|
[Table of Contents] [Previous] [Next] |
Alexander Campbell
The Christian Baptist (1889) |
| NO. 5.] | DECEMBER 1, 1828. |
Remarks on the Bible.--No. II.
HENCE it is, that though Christ has entrusted the business of publishing, teaching, instructing, and exhorting, into the hands of uninspired men; nay, has made it the duty of every friend to his cause to perform these acts to the best of his ability, and full extent of his opportunity, with the single exception that females are not to teach in public assemblies; yet explanation, as beings work that requires the same degree of inspiration with original revelation, is never committed to or enjoined on, an uninspired man; for who can know the mind of the Spirit, but the Spirit himself, or those that are inspired by him?
On the Spirit's message being understood and complied with, depends its whole utility to man. Not understood, misunderstood, or neglected, it is no better than water poured on a rock. Can we then believe that God would send a message, which to be of any use to his creatures must be clearly understood by them, in words and phrases which they could not understand, or commit its interpretation to persons whom he had never qualified, appointed, or accredited for the purpose--that is, to uninspired men? Surely not.
Let it be observed further, that in every instance in which the words, arrangement, and connexion, preferred and adopted by the Spirit, have left his ideas in any degree uncertain, all the attempts made by uninspired men for nearly two thousand years, to explain and render them more certain, have entirely failed. Not one of these uncertain and obscure passages is at this day in the least clearer than it was when their abortive labors first began: nor will the total failure of these presumptuous attempts at all surprize us, if we call to mind an observation already made, that the obscurities and ambiguities that may be met with in sacred writ, were knowingly and intentionally introduced into it by its Divine Author, and that no adequate means have ever been provided by him for their removal: that is, the spiritual gift, which alone can enable man to remove them, has never since the days of the apostles been conferred on any mortal. Nay, for ever must they remain just as they are, unless God shall send an inspired expositor, furnished with unquestionable credentials of a divine commission for that purpose, to remove them. All that uninspired men, however sagacious, pious, and learned, can do in this superhuman undertaking, and certainly all they have done, is to exhibit an endless parade of discordant (often contradictory) conjectures, conceits, notions, opinions, suppositions, or by whatever name their dreams or reveries may be called, in which no confidence can be reposed, because in no instance does there exist the least certainty that any of their conjectures about the Spirit's meaning, and what he really meant, are coincident. They to whom the words of the Spirit do not exhibit his meaning with clearness and certainty, have no standard by which they can try the opinions of others, and ascertain their agreement and disagreement with what the Spirit says. His faith, therefore, to whom the Spirit's own words do not clearly reveal his meaning, cannot rest on divine information, but on the words and information of fallible, erring man, and must partake of all its uncertainty. If the words of any writing do not clearly reveal its meaning to my mind, how can I determine whether another apprehends it? Impossible. I may deem his conjecture ingenious, plausible, probable, but certain I cannot pronounce it: for that would be to declare that it agreed with my own opinion, whereas in this case I have none. Indeed all we really mean when we pronounce other men's opinions true or false, correct or incorrect, is, that they agree or disagree with our own, our own conceptions being in all cases made the standard of our judgments respecting the truth or falsehood, the accuracy or inaccuracy of the conceptions of other men. The labor, therefore, of the countless host of commentators, lecturers, expositors, sermonizers, &c. who have vainly attempted and presumptuously pretended to render God's message plainer than he could, or at least chose to render it, to discover words fitter to express the Spirit's ideas than he could himself discover, deserves to be stigmatized not only as entirely useless, and grossly impious, but as excessively pernicious to ignorant incautious mortals. By the unhappy toil of here self conceited presumers to render God's message plainer than he thought fit, or deemed it necessary to render it, the world has been deluged with discourses and books, crammed with metaphysical jargon, airy speculation, doubtful disputation, jarring notions, discordant opinions, contradictory conjectures, and vain jangling, and the ignorant, unreflecting, unsuspecting multitude have, to their irreparable injury, had their veneration lessened, their affections alienated, and their attention diverted by these pernicious baubles from studying, or to use the Saviour's term, from searching the only volume on earth that contains one particle of certain information on the all-important subject of religion; their minds stuffed with error, prejudice, bigotry and delusion; their hearts corrupted with the vilest passions, and their lives degraded and embittered with all the jealousy, rancor, contempt, and contention, which a deluded and sectarian spirit can engender.
Let us mark the impiety of attempting to extort from the words of God's message more information than he has fitted them to impart, or of absurdly amusing ourselves in abortive trials to substitute words plainer than he has chosen to employ. Between man, and useless, perhaps, pernicious knowledge, God has kindly interposed here a profound silence, there a phraseology to us intelligible only to a certain degree: but regardless of Heaven's barring, human presumption has attempted to force its impious way into the uncommunicated secrets of the Almighty, and not contented with the quantity of information which God in his wisdom and goodness, has judged best for his miserable creatures, has charged him with ignorance, injustice, and illiberality: told him to his face, that either he did not know the quantity of information that man's condition required, and was justly due to him; or, if he knew it, that he was too illiberal to bestow it; and had thus compelled his creature to commit the atrocious impiety of attempting to [498] increase his information whether his Creator would or would not. But insufficient information is not the only fault charged on the oracles of God--obscure diction is also imputed to them: and man, impudent and ungrateful man, has, in the plenitude of his self conceit, and profane folly, dared to imagine that he could select words and phrases fitter to convey the ideas of the Spirit in an intelligible manner, than he could. The question then is, Did God send his message so improperly worded, as to compel men, in order to derive from it all the benefit which God intended, to become grossly impious? We think not.
But whoever, with a mind void of prejudice, uncorrupted with the doctrines of the nursery, the family, the neighborhood, the church and its auxiliaries, repairs to the oracles of God for information, and contented to receive with humility and thankfulness the instruction there presented, will soon, from his own comfortable experience, be induced to vindicate the message sent him by his gracious Parent, from all charges of unnecessary deficiency of matter or diction: he will find it perfectly able to make him wise to salvation; and this is certainly all he can wish it to do.
But to terminate a discussion, already rendered through a desire of being understood, too long, let me ask, If the preceding remarks be just, that is, if the words chosen and employed by the Divine Spirit to communicate his thoughts to man, be the fittest that could be employed for that purpose; if they alone contain and offer certain information on the interesting subject of religion; if in them only, just as they have been arranged and connected by their all-wise author, unaltered, unmixed, undisturbed by the temerity of presumptuous mortals, be contained and presented to the human mind the good news called "The Gospel;" and if in the commentaries, lectures, expositions, sermons, tracts, treatises or discourses of men, no matter how sagacious, learned, and pious they may think themselves, or may in reality be, there are to be found, not the Spirit's message, denominated "The Gospel," but their own uninspired, crude, uncertain, and often discordant notions or conjectures about God's message; let me ask, I say, if it be not the most daring temerity, the most unpardonable arrogance and vanity, the very consummation of human impudence and vanity, to attempt to confound two things so entirely different as the Spirit's message contained and conveyed in his own well-chosen words, and men's miserable conjectures about that message; and to call the publication of these conjectures, either by written documents or verbal discourse, the preaching or publication of the gospel? Is it not to attempt to practise on the ignorant and unsuspecting the grossest imposition? Surely if the Spirit's own words alone contain and exhibit the gospel, reading or pronouncing from memory the Spirit's words, without the least alteration, mixture, or derangement, can only with truth be termed preaching or publishing the gospel: and surely they who impose on their deceived and deluded hearers or readers their own reveries about the gospel, for the gospel, cannot be held guiltless.
