents, into islands and lakes, into different latitudes and climates, into hills and vallies, mountains and plains; the year into seasons, and the moral world into ages or different economies, is all of the same character, founded upon the principles requisite to giving birth and perpetuity to the best possible system, both natural and moral; and of this we are equally certain, both when we can discover what we would call good and relevant reasons, and when we cannot.

      The patriarchal age is distinguished by those institutions adapted to mankind in the infancy of the world. The religious institutions of this period found on record, are in exact conformity to the condition of society in its incipient stages, and confirm the pretensions of the volume which details them, to the antiquity and authenticity which it claims.

      The Bible method of teaching is peculiarly its own. It does not begin nor proceed upon the principle of asserting any speculative truth to be believed, but communicates all its instruction either in relating facts or in explaining them. Creed-makers all begin with asserting the Being and perfections of God. Moses commences by telling us that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." From what he has done, he leaves us to learn his character, and not from words or propositions concerning him.

      The object we have in view with a reference to our condition and circumstances in descanting upon this and the succeeding age, requires us to ascertain two things, viz.--the actual amount of revelation enjoyed in this age, and the particular moral and religious institutions which belonged to it. This we can learn only from the narrative found in the book of Genesis; from the facts recorded in connexion with the memoirs of the illustrious personages which flourished in this age, amongst whom, the most considerable are Abel, Enoch, Noah, Shem, Abraham, Melchizedec, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and a few females connected with them. But this we must defer to a more convenient season.

EDITOR.      

      MY father was a Scotch Presbyterian, and my mother was a regular Baptist--I was religiously [495] brought up, and being taught the system of doctrine laid down in the confession of faith, I became a speculative Calvinist. My mother's views of baptism appeared the most scriptural, and although I always helped my father, when he and mother, of a winter evening, had their good natured fire side debates, yet still I gradually leaned more and more to my mother's side in my real sentiments. I finally became as firmly convinced of baptism as of Calvinism; and was a speculative calvinistic baptist, of the supralapsarian school. But as yet I had no real devotion, nor practical views of the Gospel. I went to meeting, sat as a judge upon every preacher who came amongst us, and when sermon was over, I had a little crowd around me listening to my criticisms and censures. I was very severe, and valued myself no little upon my quick discernment in all the doctrines of the day. So acute was my religious scent, that I could almost tell a man's whole system before he had spoken half a dozen of sentences. During these days of my vain and foolish behavior, a very practical calvinistic preacher came to our congregation, and so engagedly addressed us on justification by faith, in the imputed righteousness of Christ, that I saw a fitness and beauty in this scheme which wonderfully charmed me; I became quite religious, prayed twice each day in secret, and attended meeting with views and designs quite different from those which formerly actuated me--I had heard much upon faith, and was very precise in my definitions and disquisitions upon true and saving faith. I at length fancied I had obtained it, and had serious thoughts of joining the church. Baptism came up to my consideration again, and I concluded I ought to be baptized, for I perceived it to be a very plain duty: and a very commendable way of making a profession. I had fixed the day for making my profession, and had given in my experience to a baptist church. I was approved by the whole congregation, but the intended administrator taking sick, it was put off for another month. In the mean time a Mr. J. S. came round, who was accused of not being very orthodox, for he preached a gospel which some of his friends called the ancient gospel; and his enemies the water gospel. I went to hear him without any other object than to gratify my curiosity, and to be able to oppose this new heresy. But to my utter astonishment, in one hour and twenty minutes, I was as completely and entirely converted to this ancient gospel, or as some of the wits who cared for no gospel, called it, the water gospel. My whole views of God's character, philanthropy, and scheme of salvation were as radically changed as if I had heard nothing worthy of the name of gospel ever before. And strange as it may appear, I was immersed for the remission of my sins before I left the ground. I now saw for the first time in my life, that sinners were called to act upon the divine testimony alone--that they were not to wait for any change for the better to be discovered in themselves, nor any secret drawings, remarkable or sensible impressions, before they obeyed the commandment "to be baptized for the remission of sins?' This command I saw to be binding upon all who feel any interest in the question "what shall I do to obtain pardon and peace with God?" The blood of Jesus I well knew, was the only sacrifice for sin, and was the only thing in the universe which could take away sin from the conscience, and present us without fault to God: but I now found that by this gracious institution we came to the blood of Jesus, in God's own appointed way, and thus washed our robes and made them white, not red, in the blood of the Lamb. But my mind as the needle touched with the loadstone, always terminated upon the divine testimony and veracity, and the command, "to day if you will obey his voice, harden not your hearts," compelled me to take God upon his own word. I went to the river edge believing the promise of God, and that he could do this thing, even wash away my sins in the very act of immersion. Down into the water I went, and was immersed into the name of the Lord Jesus for the remission of my sins--and you may rest assured, for it is a fact, that I declare to you, I felt myself as fully relieved from the burthen of my former transgressions, as ever did a man to whom the Lord said, your sins are forgiven you: go and sin no more.--I had read about peace and joy before. I had thought I once understood these terms, and felt something worthy of the name; but I can assure you that all I ever knew of the import of these words before, was as unlike to my present feelings, as a marble statue is to a living man. Most assuredly, said I, and felt I, God is as good as his word, and I have found his promise yes and amen in Christ Jesus my Lord. But in all probability I would not have derived so much happiness from being buried with Christ by immersion into his name, had I not previously understood from the many declarations found in the sacred testimonies, that God's philanthropy embraced all those who were pleased to come to him in the appointed way, and had I not also been assured of two things; first, that the scriptures mean just what they say, and secondly, that they say, Be immersed for the remission of your sins--I went down to the very water just for this very purpose, in the honesty and simplicity of my heart, believing that it would be as God said, and according to my faith so has it been to me. And one thing more I well tell you, that "whereas I was blind now I see."

