heaven, and to return the borrowed nomenclature of the schools to its rightful owners-to speculate no more upon the opinions of St. Austin, St. Tertullian, St. Origen-to speak of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit as the gospel, of faith, of repentance, of baptism, of election, of the death of Christ, of his mediation, of his blood, of the reconciliation, of the Lord's Supper, of the Atonement, of the Church of God, &c., in all the phrases found in the Record, without any partiality-to learn to love one another as much when we differ in opinion as when we agree, and to distinguish between the testimony of God and man's reasonings and philosophy upon it. The Apostle says, There is one body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one immersion, one God and father of all.' But no where in the sacred book is it said there is one opinion. If, however, unity of opinion were desirable, to attain it we must give the greatest liberty of opinion; for, though once theory with us, it is now matter of experience, that the more stress is laid upon unity of opinion, the less of it, and the more division, and the less regard paid to it. This is founded in a law of the human mind, on which it is unseasonable and unnecessary to expatiate. We have good reason to say, that there exists not the same number of professors in any department of Christendom, amongst whom unity of opinion, as much as unity of faith, is the bond of union, so much of one opinion in all matters pertaining to the Christian institution, as amongst the brethren who have agreed cordially to receive one another without regard to differences of opinion.' They have not laid so much stress upon it, and therefore they have more of it. Amongst Christians there is now, as there was at the beginning, a great diversity in the knowledge of the Christian institution. There are babes, children, young men, and fathers in Christ, now as well as in the days of the apostle John. This, from the natural gifts of God, from the diversities of the age, education, and circumstances, is unavoidable. And would it not be just as rational, as well as scriptural, to excommunicate one another because our knowledge is less or greater than any fixed measure, as for differences of opinion or matters of speculation? Indeed, in most places where proscription and exclusions now occur in this country, the excluded are the most intelligent members of the society. And although no community will accuse a man because he knows more of his Bible than his brethren, and on this account exclude him from their communion, yet this, it is manifest, rather than heresy (of which, however, for consistency's sake, he must be accused) is, in truth, the real cause of separation. If God has bestowed better gifts or better opportunities on one man than on another, by which he has attained more knowledge, instead of thanking God for his kindness to the community, they beg God to take 6 him away; and if he will not be so unkind, they will at length put him from among them under the charge of heresy. In most instances, the greatest error of which a brother can be guilty, is to study his Bible more than his companions, or, at least, to surpass them in his knowledge of the mystery of Christ. I need not say much on the chapter of human traditions. They are easily distinguished from the Apostles' traditions. Those of the Apostles are found in their writings, as those of men are found in their own books. Some human traditions may have a show of wisdom, but it is only an appearance. So long as it is written, In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men,' so long will it be presumptuous folly to add the commandments of men to the principles of Jesus Christ. I know of but one way in which all the believers in Jesus Christ, honourably to themselves, honourably to the Lord, and advantageously to all the sons of Adam, can form one communion. All have two chapters too many in their present ecclesiastic constitutions. The contents of the aforesaid two chapters are various and difficult in all their sects, but they all have two chapters of the same name. In some they are long and in some they are short; but, whether long or short, let every one agree to tear them out of his book and burn them, and be satisfied with faith, piety, and morality. Let human philosophy, and human tradition, as any part of the Christian institution, be thrown overboard into the sea, and the ship of the church will make a happy, safe, and prosperous voyage across the ocean of time, and finally, under the triumphant flag of Immanuel, gain a safe anchorage in the haven of eternal rest. I would appeal to every honourable, good, and loyal citizen of the kingdom of heaven, to every one that seeks the good of Zion, that loves the kingdom and the appearing of our common Lord and Saviour, whether such a concession be not due to the Lord, to the saints in heaven and on earth, and to the whole human race, in the crisis in which we are now placed? and whether we could propose less, or ought to demand more, than to make one whole burnt-offering of all our empty and deceitful philosophy'—our science falsely so called'-and our traditions received from our fathers? I would put it to the good sense of every sane mind to say, whether such a whole burnt-offering would not be the most acceptable peace-offering which, in this our day, could be presented on the altar of the Prince of Peace? and whether, under the teaching of the apostles of the great prophet, the church might not again triumphantly stand upon the holy ground which she so honourably occupied before Origen, Austin, Athanasius, or the first Pope was born? My dear Sir, after this exposition, you will no doubt perceive that it is a cardinal feature in the reformation for which we con tend, to displace all the scholastic doctrines, phrases, terms, &c., of the 'primitive fathers' and the Protestant reformers,' and to contend earnestly for the faith formerly delivered to the saints. I may add that, as far as I am informed of the faith, piety, and