being imprisoned, because two or three clergymen in the state have the whole work, and perhaps not more than three men in the whole state have all the three works which I have given in one volume. Many of them may have one of the three, some two, but very few indeed have the whole; and should not the "laity" have the work as well as the clergy? I gave it to themand he will take it from them. I can prove, as soon as he gives his name, if I am not greatly mistaken, that he has actually took home to his own house the work from some of his lay brethren, first telling them its faults and then accepting of it as a present. His name, in full, will decide this point. But with all he says about the clergy having these works, I am told he had to ride to Winchester to a circulating library to get a peep into Doddridge on Acts xx. 28, that he might make out his case.

He requests me to publish his rejoinder. My rules require his name when a request of this sort is made. Let him publish his name, and I will publish them from-Dan to Beersheba.

Mr. Skillman, as a christian, I can have no object but truth. I am not afraid to avow my sentiments on any subject. I am obliged to you for your last extract from the Christian Baptist; but cannot thank you for the head you made for it. But your head and my body will not make one man. I court investigation, special and strict investigation of the new version. I thank all for their criticisms, but none for their slanders. I feel able to defend the work against all opposition, and will think so until I am tried. You will publish this, I trust, as soon as you see it, especially as you have published the slanders of your friend twice, and tacked his rejoinder to the heels of my reply. You will excuse this hasty scroll, as your paper was received by me after night, on the 6th instant, at Louisville. I am now starting to Indiana, and cannot transcribe my Monday morning's lucubrations. Your honest friend, A. CAMPBELL. Louisville, January 8, 1827.

ing certain phrases which he has the goodness to He thanks me, not for having given this transprescribe, only attaching to them, without men-lation to the public; but snarls at the idea of its tal reservation, the orthodox sense. I see he thinks me conscientious! Well now, should I conscientiously avow that I am not a Unitarian, Socinian, Arian, Semiarian, or Sabellian, I wonder whether he would believe me. We shall try. If he does not, then my using his test words would be of no use: for, then, I spake feignedly. Strange case, indeed! I am accused of being or leaning to a Unitarian, and not one sentiment or sentence in all my writings or public speeches adduced in proof. I am accused of making a New Testament to suit my gospel; and yet my accuser does not say what my gospel is, nor does he say that I have perverted one single word to favor it-Yes, he has. Has he not censured the word Lord instead of God? But has he accused Griesbach, Ireneus, and the Syriac version, and many others, of having gospels of their own to foist upon the public?-No. Has he accused them of Socinianism or Unitarianism?-No. If, then, this "alteration," himself being judge, does not prove them interpolators and heretics, how can it criminate me!! But, sir, is it not passing strange, that of all the texts that speak of "the supreme deity of Jesus" in the whole New Testament, he has not found one against which to except in the new translation, save this one! and even this one he does not presume to shew to be Unitarian. Is it so that he has not another one in all the book to place along side of it. Surely, then, the new translation is most unexceptionable on this subject; for more than twenty have been excepted to in the common version on this account, by Calvinistic writers, as I can prove. I do charge him with the crime of slander in this instance; and I call upon him to show that there is any gospel other than the apostolic supported in the new version. I have often given my reasons why I object to expressing myself in any creed language, upon any article of the christian religion. See also an essay on "purity of speech," in this No. on this very topic. I do believe that Jesus the Saviour is the Word made flesh; that this Word was "in the beginning with God, and that this word was God." I do believe and teach that he is "the Alpha and Omega-the First and the Last." I believe that although he was rich, and thought it not a robbery to be like God, yet he made himself poor," and ten thousand persons are witnesses that I pray to him and teach others to pray to him, and to worship him with all their hearts, without reservation or equivocation. If this be a proof of Unitarianism or Arianism, I may be accused; APRIL 2, 1827. but otherwise no man can accuse me without Remarks on a Tour. being guilty of slander. But I will speak of him THROUGH the watchful care and supporting in bible terms, and in the words which the Holy hand of the Father of Mercies, we have returned Spirit teaches, and not in the language of Ash-in safety from a tour in the states of Ohio, Kendod. I do so on all other topics equally with tucky, Indiana, and Tennessee, occupying a pethis. But, like a true son of a sect, this anony-riod of four months. On this tour I had the mous slanderer first orders me to be scourged, and then asks me what I have done. He first accuses me of the basest crime, and then, unable to convict me of it, he adjures me to say, am I not guilty? He condemns me and then calls for the evidence. But I defy him to prove his charge, and to prove from the new version that I have not faithfully done every thing proposed to be done in the work. In his last piece he has, indeed, not even adverted to the essential parts of my former reply. He has not made a single objection to the 15th and 16th paragraphs of my reply, nor a single remark, that I can see, on them; and these unassailed, he has conceded every point of importance.