A---- S----.
P. S.--Query. DID Paul and the other inspired men, when they spoke or wrote on the subject of religion, employ the words and phrases only in which the inspiring Spirit suggested his ideas to their minds, and thus strictly publish the Spirit's message, just as suggested to them, unmixed with any ideas or words of their own; or did they employ words invented by themselves, and of course publish in their own words only their own conceptions about what the Spirit had suggested to them? And if the inspired men published the Spirit's ideas only in the words suggested by the Spirit, by what authority do uninspired men publish what they fancy or imagine about the Spirit's message in their own words, and call their fancies the gospel?
Response.
THE burthen of this query has occasioned considerable discussion amongst the more learned commentators and interpreters of sacred scripture. I cannot, however, discover any real difficulty in deciding the controversy, or to answering the query. In all matters purely supernatural, the communication was made in words. The ideas were suggested and expressed in words.--So that, as Paul says, "We speak spiritual things in spiritual words," or in words suggested by the Holy Spirit. But a very small portion of both Testaments are of this character. Communications purely supernatural occupy by far the least portion of the sacred books. In the historical books of both Testaments, and in the epistolary part of the New, there are many things presented to our minds which did not originate in heaven, or which did not pertain to heavenly things. In all such communications the writers were so guided, or had things so recalled to their memory, as to be able to give a faithful narrative.--The sentiment or sense of all passages purely moral or religious, is the result of divine teaching; and all matters pertaining to this life are of divine authority, though not supernatural either in their original communications or in the terms in which they are expressed. I presume the following criterion is both judicious, safe, and every way unexceptionable. Whatever information requiring nothing more than the memory of the writer, or whatever information on sensible objects is found in the sacred scriptures was neither supernatural in the matter nor manner of communication, unless the strengthening of the memory, or a new presentation of the things to the mind of the writer, may be called supernatural. The history of the Deluge, for instance, as written by Moses, is not of the same character as the institutions of the Jews' religion. The latter was purely supernatural--the former, an authentic account from tradition; in writing which, the historian was simply guided in the selection of the documents, and prevented from committing errors. The sense or sentiment of all the sacred books is of divine authority. The words and phrases were in all instances, except in communications purely supernatural, of the selection of the writer. Of this, more hereafter.
EDITOR.
Four Queries Answered.
MR. EDITOR--WILL you favor me with your thoughts on the following Questions:
1. DID Christ commit, during the period of gifted men, the extension of his kingdom or multiplication of his subjects to any besides these gifted men?
2. And to whom, after their death, did he consign it--to a few specially as now, or to the whole body of his subjects indiscriminately?
3. On what acts has Christ rested the multiplication of his subjects, and their confirmation in his service?
4. Does preaching the gospel consist in publishing it, as it is found in the Spirit's own words, [499] or in publishing discourses made by men about it?
AN INQUIRER.
Answer to Query I. DURING the apostolic age for the establishment of christianity, the Saviour employed apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers, all supernaturally endowed. To these alone was the work of establishing or laying the foundation of his religion in the world committed.
Answer to Query II. After their death, the congregation of the saints was entrusted with this work; that is, by the operation of parental authority: by the proclaiming in word and deed the excellency of the Christian religion to all men, in all the several relations;--by the simple proclamation of the gospel facts, with their evidences, was the number of the saints to be multiplied; and in their weekly meetings for reading the apostolic writings and for observing the ordinances composing the Christian institution, the saints were to be edified.
Answer to Query III. Christ has rested the multiplication of the faithful on the exertions of the Christian congregations. On their holding forth in word and in their behavior the gospel facts and their import, and not upon the exertions of a certain class of individuals called Priests, Clergy, Preachers, Teachers, or Bishops. The giving up the conversion of the world into the hands of a certain class, however designated, chosen, and appointed, has been the greatest check to the progress of christianity which it has ever sustained.
Answer to Query IV. The preaching of the gospel never did mean making sermons or discourses about it, no more than the cure of diseases has been effected by disquisitions upon pathology or the nature of diseases and remedies; but in the proclamation of the great facts found in the historical books of the New Testament, supported by such evidences and arguments as the apostolic testimonies contain and afford.
Had I room for the demonstrations and proofs from which these conclusions are drawn, which would occupy at least an entire number of this work, I would not despair of making the above answers apparent and convincing to all honest inquirers. But in the mean time I submit the answers without the premises for examination and reflection.
EDITOR.
A Restoration of the Ancient Order of Things.
No. XXVIII.
On the Discipline of the Church.--No. V.
THEY greatly mistake who expect to find a liturgy, or a code of laws in the New Institution, designed to govern Christians either in their private or public relations and character. This may be found in the Old Institution which the God of Abraham set up amongst the children of the flesh. The nation of the Jews affords both demonstration and proof that man cannot be governed or controlled either in piety or morality by any extrinsic law, however excellent or spiritual. The former institution was an institution of law--the new an institution of favor. Christians are not now, nor were they ever, under law, but under favor. Hence argues the Apostle:--"Sin shall not lord it over you; for you are not under law, but under favor." A single monosyllable represents the active principle, or law of subordination and of practical morality which it unfolds. That monosyllable is LOVE. "Love is the fulfilling of the whole law." The glad tidings of the divine philanthropy is the instrument or medium of the inspiration of this principle. The New Institution writes upon the heart, and not on marble, the governing principle or laws of all religious and moral action. This truth recognized and apprehended, solves the difficulty which has puzzled so many minds, and so generally distracted religious society. Many Christians have read and rummaged the apostolic writings with the spirit and expectations of a Jew in perusing the writings of Moses--Jews in heart, but Christians in profession. They have sought, but sought in vain, for an express command or precedent for matters as minute as the seams in the sacerdotal robes, or the pins and pilasters of the tabernacle.
The remote or proximate causes of most errors in disciplinary proceedings may be traced either to the not perceiving that the distinguishing peculiarity of the New, or Christian Institution, is this--that it aims at governing human action without letter, and causes its votaries to "serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter;" or, to the not observing that the congregations which christianity forms are designed rather as schools of moral excellence, than as courts of inquiry possessed of judicial authority.
To look still farther into the genius of the New Institution is yet prerequisite to just conclusions on this subject. The New Institution, governing religious and moral action by a law or principle engraved upon the heart, proposes certain acts of private and public edification and worship. These are stated in the apostolic writings, and conformity to them is enjoined upon disciples from the new obligations which arise out of the new law. The precepts found in the apostolic epistles and those found in the Pentateuch or writings of Moses, have one differential attribute which cannot be too clearly presented here. The precepts found in the apostolic epistles originated or were occasioned by the mistakes and misdemeanors found in Jews and Pagans, recently converted to the Christian faith. But the precepts or laws found in the Pentateuch were promulged before the people began to act at all, as a part of the institution itself. Hence it was an institution essentially of law--the New essentially an institution of favor. All the actions of the former were prescribed by law; but subordination to the latter is implied in the gracious promulgation itself.