      With regard to the Holy Spirit, which is also promised, I will tell you what I have since that time experienced--and you will please inform me whether you think I have received that promise. While I thought about religion before, and determined to act some day, I felt a considerable attachment to the distinctions found in society, growing out of wealth and popularity. I was strongly disposed to have as good a share of these as I could honestly obtain. I felt moreover a good deal of that sort of spirit which presumes upon the electing love of God, and so soon as I began to think I was a Christian, I saw in my secret devotions, as well as in my public exercises, a good degree of likeness to him who said, "I thank you, O Lord! that I am not like other men--I fast and pray, &c."--But now I am content with my lot, thank the Lord for what I have, and pray to him that I may be a good steward of what he has committed to me already: I feel the earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof; and therefore, I hold every thing as a tenant at will of his landlord. I find it is more blessed to give than to receive--I know none of those little sectarian feelings which I once felt--I rejoice in the Lord, and in his people, and feel that every thing that affects his honor and glory, affects mine. I feel the same sort of interest in my Saviour's Kingdom, I used to feel in my father's character and estate--whatever added to either, I thought added to my fortune and fame: and now I feel that whatever advances the interest and reputation of the kingdom of my sovereign, adds to my individual gain [496] and honor--I feel myself his, and him mine; and I would rather be the meanest soldier in his army, than the greatest potentate on earth--I do rejoice exceedingly in him all the day, and when I walk in the fields, or sit by the fire, my heart wanders after him; when travelling along the way, I sometimes speak out to him as if I were conversing with him: and the very idea that the eyes of the King of Kings are upon me, makes me bold in danger, and active in all the obedience of faith--I sometimes retire from the best company, to talk a few minutes to my Lord, and nothing is sweeter to my taste, than is an interview with Him who pardons my sins--takes me into his family, and promises to take me home to his own glorious abode by and by--I think no more about tenets or doctrines, but upon the love of God, the death of Jesus--his resurrection from the dead--his coming to judge the world, and the resurrection of the just. This is the spirit I have received and enjoyed since I put on the Lord. Now tell me is this the holy spirit promised?

BIBLICUS.      