Anecdote.

A ScoтCH blacksmith being asked the meaning of metaphysics, explained it as follows:"When the party who listens dinna ken what the party who speaks means, and the party who speaks dinna ken what he means himself—that is metaphysics."

No. 9.]

pleasure not only of visiting my old friends and acquaintances, but of adding many new ones to the number. To this pleasure, however, was annexed the pain of parting. For, to the uncertainty of meeting again in this pilgrimage, was added the uncertainty, in some instances at least, of meeting in the heavenly country. For, while we rejoice in the assurance of meeting many of our friends in that blessed state where there is no more separation, it must be acknowledged that there are some personally attached to us, and we to them, from various reasons, concerning whose eternal life we can entertain but a very slender hope. It is, perhaps, natural; but so it is, that while we exercise benevolence to

wards all mankind, we more ardently desire the salvation of some than of others. Hence it is, that on our list of friends there are some of whose salvation we are not always sanguine; yet, from their social and merely human virtues, we feel compelled, with more than ordinary zeal, to exclaim, "Would to God that they were not only almost, but altogether christians!" The Saviour once looked upon and loved a young man of extraordinary virtue, who, with a sad and sorrowful heart, bade him adieu. He was almost, but not altogether a disciple. There are, perhaps, few christians unacquainted with the feelings and views to which we allude. There is no doubt but that the Saviour of the world, his apostles, and the christians of the primitive age, had many friends who never became obedient to the faith. But this is a subject on which we can neither think nor write with pleasure. We shall therefore dismiss it with the expression of a wish that none may construe attachments or friendships, based on considerations merely human, into an affectionate regard for the Saviour and his disciples.

We added much to our knowledge of men and things religious, and returned home richly laden with materials for public edification. These materials have been quarried out of the actual condition of things in the religious world, and will require but little skill to adjust to advantage. We got into the cabinet of the popular systems, and into the sanctum sanctorum of the religious world. At these we had but peeped before, but now have looked full in the face the sacred effigies which fell down from Jupiter. We are often wont to conclude that from a few samples we know the whole, and that from a short acquaintance we know the man. Of the fallacy of such conclusions we have frequent proofs, but yet we are reluctant to suspect that we may be wrong. I would not raise expectation too high, nor give occasion to retort

"Returning from his finish'd tour,
"Grown ten times perter than before;"

every verse of the Song of Solomon; from the mystic, who finds the whole plan of salvation in Paul's shipwreck and escape on Malta; from the inspired enthusiast, who tells of dreams and visions, of extacies and revelations all the day; from the drivelling paraphrast to the verbose and soporiferous commentator, we have had a perfect example. But on the other hand, we have also been conversant with the sapient doctors of biblical criticism, the shrewd and convincing reasoners upon the law and the testimony; the profound interpreters of scholastic theology; the eloquent declaimers against vice and immorality; the dispassionate and frigid metaphysician; the practical preacher, and the erudite bishop. But what is worthy of notice and still more of remembrance, we have heard some commend the life they will not lead, and approve the course they will not follow; who

"See the better way and approve it too,

"Detest the worse, and still the worse pursue." Of the influence of these teachers there is every where illustrious demonstrations. Here is a congregation all on fire, and there another cold as Boreas. Here there is one intelligent and liberal; there another ignorant and bigoted. Here they are all intent on mysteries, and there on their interpretation. In one congregation it is all doctrine; in another, all practice. In a few the supreme question is, "Lord, what will you have us to do?" but in many it is in effect what is

most fashionable?

Religious sects do not bound and limit these diversities, but they exist in all. We mingled with all, conversed with all, and found in all pretty much the same varieties. A few differences in opinion do not always, indeed very seldom, make a visible difference in the exterior or interior items of a profession. The Baptist and the Paido-Baptist, the New Light and the Old Light in the same latitudes vegetate alike. They wear different regimentals, rally round different standards, and fight under different captains; but neither the flag nor the cockade makes a differ

another dastardly and timid under any insignia. As, of nations it was once said, of sects it may now be said, "In every one he that fears God and works righteousness is accepted by him." And will not the sprinkled which by nature keep the precepts of our Lawgiver, judge you a transgressor, though immersed, who boast in your immersion, and keep not the commandments of your King?