The relation established between God and Israel was a different relation from that established between God and christians. As all duties and privileges arise from relations, if the relations are different, the duties and privileges are different also. Now God made himself known to Israel simply as their God and deliverer from Egyptian bondage, and as their King in contradistinction from the kings of all other nations. Upon this fact, as the grand premises, was the Old Institution proclaimed. Thus it began:--"I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the house of bondage. Therefore you shall acknowledge no other God besides me," &c. But the premises upon which the New Institution proceeds are of a much more sublime and exalted character. Relations more sublime than national and temporal relations, enter into its nature, and lay the foundation of the New Economy. He is the God and King of christians upon higher considerations--and more than simply their God and King--he is their Saviour and Redeemer from worse than Egyptian bondage; [500] their leader and guide to a better inheritance than Canaan; and their Father by a new and glorious provision which the national compact at Mount Sinai knew nothing of.
The relation of Master and Servant is a very different relation from that of Father and Son. This is rather an illustration, than a full representation of the difference of relation in which Jews and Christians stand to the God of the whole earth. The relation of Creator and creature is the natural relation existing between God and all mankind. But besides this he has instituted political and gracious relations between himself and human beings. These flow from his own good will and pleasure, and, as such, will be acquiesced in by the wise and good. The natural and first relation in which mankind stand to each other is that of fellow-creatures; but besides this, a number of other natural, political, and gracious relations have been either necessarily or graciously called into existence--such as that of parent and child, husband and wife, and the whole table of consanguinity and affinity; besides all the political relations, and those found in the kingdom of Jesus Christ.
Now the relation between God and christians, or the relation which the New Institution developes, is the most gracious and desirable which call be conceived of; and therefore presents to the human mind the loftiest and most comprehensive principles which can excite to moral action. As in physics, so in ethics there are principles or powers more influential than others. But Christianity discovers principles of action which no political, moral or religious relations hitherto known, could originate. These new relations, and these new principles of action, are stronger than death, more triumphant than the grave, and lasting as eternity. The discovery of a new, gracious, spiritual, and eternal relation, and correspondent principles of action, moral and religious, is the basis of that association called the Christian church or congregation. It is called the Reign or Kingdom of Heaven, because of the high and sublime nature of the relations, principles, duties, and privileges which it developes. All the political, commercial, and temporal relations of what nature or kind soever, which human passions, interests, partialities, or antipathies have given rise to, are weak and transient as the spider's thread compared with these. Hence the superlative glory of the New Institution. The world knows it not. It knew not the founder, and it apprehends not the institution. The light shines in darkness, but the darkness reaches it not.
These premises merely stated, not illustrated, suggest the true reason why, in the discipline of the church, so much is to be done before a member is to be severed from her embraces. In the politico-ecclesiastical relations of schismatic corporations the ties of consociation are neither very binding, nor the relations very endearing. They are not much stronger than the purse-strings of the treasurer, nor more durable than the paper on which is written the shibboleth of their Magna Charta. Members may be, and often are, separated without a pang or a sorrow. There is none of that tenderness of reproof of correction, of admonition, of dehortations, of persuasion, known in such confederations as that which the New Institution enjoins upon the citizens of Heaven.
The first effort which the genius of the New Institution enjoins with respect to offending brothers, is similar to that notable regulation concerning private trespasses which, all who have read it, remember, aims at gaining the supposed aggressor or delinquent. Hence the most characteristic feature in all congregational proceedings in reference to those who sin, not so much against a brother as against Christ, is that condescending tenderness which aims at the conversion of the delinquent or transgressor. The dernier resort, when all means fail, is separation. This tender solicitude and earnestness to gain a brother who has fallen, is, in some cases, where the nature of the case does not forbid, extended even beyond exclusion. So that although public good, as well as that of the subject of censure, does require his exclusion; yet even then he is not to be treated as an enemy, but admonished as a brother. The lesson of all others the most difficult, and the most important to be learned on the subject of this essay, is that which the preceding considerations suggest, and that is briefly that every part of the proceedings in reference to an offending brother must be distinguished by every possible demonstration of sympathy and concern for his good standing and character in the sight of God and man: and that final seclusion from the congregation must not be attempted until admonition, reproof, and persuasion, have failed to effect a real change in his views and behavior. Though I neither hold Lord Chesterfield nor his writings in much esteem, yet I cannot but admire his happy use of the "suaviter in modo" and the "fortiter in re," so much commended in his letters. If the "suaviter in modo," or the sweetness or gracefulness in the manner of doing, could always accompany the "fortiter in re," or the firmness in the purpose, or in the thing to be done, it would be no less useful than ornamental even amongst christians in all their congregational proceedings relating to offenders.
EDITOR.
Preface of the King's Translators.
[Continued from page 494.]
NOW though the church were thus furnished with Greek and Latin translations, even before the faith of Christ was generally embraced in the empire; (for the learned know, that even in S. Hieromes time, the consul of Rome and his wife were both Ethnicks, and about the same time the greatest part of the senate also) yet for all that the godly learned were not content to have the scriptures in the language which themselves understood, Greek and Latin, (as the good lepers were not content to fare well themselves) but also for the behoof and edifying of the unlearned which hungred and thirsted for righteousnesse, and had souls to be saved as well as they, they provided translations into the vulgar for their countrey-men: insomuch that most nations under heaven did shortly after their conversion, hear Christ speaking unto them in their mother tongue, not by the voice of their minister only, but also by the written word translated. If any doubt hereof, he may be satisfied with examples enow, if enow will serve the turn. First, S. Hierome saith, Multarum gentium linguis Scriptura ante translata, docet falsa esse quae addita sunt, &c. that is, The Scripture being translated before in the languages of many nations, doth show that those things that were added (by Lucian or Hesychius) are false. So S. Hierome in that place. The same Hierome elsewhere affirmeth that he, the time was, had set forth the translation of the Seventie, sure linguæ hominibus; that is, for his countrey-men of Dalmatia. Which words not onely Erasmus doth understand to purport, that S. Hierome translated the Scripture [501] into the Dalmatian tongue; but also Sixtus Senensis, and Alphonsus a Castro (that we speak of no more) men not to be excepted against by them of Rome, do ingenuously confesse as much. So S. Chrysostome that lived in S. Hieromes time, giveth evidence with him: The doctrine of S. John (saith he) did not in such sort (as the philosophers did) vanish away; but the Syrians, Egyptians, Indians, Persians, Ethiopians, and infinite other nations being barbarous people, translated it into their (mother) tongue, and have learned to be (true) philosophers, he meaneth christians. To this may be added Theodoret, as next unto him, both for antiquitie, and for learning. His words be these, Every countrey that is under the sunne, is full of these words, (of the Apostles and Prophets) and the Hebrew tongue (he meaneth the Scriptures in the Hebrew tongue) is turned not onely into the language of the Grecians, but also of the Romanes, and Egyptians, and Persians, and Indians, and Armenians, and Sautomatians, and briefly into all the languages that any nation useth. So he. In like manner, Upilas is reported by Paulus Diaconus and Isidore (and before them by Sozomen) to have translated the Scriptures into the Gothick tongue; John Bishop of Sivil by Vasseus, to have turned them into Arabick, about the yeare of our Lord 717. Beda by Cistertiensis, to have turned a great part of them into Saxon; Esuard by Trithemius, to have abridged the French Psalter, as Beda had done the Hebrew, about the yeare 800. King Alured by the said Cistertiensis, to have turned the Psalter into Saxon; Methodius by Aventinus (printed at Ingolstadt) to have turned the Scriptures into Sclavonian; Valdo, Bishop of Prising by Beutus Rhenanus, to have caused about that time, the Gospels to be translated into Dutch rhythme, yet extant in the library of Corbinian; Valdus, by divers to have turned them himself, or to have gotten them turned into French, about the yeare 1160; Charles the fifth of that name, surnamed The Wise, to have caused them to be turned into French, about 200 yeares after Valdus his time, of which translation there be many copies yet extant, as witnesseth Beroaldus. Much about that time, even in our King Richard the seconds dayes, John Trevisa translated them into English, and many English bibles in written hand are yet to be seen with divers, translated, as it is very probable, in that age. So the Syrian translation of the New Testament is in most learned mens libraries, of Widminstadius his setting forth; and the Psalter in Arabick is with many of Augustinus Nebiensis setting forth. So Postel affirmeth, that in his travel he saw the Gospels in the Ethiopian tongue: And Ambrose Thesius alledgeth the Psalter of the Indians, which he testifieth to have been set forth by Potken in Syrian characters. So that, to have the Scriptures in the mother tongue is not a quaint conceit lately taken up either by the L. Cromwell in England, or by the L. Radevil in Polonie, or by the L. Ungnadius in the emperours dominion, but hath been thought upon, and put in practise of old, even from the first times of the conversion of any nation; no doubt, because it was esteemed most profitable, to cause faith to grow in mens hearts the sooner; and to make them to be able to say with the words of the Psalm, As we have heard, so we have seen.