      DEAR SIR,--I HAVE got home to my friends and brethren, and found them all well. I find many of your opponents are preaching the very faith which once they condemned; and not only at home, but on my tour through Kentucky and Virginia, I find some of our opponents are deriving at least as much benefit from your writings as those who are your friends and open advocates. Some of the editors, too, who have opposed you, are now exhibiting your views on sundry subjects, for which a year or two ago you were very much censured by the Regular Baptists and some others. In a tavern in Maryland I picked up a "Columbian Star," and found, to my surprise, that brother Brantley had given your views of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and under the editorial head, thereby showing that he had made them his own. In Kentucky, too, our brother Clack has come over wonderfully. He has given your views of the baptism of the Holy Spirit; and on sundry other topics he has appropriated your sentiments, and is detailing them in his paper--I mean those which were once reprobated by numbers in Kentucky. You will see in the last "Recorder," which I read to-day, that in one of brother Clack's late sermons, detailed under date of the 11th instant, he has given your views of the Keys given to Peter--of the Thrones on which the Apostles were placed--and indeed, substantially, your views on the Commencement of the Reign of the Messiah, as detailed in your Debate with M'Calla. I do not say that these views originated with you, but certainly they were once denominated yours; and I must confess I never learned them till I saw your writings. Brother Noel, since he has devoted himself to proclaiming the gospel and abandoned the contest about creeds, has been very successful. He made no converts by preaching up church covenants and creeds. I only regret to see so little candor amongst some of our brethren, who, unhappily for themselves and the public, took a stand too soon against what they called "your innovations"--I say, I regret, to see them not give you credit either in their preaching or writings for views they as certainly learned from you as I received my name from my father. But still I rejoice to find that some of those who oppose you as an innovator, are making great innovations themselves. Persevere, brother. You are conquering, and will conquer. One of your most bigoted opposers said not long since, in a public assembly, that, in travelling twenty-five hundred miles circuitously, he only found four Regular Baptist preachers which you had not corrupted. The Lord speed you, brother.

BARNABAS.      

      DEAR SIR,--I HAVE seen many pieces published in several periodicals without giving me the least credit, which I well know were borrowed from my writings. But I gave myself no concern about it. I was glad to see them in the columns of those who have traduced me. In some instances I saw them neutralized by a preceding or succeeding paragraph, and by some crude mixtures of undisciplined minds. Many sentiments in this work are original to me. I dug them out of the mines of revealed truth. But how many more may have dug the same treasures out of the same mines, I know not. But one thing I know, that numbers who are now improving themselves and others by them, never dug them out themselves. But so long as they are held up to human view, I rejoice; and in this I will rejoice though all who publish them exhibit them as their own.

      In much haste, yours in the hope of immortality,

EDITOR.      

      "LET none," says Dr. Mosheim, alluding to the first and second centuries, "confound the bishops of this primitive and golden period of the church, with those of whom we read in the following ages. For though they were both designated by the same name, yet they differed extremely, in many respects. A bishop, during the first and second centuries, was a person who had the care of one Christian assembly, which at that time, was, generally speaking, small enough to be contained in a private house. In this assembly he acted not so much with the authority of a master, as with the zeal and diligence of a faithful servant. The churches also, in those early times, were entirely independent; none of them subject to any foreign jurisdiction, but each one governed by its own rulers and its own laws. Nothing is more evident than the perfect equality that reigned among the primitive churches: nor does there ever appear, in the first century, the smallest trace of that association of provincial churches, from which councils and metropolitans derive their origin."--[Ecc. Hist. vol. I. p. 105-107.]

      SOCRATES says, that the bishops having put into the emperor's hands written libels containing their complaints against each other, he threw them all together into the fire, advising them, according to the doctrine of Christ, to forgive one another as they themselves hoped to be forgiven. Sozomen says, that the bishops having made their complaints in person, the emperor bade them reduce them all into writing, and that on the day which he had appointed to consider them, he said, as he threw all the billets unopened into the fire, that it did not belong to him to decide the differences of Christian bishops, and that the hearing of them must be deferred till the day of judgment.--Life of Constantine, book iii. ch. 10-14.

      JONES says--As the clergy had hated and persecuted him with great violence during his life, [497] they exulted with indecent joy at his disease and death, ascribing them to the immediate vengeance of Heaven for his heresy--"On the day of St. Thomas the Martyr, Archbishop of Canterbury," says Walsingham, a contemporary historian, "that limb of the devil, enemy of the church, deceiver of the people, idol of heretics, mirror of hypocrites, author of schisms, sower of hatred, and inventor of lies, John Wickliffe, was, by the immediate judgment of God, suddenly struck with a palsy, which seized all the members of his body, when he was ready, as they say, to vomit forth his blasphemies against the blessed St. Thomas, in a sermon which he had prepared to preach that day."

[TCB 489-498]