but I would say that I think I am better quali-ence in the soldiers. One is heroic and daring; fied to speak to the religious world on the subjects to which I have been calling its attention, than before. I have been questioned and crossquestioned a thousand times on a thousand topics; I have heard religious experiences, religious doubts; histories of conversions and relapses; of family religion, of family discipline, of christian congregations, of councils, conferences, and synods, of debates and strifes, of revivals and declensions, of persecutions and triumphs, of religious wars and commotions-so numerous and diversified, so ordinary and extraordinary, that I think little can be added to give variety to the religious scenery which I now have in retrospect. If undissembled piety yet exists on earth, I have seen it; if christian friendship or brotherly love have yet their abode on earth, I have sojourned with them; if intelligent zeal and active philanthropy yet warm a human heart, or animate a human tongue, we have heard their eloquence and felt their power. And if there can be seen a dreary waste of frigid speculations; if there be on earth a barren desert of withered forms and parched ceremonies; if there be a valley of dry bones and lifeless sculls, strewed with the spoils of death, we have traversed it through. If there be surperstition, delusion, enthusiasm, scepticism, infidelity, or atheism, yet alive, we have conversed with them.

Of the teachers of what is called religion, we have had a very full example. From the allegorizer, who preaches Christ and his church out of 2 Q

The two greatest evils we have to deplore, because pregnant with the greatest evils to mankind in general, are the manifest want of congregational and family discipline. The easy terms on which many are admitted into christian communities, and the little attention paid to their after behavior; the great zeal manifested for the acknowledgment of the party shibboleths, and the little concern expressed for the good works of christians, have almost defaced the landmarks which bound the plantations of nature and of grace. The decent moralist without, and the precise professor within, the pale of christian society, are, in the main, one and the same character. And when the question is asked, What do you more than others? it is answered by comparing the best in the church with the worst out of it-a mode of reasoning the most sophistical in the world. It should have been by comparing the worst in the church with the most respectable deistical moralist, and not by demanding all the boot between the decent sceptic and the extravagant debauchee, or licentious rake, to

21

63

|

make the odds between the christian and the unregenerate. But thus it is that many impose upon themselves and one another. They are content to say that they differ from others, inasmuch as they frequent not the ball-room, nor the theatre, nor the haunts of dissipation. To this add, that the reins of congregational discipline are held in such an enfeebled hand, that a group of the most motley character is held together whith-gious instruction of their servants. But on all ersoever the impetus of passion, sense, or appetite guide the way. Though this is not universal, it is very general in all parties. The restraints of christian doctrine are relaxed by the artificial or rather mechanical restraints of wayward creeds, and an agreement in "essential" opinions, covers a multitude of actual aberrations from the morality of the Lord Jesus.

is ten degrees south; another, ten degrees north; | thrown down the gauntlet in an extraordinary way and though twenty degrees apart, they are equally indeed. Another, who goes a step higher, even distant from the equator of true religion. But, in to the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and the second place, if the Lord's hand is in these calls himself "Beth," has severely castigated the accessions, then it proves that he disdains equally temerity of his brother Doctor." It is passing their systems and their order, and bestows his strange that the only two Doctors of Divinity in favors indiscriminately on all. It cannot be the West, of the Baptist denomination, should argued that he approves all their systems; for thus become Aleph and Beth, and stand on the this would terminate in the most absurd results. two sides of this question. The creed side has He would then approve of Papacy, Episcopacy, lost one hundred per cent. within a year or two Presbytery, and Independency of infant sprink- past, if I mistake not. Its advocates have deling and of believer's immersion, and of a hundred serted the old ground, and Doctor Aleph in his things flatly contradictory to each other. I say, recent challenge has got it fixed on no ground at then, it proves, on the best hypothesis, that he all, but, like Mahomet's coffin, hung between disdains all their systems and their order, and heaven and earth. It would require a critic to that he loudly proclaims it by the distributions understand his challenge. It is in the following of his favor upon the Baptist order, the Method-words:-"If Mr. Duncan, Mr. Campbell or the istic order, the Presbyterial order, and so forth. Reviewer, should be inclined to meet the great If the Lord approved of one of the present sys- question fairly in reference to the principle tems he would confer all his favors upon that of having a creed, not in regard to the conpeople; or, in other words, he would assemble tents of any particular creed, nor in regard to his elect under that standard, and signalize them church administration, for these are different as he once did the only nation he selected and subjects; if they will meet the single question made his own. They could exclaim, What peo- above stated, their error shall be made apparent, ple like us!! What people has the Lord blessed even to the most ordinary capacity." So, then, Mr. as he has blessed us!! I say, then, that to my "Aleph" will not contend for the contents of his reasoning faculties, the logic of the Baptist Re-creed, but for the principle of having one. Neither corder or that of the Presbyterian Luminary now confederated, proves not that the Lord approbates that for which they contend, viz. the present order of things in their respective circles, but that he equally disdains both their orders. I would like to see them try their logic here. He sends his gospel to them all, on the supposition that the work of these revivals is his, and thereby calls them to reformation. I have no idea of magnifying molehills into mountains, nor of consecrating the language of Ashdod into that of Canaan; I have no idea of amalgamating oil and water, of christening pagans, or of paganizing christians; I have no idea of raising up a holy seed from Egyptian or Babylonish wives, nor of proving that the Lord approves the present order of things, because the Methodists and Baptists annually count twenty thousand converts a-piece.