Now the church of Rome would seem at the length to bear a motherly affection towards her children, and to allow them the Scriptures in the mother tongue; but indeed it is a gift, not deserving to be called a gift, an unprofitable gift; they must get a licence in writing before they may use them; and to get that, they must approve, themselves to their confessour, that is, to be such as are, if not frozen in the dregs, yet sowred with the leaven of their superstition. Howbeit it seemed too much to Clement the eighth, that there should be any licence granted to have them in the vulgar tongue, and therefore he overruleth and frustrateth the grant of Pius the fourth. So much are they of aid of the light of the Scripture (Lucifugae Scripturarum, as Tertullian speaketh) that they will not trust the people with it, no not as it is set forth by their own sworn men, no not with the licence of their Bishops and Inquisitours, Yea, so unwilling are they to communicate the Scriptures to the peoples understanding in any sort, that they are not ashamed to confess, that we forced them to translate it into English against their wills. This seemeth to argue a bad cause, or a bad conscience, or both. Sure we are, that it is not he that hath good gold, that is afraid to bring it to the touch stone, but he that hath the counterfeit; neither is it the true man that shunneth the light, but the malefactour, lest his deeds should be reproved; neither is the plain-dealing merchant that is unwilling to have the weights, or the meteyard brought in place, but he that useth deceit. But we will let them alone for this fault, and return to translation.
Many mens mouthes have been open a good while (and yet are not stopped) with speeches about the translation so long in hand, or rather perusals of translations made before: and ask what may be the reason, what the necessitie of the employment: Hath the church been deceived, say they, all this while? Hath the sweet bread been mingled with leaven, her silver with drosse, her wine with water, her milk with lime? (Lacte gypsum male miscetur, saith S. Ireney.) We hoped that we had been in the right way, that we had had the oracles of God delivered unto us, and that though all the world had cause to be offended, and to complain, yet that we had none. Hath the nurse holden out the breast, and nothing but winde in it? Hath the bread been delivered by the Fathers of the Church, and the same proved to be lapidosus, as Seneca speaketh? What is to handle the word of God deceitfully, if this be not? Thus certain brethren. Also the adversaries of Judah and Jerusalem, like Sanballat in Nehemiah, mock, as we heare, both at the work and workmen, saying, What do these weak Jews, &c. will they make the stones whole again out of the heaps of dust which are burnt? although they build, yet if a fox go up, he shall even break down their stony wall. Was their translation good before? Why do they now mend it? Was it not good? Why then was it obtruded to the people? Yes, why did the Catholicks (meaning Papish Romanists) alwayes go is jeopardy, for refusing to go to heare it? Nay, if it must be translated into English, Catholicks are fittest to do it. They have learning, and they know when a thing is well, they can manum de tabula. We will answer them both briefly: And the former, being brethren, thus, with S. Hierome, Damnamus veteres? Minime, sed post priorum studia in domo Domim quod possumus laboramus. That is, Do we condemn the ancient? In no case: but after the endeavors of them that were before us, we take the best pains we can in the house of God. As if he said, Being provoked by the example of the learned that lived before my time, I have thought it my duty to assay whether my talent in the knowledge of the tongues, may be profit able in any measure to Gods church, lest I should [502] seem to have labored in them in vain and lest I should be thought to glory in men (although ancient) above that which was in them. Thus S. Hierome may be thought to speak.
And to the same effect say we, that we are so farre off from condemning any of their labours that travelled before us in this kinde, either in this lande or beyond sea, either in King Henries time, or K. Edwards (if there were any translation, or correction of a translation in his time) or Q. Elisabeth of ever renowned memorie, that we acknowledge them to have been raised up of God, for the building and furnishing of his church, and that they deserve to be had of us and of posterity in everlasting remembrance. The judgement of Aristotle is worthy and well known: If Timotheus had not been, we had not had much sweet musick: but if Phrynis (Timotheus his master) had not been, we had not had Timotheus. Therefore blessed be they, and most honored be their name, that break the ice, and give the onset upon that which helpeth forward to the saving of souls. Now what can be more available thereto, than to deliver Gods book unto Gods people in a tongue which they understand? Since of an hidden treasure, and of a fountain that is sealed, there is no profit, as Ptolemee Philadelph wrote to the Rabbins or masters of the Jews, as witnesseth Epiphanius: and as S. Augustine saith, A man had rather be his dog, then with a stranger (whose tongue is strange unto him.) Yet for all that, as nothing is begun and perfected at the same time, and the later thoughts are thought to be the wiser; so, if we building upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labours, do endeavor to make that better which they left so good; no man, we are sure, hath cause to mislike us; they, we perswade our selves, if they were alive, would thank us. The vintage of Abiezer, that strake the stroke: yet the gleaning of the grapes of Ephraim was not to be despised. See Judges viii. 2. Joash the king of Israel did not satisfie himself, till he had smitten the ground three times; and yet he offended the prophet, for giving over then. Aquila, of whom we spake before, translated the Bible as carefully, and as skilfully as he could, and yet he thought good to go over it again, and then it got the credit with the Jews, to be called kat akrizeimen, that is, accurately done, as S. Hierome witnesseth. How many books of profane learning have been gone over again and again by the same translatours, by others? Of one and the same book of Aristotles Ethicks, there are extant not so few as six or seven several translations. Now if this cost may be bestowed upon the gourd, which affordeth us a little shade, and which to day flourisheth, but to morrow is cut down; what may we bestow, nay what ought we not to bestow upon the vine, the fruit whereof maketh glad the conscience of man, and the stemme whereof abideth for ever? And this is the word of God which we translate. What is the chaff to the wheat? saith the Lord. Tanti vitreum, quanti verum margaritum (saith Tertullian) if a toy of glasse be of that reckoning with us, how ought we to value the true pearl! Therefore let no mans eye be evil, because his Majesties is good; neither let any be grieved, that we have a Prince that seeketh the increase of the spirituall wealth of Israel; (let Sanballats and Tobiahs do so, which therefore bear their just reproof) but let us rather blesse God from the ground of our heart, for working this religious care in him, to have the translations of the bible maturely considered of and examined. For by this means it cometh to passe, that whatsoever is sound already (and all is sound for substance, in one or other of our editions, and the worst of ours farre better than their authentic vulgar) the same will shine as gold more brightly, being rubbed and polished; also, if any thing be halting or superfluous, or not so agreeable to the originall, the same may be corrected, and the truth set in place. And what can the King command to be done, that will bring more true honour than this? and wherein could they that have been set a work, approve their duty to the King, yea, their obedience to God, and love to his saints more, then by yeelding their service, and all that is within them, for the furnishing of the work? But besides all this, they were the principall motives of it, and therefore ought least to quarrell it. For the very historical truth is, that upon the importunate petitions of the Puritanes, at his Majesties coming to this crown, the conference at Hampton-court having been appointed for hearing their complaints: when by force of reason they were put from all other grounds, they had recourse at the last, to this shift, that they could not with good conscience subscribe to the communion book, since it maintained the bible as it was there translated, which was, as they said, a most corrupted translation. And although this was judged to be but a very poore and empty shift, yet ever hereupon did his Majestie begin to bethink himself of the good that might ensue by a new translation, and presently after gave order for this translation which is now presented unto thee. Thus much to satisfie our scrupulous brethren.