During the ancient order of things there was no church meetings for the purpose of receiving candidates for immersion. There were no monthly meetings to decide who should be baptized. There was no person who held his membership in one church and had the pastoral care of another in which he was not a member, and to which he was not amenable, as is now the case very generally. There was no church in those days of primitive integrity, composed of a hundred members, which, in a case of discipline, gave only eleven votes, six against and five for the delinquent, and they excommunicated him. There was no deacon appointed solely for the purpose of carrying about a plate four times a-year. There was no society whose whole code of discipline was the 18th of Matthew. There was no one who had any formulary, creed, or confession, other than the apostolic writings. Now let him that affirms to the contrary remember that the proof lies upon him. And we will assure him that his proof will be faithfully published by us, should he send it for that purpose. The subjects introduced here are intended for future developement. EDITOR.

The Creed Question. THIS question has been long and warmly contested in the United States. In Kentucky an anonymous writer, who it is believed has changed sides on this question more than once, who calls bimself “Aleph,” and very pertinently too, has

|

will he contend about the use to be made of his creed in church administration. But all he will engage to do is to contend for the principle or right of having a creed. This is with him the great question. But unfortunately or accidentally it happens that the Doctor has given his challenge so as to preclude the hope or fear of an opponent. The Doctor is a very amiable man, and I cannot think he designed to play the sophist here, though he has done it to extravagance. I ascribe it to his cause and not to his good sense. Suppose, for example, I had written against polygamy, or against the right or principle of having two wives.. Suppose that some polygamist should have said,. and defied the world on it, that "If Mr. Duncan or myself should be inclined to meet the great question fairly in reference to the principle of having a wife, not in regard to the number or character, nor their treatment; if they will meet the single question above stated, their error shall be made apparent to the most ordinary capacity".

what answer would it deserve? If it were not an insult to the good sense of the reader, I would say, Sir, you have changed the ground of contro versy altogether. I contend not against the principle of having a wife, but, sir, you contend for the principle of having two; and before you will make my error apparent to the most ordinary capacity, you will first produce the divine authority or right reason of having two wives at one and the same time. I contend for one divine and infallible creed, and you argue for a human and fallible one along with it, or for the "principle" of having two creeds. "Now, sir, the proof lies upon the affirmer. Be so good, then, as to produce your divine authority or your good reasons for the principle of having two creeds, and then I pledge myself to make your error plain to the most ordinary capacity. Now, my kind friend Aleph, stick to your text, and, like an honest man, come out, not in the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, but write your name in full.

I must not close till I have let Beth confute Aleph in his own words. The preceding challenge of Aleph is replied to by Beth in the following words:

"I have never heard of any christian man who controverted the propriety and even the necessity of having a creed. The only question is, Whether or not Jesus Christ shall be the au

"For ye brethren became followers of the churches of God, which in Judea are in Christ Jesus." 1 Thess. ii. 14.

"So that we ourselves glory in you in the churches of God." 2 Thess. i. 4.