(TO BE CONTINUED.)
Essays on Man in his primitive state, and under
the Patriarchal, Jewish, and Christian
Dispensations.--No. V.
The Patriarchal Age.--No. I.
DURING the Patriarchal age of the world, there were sundry distinguished personages through whom divine communications were made. When sentence was pronounced upon the Serpent, his ultimate destination was threatened through a descendant of the woman whom he had seduced. This has been long understood to refer to some future controversy between a descendant of Eve, and the children of the wicked one; in which a son of Eve would finally vanquish the Arch-Apostate and his race. This threat of bruising the Serpent's head is supposed to be a gracious intimation of mercy to the human race. It was certainly a very dark and symbolic one, which could not without another communication, or revelation, intimate much consolation to man. Such as it was, it is the plainest object of faith and hope found in the annals of the world for 1656 years. It was about as clear an intimation of a Redeemer, as the translation of Enoch was of the resurrection of the just. But it is to be presumed that more light was communicated on this subject, than that found in the history of the antediluvian age. The first proof of this is of the same nature as that commonly called circumstantial evidence. That sacrifice was instituted, is to be inferred from the fact that Cain and Abel make their grand debut at the altar. Now had not the historian intended to acquaint the world with the death of Abel, in all probability there would not have been a single intimation on record, either of the institution, or the practice of sacrifice. As there was no public event accompanying the institution of sacrifice, there is no [503] mention of it; but as there was a public event connected with the practice of it, we have an incidental notice of it. Two things are worthy of notice here; the first, that the most significant institution in the antediluvian world, is to be learned incidentally; and the second, that the first controversy on earth began at the altar. There too, it shall end.
Another proof that more light on the subject of religion, and of the future destiny of man was communicated than is recorded in the narrative of the first 1656 years of the world, may be learned from the Apostle Jude. From oral tradition, or by some written tradition of undoubted authenticity, he says that Epoch prophesied.--Enoch the seventh in descent from Adam, said, "Behold the Lord comes with his holy myriads of heavenly messengers to pass sentence on all, and to convict all the ungodly among them of all the deeds of ungodliness which they have impiously committed, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him." From this remarkable prophecy of an antediluvian prophet, which was certainly pronounced at least 145 years before Adam died, we may learn that during the lifetime of Adam the existence of myriads of holy messengers in another world was known; also, that the Lord would one day, judge and pass sentence on transgressors, as the moral governor of the world.
That there was also a religious regard paid to the seventh day, because the Lord set it apart as a commemoration of the accomplishment of the creation, is to be inferred from the original sanctification of the day from the calculation of time by weeks, as is found in the history of the Deluge, and from the manner in which the observance of it is enjoined upon the Jews--"Remember the Sabbath day," &c. This is the language of calling up an ancient institution, and not of introducing a new one.
That there was also a title assumed by those that feared God, which designated and distinguished them from those who disregarded his supremacy and moral government of the world, is apparent from some circumstances mentioned in the brief outlines of the antediluvian age. When Enos the son of Seth was born, we are told that men began to call themselves by the Lord, as in the margin of the king's translation of Genesis iv. 26. This distinction of sons of God seems to have obtained in the family and among the descendants of Seth; and while the posterity of Seth kept themselves separate from the descendants of Cain, there was a religious remnant upon earth. But so soon as the "sons of God," or the children of Seth, intermarried with "the daughters of men," or the descendants of Cain and the other progeny of Adam, an almost universal defection was the consequence, until Noah was left the sole proclaimer of righteousness in the world. Giants in crime and stature, of vigorous constitution and long life, quenched almost every spark of piety, and violated every moral restraint necessary to the existence of society. Thus a provision necessary for the multiplication and temporal prosperity of the human race, viz. great animal vigor and long life, fully demonstrated its incompatibility with the religious and moral interests of society. A change of the system became expedient, and the world was drowned with the exception of four pair of human beings. The first act of the great drama closes with the Deluge.
Four pair, instead of one, began to replenish the new world. After this baptism of the earth, some gracious intimations, some benevolent promises are given. As a preservative against a similar deterioration, a great diminution of animal vigor, and curtailment of the life of man, take place. This is, however, gradual at first, until the inhabitants of the earth are considerably increased. To the immersed earth, emerging from its watery grave, it is promised that there shall be but one immersion--that this tremendous scene of awful and glorious import should never be reacted--while time endures there shall be day and night, summer and winter, seed time and harvest. An institution called the Institution of Day and Night is solemnly ratified; and a rainbow of peace embraces the immersed globe--symbols of high and glorious significance, as after times develope.
Shem is distinguished as the father of blessings to a future world. "Blessed be the Lord God of Shem!" Japheth, confined to narrower limits, has the promise of enlargement and of ultimate introduction to the family altar of Shem; while Canaan the son of Ham, for introducing the vices of the old world, is devoted to a long and grievous vassalage. Shem has Asia for his patrimony, and the God of the whole earth for his family God. So begins the second act of the great drama of human existence.
Sundry minor regulations distinguish this new chapter of the patriarchal age. A severe statute against murder, and a prohibition against the eating of blood, are of conspicuous notoriety. While animal food is conceded to man, a reservation of blood, in which is animal life, is connected with it. This reservation, although analogous to that proclaimed in Eden, is not merely, nor primarily, designed as a test of loyalty, but as a prevention of that barbarity which was likely to ensue, and which we see has ensued, from the eating of the bodies of other animals with their blood. It ought to be remembered by all the descendants of Noah, that abstinence from blood was enjoined upon them, and that it was no peculiarity of the Jewish age. God never gave man leave to eat it. He prohibited it under the Patriarchal, Jewish, and Christian ages.
In the days of Peleg, who, according to the vulgar computation, died three hundred and forty years after the flood,1 the earth was divided amongst the sons of Noah. About this time, in order to prevent their dispersion, to consolidate their union, and to gain renown, an effort was made to build a city, and a tower which should reach up to heaven. At this time another check was given to the proficiency of men in wickedness. Their having one language afforded them facilities of cooperating in crime to an extent which seemed to threaten the continuation of the human race under the system adopted after the deluge. Human language was, by a divine and immediate interposition, confounded; and thus a natural necessity compels their forming smaller associations and dispersing all over the earth. This confusion of human speech was as necessary as was the deluge; and both events were interpositions of the most benevolent character, viewed in all their bearings upon the grand scale of events affecting the whole family of man.--The second grand act of the great drama of human existence closes with the confusion of language and the dispersion of the founders of all the Asiatic, African, and European nations.
About the year of the world 2000 Abraham was born. When he was seventy five years old, he was divinely called to leave his own country and [504] kindred and to become a pilgrim under a new series of divine revelations. But as this begins a new chapter in the patriarchal age, we shall reserve it for our next essay.
Before closing the present essay, there are a few things which deserve our particular attention. In the first place, all the antediluvian patriarchs, except Noah, were born before Adam died. So that all the information which Adam had acquired in nine hundred and thirty years, was communicated to all the patriarchs, or might have been communicated, from the lips of Adam. Noah was the only renowned personage of the antediluvian patriarchs who learned from Adam at second hand. But it is worthy of note that all the information which Adam possessed was no more than second hand to Noah. Multitudes who conversed with Adam conversed with Noah. Again, Abraham was more than fifty years old, according to the common version, when Noah died. So that Abraham might have had all the information which Adam possessed at third hand, and all that Noah possessed either from Noah himself, or from Shem. So that all the communications from heaven, as well as the history of the world, were transmitted through not more than three or four persons to Abraham.
Now as human language was confounded at this time, and all the nations of antiquity founded, the founders of these nations had all the knowledge of God which Adam, Noah, and Shem possessed. Hence all nations had either oral or written traditions containing divine communications.
EDITOR.
"TRUMBULL CO. OHIO, Nov. 28, 1828.
"BROTHER CAMPBELL,--I HAVE been pestered with a young Doctor, who is always showing his ingenuity in descanting upon phrenology, and in throwing out some cavils against the bible. I handed him your September number, in which was a letter to H. M., Frankfort, Kentucky, on one of those topics I had been talking with him a few days before. He returned me the number a few days ago, saying, that "if you could prove that Mary the Mother of Jesus, was the daughter of Eli, he would give up his objection to that part of the narrative of Matthew and Luke; but," said he, "I must have the proof from the bible, or I will not receive it; and," added he, "I am pretty sure he cannot give it from that source." Will you, dear brother, give me a private letter on this subject, if you think it unworthy of a place in the Christian Baptist.
| Yours in the faith, | |
| B. |
Reply to Brother "B."
DR. MACKNIGHT points and translates Luke iii. 23, thus:--"And Jesus himself when he began his ministry was about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed the son of Joseph) the son of Heli." This is not, in sense, really different from the common reading--it is only plainer. But other critics, instead of rendering it "the supposed son of Joseph," have "the enrolled son of Joseph," or "the by law established son of Joseph." I lay no great emphasis upon the exclusive adoption of any one of these interpretations. That of Dr. Macknight is, upon the whole, the plainer, and as literal as any other. He very pertinently remarks upon this verse, that we have a parallel example in Gen. xxxvi. 2, where Aholibamah's pedigree is thus deduced: Aholibamah, the daughter of Anah, the daughter of Zibeon. "For since it appears from verses 24 and 25, that Anah was the son, not the daughter of Zibeon, it is undeniable that Moses calls Aholibamah the daughter both of Anah and of Zibeon, as Luke calls Jesus the son both of Joseph and of Heli. And as Aholibamah is properly called the daughter of Zibeon because she was his grand daughter, so Jesus is fitly called the son of Heli because he was his grand son."
The exposition which I gave of this matter in the September number, is, I presume, not justly liable to a single exception. That Mary was the daughter of Eli, (or, as it is with the aspirate, Heli,) cannot be questioned: seeing the Jews, who had these genealogies, never denied it, but in fact the Talmudists themselves affirmed it: for they, although discrediting the pretensions of Jesus, called his mother "Heli's daughter." No other than Eli was ever said, by friend or foe, to be the father of Mary. Let those who affirm another parentage prove it. The thing was so notorious that the historian Luke does not think it worthy of a single remark.
It ought not to be overlooked that it was as necessary that the virgin mother of the Saviour of the world should be traced to David, as that any other prophecy given concerning the Messiah should be fulfilled. For in Isaiah, 7th chapter, it is said to the house of David that the virgin should bring forth a son. Now Luke the Evangelist very consistently traces Mary up to David by her father, and thus makes good the sign promised to the house of David, that the virgin should bring forth a son.
That Matthew aimed at no more than giving the ancestry of the husband of Mary, is incontrovertible from the close of his roll of lineage, and thus he showed his legal right to sit upon the throne of David. But that the Messiah was to be of the blood of David, was as necessary to the completion of the prophecies as that he should be the son of Abraham. Luke gives this detail in full from Eli up to David. So that the most perfect harmony is found in the two rolls of lineage.
To cavil at these narratives, because they are not explained by the writers, and to refuse to hear any other explanation from the history of those times than what is found in the sacred writings, indicates a very unhealthy state of mind. It is, in effect, saying, "I will not believe Matthew nor Luke because they have not explained the rolls of lineage which they have given, nor will I believe them if any other person should explain them, if they do not draw their explanation from Matthew and Luke, who I previously declared have not explained them" The rolls of lineage were as public amongst the Jews as our county or state records, and all the historian had to do was to get a copy. It was not for him to mutilate, garble, amend, nor explain them. They were authentic amongst the Jews and well understood by them; and inasmuch as no Jew ever did object to Jesus of Nazareth on the ground of any defect, incongruity, or contradiction found in his lineage from David and Abraham or in the accounts of it given by their own historians, Matthew and Luke, it is preposterous in the extreme for the Gentile or foreigner to object against such documents, when all the first friends of Jesus, and many myriads of his foes afterwards, who had access to the documents, accredited them. I might as reasonably be called upon to prove that Isaac was the proper son of Abraham, or that Judah was the natural descendant of Jacob, as to prove that Jesus was the grand son of Heli, or that Mary was the daughter of Eli. The rolls of lineage were all of human keeping, and that was all-sufficient: for if the nation of the Jews agreed [505] among themselves that Jesus was descended as foretold, it was all the world wanted; and to us Gentiles the Messiah has not suspended our faith in his pretensions upon a roll of lineage, but upon a chain of evidences comprehensive of miracles and prophecies, sublime, glorious, and supernatural, against which the gates of Hades have not yet prevailed, and against which we are infallibly assured they never shall prevail.
I hope the contemplated discussion in April next, to take place in Cincinnati, on Scepticism, Deism, and Atheism, will afford us a full opportunity of sending to the owls and to the bats, for their lucubrations, all those little squibs and puerile cavils, which either the follies of youth or the dotage of age have impiously invented and proclaimed.
EDITOR.
Baptist Associations.