"For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?"" But if I tarry long, that you may know how you ought to behave yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God." 1 Tim. iii. 5. 15.

thor of the creed, and of the constitution and of God, and Timothy our brother, to the church laws of his church? or shall a voluntary associ- of God which is at Corinth." 2 Cor. i. 1. ation of men take this business out of his hands "For ye have heard of my conversation in and form one to suit their own views and pur-time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond poses, by either changing the doctrinal state- measure I persecuted the church of God." Gal. ments, facts, and connexions, as they appear in i. xiii. the word of God, or by adding to, or taking from his system of truth, or by epitomising it? It required the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, to write the system of faith in the gospel, and shall a voluntary association of men presume to exercise the power of changing, modifying, or improving it? This would, in my judgment, savor very much of a conspiracy against the kingdom of Christ, and of a presumptuous sin. If one association of men have a right to form a creed, another and another have, and churches formed in accordance with them have equal claims to divine authority. The Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians, and Roman Catholics, all stand upon the same footing. Each one under this divine authority, claims the right to wage war upon the rest in defence of their faith; and thus we have five different organized armies, marshalled under different standards, commanded by different officers, and united by different ereeds, in active conflict, by divine authority too, in direct violation of the express commands and authority of Jesus Christ in the gospel. All this is done under the pretext of keeping out Arians and other heretics. Every one assumes the right to be God's commentator and expositor, instead of the apostles; and all differ, and make their differences articles of faith." EDITOR.

ACTS xx. 28. "Feed the church of God which he has purchased with his own blood."

Mr. Alexander Campbell, it seems, in his new translation, substitutes the term Lord for God, in the above passage. This, he tells us, he has done on the authority of Griesbach, Ireneus, who flourished A. D. 170, and the Syriac version. According to the alteration, it reads "Feed the Church of the Lord," instead of "the church of God," as it is in our common version. It does not appear to me, that any one should oppose the introduction of a various reading into the common text, when the change is evidently for the better, and is clearly supported by satisfactory evidence, as the genuine reading. But when this is not the case, it surely ought not to be attempted; because all attempts to alter the text in common use, tend to unsettle the public mind, in relation to, and destroy the confidence of the people in, the sacred scriptures.

As different opinions appear to be entertained relative to the above passage, permit me to inquire whether the phrase, the church of the Lord, is a New Testament phrase? The church of God, we know to be language quite common with Paul, as the following quotations will show:

"Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ, through the will of God, and Sosthenes, our brother, to the church of God, which is at Corinth.” 1 Cor. i. 2.

"Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor the Gentiles, nor to the church of God." 1 Cor. x. 32.

"But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the church of God." "What! have you not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise you the church of God, and shame them that have not?" 1 Cor. xi. 16. 22.

"For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God." 1 Cor. xv. 9.

If, now, it be inquired, "How often is the phrase, the church of the Lord, used in the New Testament?" I believe the answer must be, "Not once." If it be there, I have not been able to find it; and Horne, in his "Introduction to the Critical Study of the Sacred Scriptures," tells us it is no where in the New Testament. These facts render it evident that Paul was not accustomed to use such a phrase as the church of the Lord, but was in the habit of calling the church the church of God; and that, therefore, the strong presumption is, he did so in Acts xx. 28. in his address to the elders of the church at Ephesus. For it is to be remembered, that although Luke was the penman, yet the language is Paul's. And as it stands in our common version, it is just what we might expect from him. It "smacks" so much of Paul-is so much like him, that I can hardly help thinking we have the very language he used. But to change it into the church of the Lord, necessarily introduces to us. a new speaker, and a new New Testament writer.

It is then evident, that the common reading in the passage under consideration is the authorized reading-authorized from parallel passages of scripture, which warrant the phraseology; while the change which Mr. C. has made, is in like manner unauthorized. With this strong and not easily refuted presumption in favor of the phrase as it stands in our bibles, it appears to me we ought to have powerful external evidence (as that which arises from a various reading in ancient MSS. and versions is called) in support of the change before it is introduced.

But when the external evidence is examined, there is no such weighty preponderance in favor of the alteration, that I know of. What if Griesbach does decide in favor of the change? At least one other critic, of no ordinary talent and industry, and perhaps full as learned as Griesbach, and who has written since him, and profited by his labors; after having noticed all the various readings, and cited the evidence in favor of each, decides that the weight of evidence from ancient MS. versions, and the fathers, is in favor of the common reading.

The same author tells us that the old Syriac version is neither in favor of the common reading, nor of Mr. C's; but supports the phrase, the church of Christ. If so, there is a slight mistake in Mr. Campbell's piece, published in the Lumiinary of the 3d of January, which informs us that that version contains the reading which he prefers; and likewise a slight diminution of the evidence on which he makes his change.

From the same source we learn that Ignatius supports the common reading; a father, who

* I mean Thomas Hartwell Horne, in his "Introduction to the Critical Study of the Sacred Scriptures." Vol. "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the will2 p. 350, 351, second London edition.