I HAVE indulged the hope for some time past, that through the medium of the "Christian Baptist" there would have been elicited some remarks on the subject of "Baptist Associations,"--particularly (if my recollection serves me) as there were several queues proposed with reference to the usefulness and scripturality of such assemblies, which appeared in your paper during the past year.
In my apprehension this subject (considering its wide spread influence) is one possessing much importance, upon the supposition that it is desirable for believers to escape from Babylon. It would have been gratifying to me if some able writer had given it a clear elucidation; but having been disappointed in this, though I make no pretensions to those qualifications which are requisite to place the subject in its most proper form before the public, yet I solicit the privilege of presenting, through your useful paper, a few remarks, provided they should be considered by you as worthy of publicity.
It is well known that "Baptist Associations" exist. The plain simple question is, Are they authorized in the Bible? Perhaps the correct course to pursue in the investigation of this subject, will be to review those passages of the New Testament which the advocates of "associations" rely upon as competent authority to support their system--and as far as I have had an opportunity of knowing their sentiments, they are uniform in quoting the 15th chapter of Acts of Apostles as a sufficient warrant for representative assemblies, called associations--and for those assemblies to consult together, and propose for the benefit and adoption of their constituents as in their wisdom is deemed necessary for their spiritual welfare; but however secure the advocates for associations may feel while resting on this position of the heavenly word, I can but conclude, that a slight examination (even) of this testimony will leave their edifice without the least vestige of a foundation, from this passage of our Heavenly Father's Last Will. If so, it must rest on the vain support of worldly wisdom,--and its true name will then be (what Paul cautions his brethren against) an "institution merely human."
We will now attend to the record, which is, that the Apostles and Elders met together at Jerusalem to consult whether the believing Gentiles were bound to be circumcised and to keep the Law of Moses: the necessity of which was contended for by the Pharisees, and Teachers had proclaimed the same sentiments among the Gentiles. When the Apostles and Elders met, they were addressed by Peter, Paul, Barnabas, and James--and finally, together with the brethren, adopted the advice of James, communicating the same to the believing Gentiles as follows: "It has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose no further burthen upon you besides these necessary things, that you abstain from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from any thing strangled, and from fornication: from which you will do well to keep yourselves. Farewell."
In all this, where do we find the least feature of a "Baptist association?" Truly there is no resemblance. Some of the characters composing the assembly at Jerusalem were of a different order in the church from any that now live. The object for which they met together, was also different. This august assembly at Jerusalem, of which I speak, had an important question to determine, for which they were perfectly qualified, and their decision is a law of the Great King. Their decree had full force, and did then and forever settle and fix definitely the controversy submitted to their consideration. Can Baptist associations do such things now? The Jerusalem assembly had it in their power to say, "It seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us."--Will the same authority be assumed by any assembly in the present day? Will they arrogate to themselves the power exercised by the "apostles and brethren" at Jerusalem? I think not. Have they in truth any rules to make, or laws to establish in the kingdom of Jesus? but these two things particularly devolved upon the Apostles. And by unerring principles they fixed by divine authority (delegated to them only by the Great Head of the church) all the regulations by which Zion was to be governed, leaving no one subject to be determined by any association, synod, or presbytery on earth, whether promulgated as a law, or put forth under the more gilded appellation of recommendation. In fact, no "association" of which I have any knowledge, pretends to make regulations which are binding on their brethren; yet, in effect, obedience on their part, is almost, if not always, the result.--To be sure, they professedly leave the churches at liberty to adopt or reject their propositions. If this be so, what possible benefit is or can be secured to the churches, particularly when it is considered that Jesus has of himself, and by his ambassadors, clearly revealed the laws of his realm, (in all of which there is not one word about "Baptist associations") where exists the necessity of human aid? Although they assemble under the sanction of long-established usage, will it be said that thus says the King of Kings? Besides, the word of truth does not authorise representative congregations for any purpose--much less to sway a sceptre fraught with great evil--for these recommendations (as they term them) go forth, clothed in effect with princely authority. But again, as to the individuals who composed the august assembly at Jerusalem, they were in part the chosen ambassadors of Jesus, commissioned directly by him to go forth, clothed with miraculous powers, imbued with the Holy Spirit, for the philanthropic purpose of proclaiming to every nation under heaven the joyful tidings of a great salvation--also to set in order the kingdom, having received full authority to command, and to proclaim the Laws of their adored Master. Being faithful, they completely fulfilled the heavenly commission„ leaving nothing to be adjudicated by any "association."
Your pen has truly delineated the evils of "Confessions of Faith," Presbyteries, Synods, &c. which are really the vain and valueless appendages of the popular religious systems of the [506] present age. But if I am not greatly mistaken, you have not put forth one argument in this field of controversy which will not apply in all their pointed denunciations against Baptist associations. I hope this subject will receive a full investigation, and I should be gratified to see any remarks calculated to bring Christians to a just conclusion.
"A LOVER OF TRUTH."
Scripture Contradictions from various Sources.
OLDHAM COUNTY, KY.
I HAVE for a long time believed that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God, and just in proportion to the strength of the evidence, so is the faith. I firmly believe the Christian religion to be true; but at the same time, I am not prepared to say that I understand all that is written. In reading the old and new scriptures, I find some difficulties that my limited reading does not enable me to reconcile, and the authors consulted have failed to give satisfaction. Will you therefore favor the public with an answer to a few queries, for more than myself are interested. 1st. Who is the author or writer of the five books of Moses? 2nd. What authority have we for believing that those five books were written by inspiration? 3d. If they are not the words of the Spirit under what obligation are we to believe every thing true that is written? and if they were written from the diction of the Spirit of God, how does it turn out that Ezra, in giving the total number of the children of Israel which had returned from Babylon, which, according to his statement, is forty two thousand three hundred and sixty, when in fact it is but twenty nine thousand eight hundred and eighteen persons? The same mistake is made by Nehemiah, chap. vii. verse 8. 4th. The four Evangelists in giving the History of the Resurrection of Christ, differ in the statement.
| LUKE, xxiv. 1. | JOHN, xx. 1. | |
| And very early in the morning, the first day of the week, they came to the sepulchre, at the rising of the sun.2 | The first day of the week comes Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, to the sepulchre and sees the stone taken away from the sepulchre. |
The query then is this--How is it that these historians differ so widely, and yet both speak by the Holy Spirit? The one declares that it was at the rising of the sun, and the other says it was yet dark.
Answer to Query 1st.--Moses wrote the five Books, excepting some explanations and additions to the close of Deuteronomy by Ezra, the Scribe. In Gen. chap. xxxvi. verse 31, there is also a continuation of the Kings of Edom, from the same source.
Answer to Query 2.--They are quoted by the Saviour of the world and his Apostles, as of divine authority. And the Lord, by Malachi, the last of the Old Testament Prophets, enjoins them upon all Israel as of divine obligation till the Great Prophet should come. When this Prophet came, Moses and Elias came down from heaven to visit him, and to lay down their commission at his feet. On the subject of inspiration see page 499.
Answer to Query 3.--Both Ezra and Nehemiah gave a table of the number of "the men," which amounts to about 30,000, but in the conclusion they state "the whole congregation" as amounting to 42,260. Take notice that both Ezra, chapter ii. verse 2, and Nehemiah, chapter vii. verse 7, emphatically distinguish the men of the people of Israel as given in the detail--but besides the men, in the conclusion they give the aggregate of all who accompanied them.
Answer to Query 4.--If you will examine these passages again, you will not find any difference. Luke says in the new version, at day break, and in the common version, "very early in the morning." John says in the common version, "when it was yet dark." The same is said in the new version. "At the break of day" it is yet dark in Judea, and perhaps it is so in other countries. Matthew has it "at the dawn of day." Mark says, "early in the morning about sunrise."--But in respect to the last reference he seems to have respect to what happened about sunrise.--And therefore some point it thus--"Early in the morning they came to the sepulchre." And about sunrise, and just as they were saying to one another "Who, &c.--upon looking up they see the stone removed."
"AND the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses, and there fell of the people that day, about three thousand men." Exo. xxxii. 28. "Neither let us commit fornication as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand." 1 Cor. x. 8.
Now I request you or some of your readers to reconcile these passages if you can; if not, to show which of them is the true one: for as they now stand, both cannot be true.
Please to let this small question have a place in your first number.
J.
Answer.--IF instead of bringing Exodus xxxii. 28, into comparison with 1 Corinthians x. 8, you had brought Numbers xxv. 9, you would not have found so much difficulty. Paul says, In one day there fell twenty-three thousand, and Moses says, In all during the plague there fell twenty-four thousand. No contradiction here. You did not refer to the proper passage. Some have with good reason supposed that twenty-three thousand died by the hand of God alone, and by the sword one thousand fell. It is evident that some were put to death by the sword. But as Paul speaks of one day, and Moses of the whole plague, there is no real difficulty in reconciling them.
EDITOR.
Intolerance and Heresy, properly so called.
SCORES of such occurrences as these mentioned below, have been received at this office within a few months. Those who love the dogmas of men more than the voice of the Bridegroom, will show them more veneration than the commandments of him who alone can bestow immortality. We have paid but little attention to the voice of sedition for some time, willing rather to obliterate than to perpetuate the recollection of such measures as must one day cover with shame the actors. O that men would hear that wisdom which comes from above! which is first pure, then peaceable, easy to be persuaded, full of good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.
EDITOR.
Three Baptist churches have excommunicated each one individual for having united with a congregation of disciples who take the New Testament as their only guide in all respects--obeying the practice as recorded in the fortieth verse of [507] the second chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, on each first day of the week.
A Baptist association recommended to the churches connected with said association, not to countenance a certain individual who went from house to house, and elsewhere, proclaiming the good news of eternal life by Christ Jesus--because this individual had not conformed to their views of what they consider necessary, viz.--a licence to preach given by the church--and their recommendation in this particular, as it does in all others, was effectual to produce conformity throughout their Diocese (if I may so call it) as a Bull from the Pope would be where his authority is acknowledged.
At another meeting of the same association, they published, in connexion with their minutes, a circular letter as the product of the genius of two of their number, when in truth, it was taken from an old English publication.
Yours, affectionately in love of the truth.
A Good Omen.
LOUISA, VA.
THE advocates for the ancient order in this section, are beginning to call in question some of the popular schemes of the day. At the Goshen association, held at County-Line meeting house, 1st of the month, the propriety of the general association was called in question. And after a short but animated discussion, the Goshen association broke off from the General association!!! The conflict was between Uriah Higgason, the young man I mentioned in a former letter, and J. Fife, Luther Rice, and Billingsly, three popular preachers. Brother Higgason carried his point with ease by a large majority. He showed that money was the bond of union of that association, and that it was an unlawful amalgamation of the world and the church. This I think is a pretty good step in the cause of reform, and ought to be known throughout the union. I was pleased to see some of the populars in the minority for once. I hope they will learn to be more charitable to those whom they have so much opposed.
Three Questions answered by one emphatic No!
Quere.--Is a church or any member thereof, that lives in the neglect of the duties enjoined on them in the Gospel of Jesus the Messiah, such as assembling themselves together on the first day of the week, commemorating the death and resurrection of our Lord, contributing to the necessities of the poor, worshipping God in their families, or training up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and when called upon in the assembly of the Saints, to pray, cannot, or will not do it, capable of judging of the correctness or incorrectness of the doctrine of the Gospel?
Quere.--Is any man or woman, walking in truth, that has united himself to a church, or assembly of saints, to be whispering, backbiting, and defaming those persons and their doctrines or sentiments that he never has seen, knows nothing about them, nor will he read, or hear what they have to say of those doctrines?
Quere.--Are men or women that have united themselves to a church or an assembly of saints, justified from the Gospel of the Messiah, in omitting to attend on every first day of the week, at the appointed place of worship, under pretence that they must go among their brethren in other churches, and that they are fulfilling their engagements to God in so doing?
Extract from the Minutes of the Boon Creek Association
of Baptists in Kentucky, for the present year.
"ON motion, The following remarks and resolution were adopted in answer to a request from several churches composing this association, for an amendment of her constitution, so as to make it more scriptural, or compatible with the word of God, viz. This association having taken into consideration the request of some of the churches for an amendment of her constitution, after mature deliberation, she is decidedly of opinion that the word of God does not authorise or prescribe any form of constitution for an association in our present organized state. (Our constitution we have caused to be printed in those minutes, for the inspection of the churches in making up their opinion to the next association;) but we do believe that the word of God authorises the assembling of saints together for his worship; we therefore recommend to the churches air abolition of the present constitution, and in lieu thereof, an adoption of this resolution:
Resolved, That we, the churches of Jesus Christ, believing the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the word of God, and the only rule of faith and obedience given by the Great Head of the Church for its government, do agree to meet annually on every 3d Saturday, Lord's day, and Monday in September of each year, for the worship of God; and on such occasions voluntarily communicate the state of religion amongst us by letter and messengers."
This is a most excellent substitute for the annual advisory councils and legislative deliberations of a church representative of churches. Any number of christians who please to meet at any time or place for such purposes as the Boon Creek association contemplates, has all the authority which reason and Revelation make necessary to acceptable service. Instead of a judicial court of Inquiry, and of resolves, we have a meeting of fellow christians for prayer and praise and thanksgiving, for mutual exhortation and edification. It would be a happy era in the history of christianity if all ecclesiastical courts, whether papistical, episcopalian, presbyterian, independent, or any thing else would regenerate themselves into worshipping assemblies.
The Unbeliever's Creed.
"I believe that there is no God, but that matter is God, and God is matter; and that it is no matter whether there is any God or no. I believe also that the world was not made; that the world made itself; that it had no beginning; that it will last forever, world without end. I believe that a man is a beast, that the soul is the body, and the body is the soul; and that after death there is neither body nor soul. I believe there is no religion; that natural religion is the only religion; and that all religion is unnatural. I believe not in Moses; I believe in the first philosophy; I believe not the Evangelists; I believe in Chubb, Collins, Tolland, Tindal, Morgan, Mandeville, Woolston, Hobbes, Shaftsbury. I believe in lord Bolingbroke. I believe not in St. Paul. I believe not revelation; I believe in tradition; I believe in the Talmud; I believe in the Alcoran; I believe not in the Bible; I believe in Socrates; I believe Confucius; I believe in Sanconiathan; I believe in Mahomet; I believe not in Christ. Lastly, I believe in all unbelief."
[TCB 498-508]
|
[Table of Contents] [Previous] [Next] |
Alexander Campbell
The Christian Baptist (1889) |