morality of the brethren in England, we are one with them; and even in matters of opinion, I opine there is a very general concurrence between them and us. We may have some philosophy and some traditions which we ought not to have, and you may unfortunately be in the same predicament; but so long as neither of us make these a bond of union, nor a term of communion, we can cheerfully and happily maintain unity of spirit by the strong bonds of Christian peace. We, no doubt, necessarily differ in the extent of our knowledge of the whole reve lation of God; but should you be more intelligent in the sacred Scriptures than we are, we will thank you to teach us the way of the Lord more perfectly, and we will thank God for your assistance. We trust that we have been taught, that, if our brethren are more gifted than we, they are not, on that account, heretics, and to be treated as heathen men and publicans. Touching all private matters in your letter, I will, so soon as I have read the books you have so kindly forwarded to me, (not yet however come to hand,) write you more particularly. May favour, mercy, and grace be multiplied to you, and all the holy brethren with you, from God our Father, and Jesus Christ our Lord, to whom be glory now and for ever. 66 66 In the hope of immortality, yours, Bethany, Brook Co. Va. "ALEXANDER CAMPBELL. SIR JOHN MASON'S VIEWS OF THE WORLD. In his last moments, Sir John Mason thus addressed his family: "Lo! I have lived to see five princes, and have been privy councillor to four of them. I have seen the most remarkable things in foreign parts, and I have been present in most state transactions at home for thirty years past. After so much experience, I have learned that seriousness is the greatest wisdom, temperance the best physician, and a good constitution the best estate; and were I to live again, I would change the court for a cloister; my privy councillor's bustle for the retirement of a hermit; and my whole life in the palace for an hour's enjoyment of God in my closet. All things now forsake me except my God, my duty, and my prayers." LETTER FROM W. JONES TO MR. A. CAMPBELL. London, June 17, 1835. 66 MY DEAR BROTHER CAMPBELL ! The kind and courteous manner in which you at first invited me to become your correspondent, and the frankness which has invariably characterised your subsequent letters, have combined to disarm me of all shyness and reserve, and emboldened me to address you with that freedom and familiarity which I otherwise might not have used. My letters have even assumed somewhat of a controversial cast; but your admirable Essay on Religious Controversy "furnishes me with a sufficient apology for this. You there tell us that "religious controversy has enlightened the world," and that "while error lives, and falsehood has an auxiliary upon earth, controversy will be necessary, and argument indispensable." Besides, towards the conclusion of your last letter, you even admit the possibility of your being wrong on some points, and invite correction; for, say you, "should our brethren in England be more intelligent in the sacred Scriptures than we are, we will thank you to teach us the way of the Lord more perfectly, and we will also thank God for your assistance.” This is placing the matter upon its proper basis. We are all of us but learners in the school of Christ, and woe be to that man that fancies himself beyond the need of instruction! Even an inspired Apostle was compelled to acknowledge he "knew but in part;" and he has given us this caution "against being wise in our own conceits," that, "if a man think himself to be something when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself." But a truce to further apology. ; In exploring the volumes of the Christian Baptist,' I have been not a little surprised at some things which have there come across my path on the subject of the Decalogue, or Moral Law, considered as a rule of life to the people of the New Covenant and especially that my friend Campbell should have entered his protest against it. Ön finding this to be the case, I could not refrain an involuntary exclamation to this effect: "Here is a strange affair, indeed! Mr. Campbell, who exhibits the Scotch Baptists in this country as being fettered and manacled and paralysed by the stays of Hyper-Calvinism,' is himself found chiming in with the Hyper-Calvinists, the only party on this side the Atlantic that has the least hesitation in admitting the perpetual obligation of the Decalogue, and on a point, too, on which the Scottish Baptist churches are firmly agreed in opposing both!" On this topic you are quite out of our camp, and we find you in that of our enemies. It is very true, indeed, and I have un P speakable satisfaction in recording the fact, that the grounds and reasons on which you object to the Moral Law as a rule of life, and those on which it is opposed by the Hyper-Calvinists in this country, differ as wide as the two poles; for, while the latter discard it on the score of its rigid claims of holiness-its austerity--and the strictness of its demands, your objections are of a totally different cast. Nevertheless, as I doubt their validity, I hope you will permit me to examine them a little narrowly in the present letter, and perhaps I may be able to suggest some considerations of sufficient weight to induce you to review the subject, and what you have written upon it. Now, to lay a foundation for the remarks I have to offer, I begin by making a quotation from the first volume of the Christian Baptist,' where you thus express yourself:-- 66 He 'Moses, the great law-giver to the Jews, delivered this law as a rule of life to the Jews only; and it was all equally important to them, and binding upon them. It was holy, just, and good, as respected its design-and was equally divine and authoritative. He that touched the ark died the death, as well as he who stole the golden wedge. He that offered strange fire upon the altar was consumed, as well as he that cursed his father. that gathered fuel on the Sabbath, and he that blasphemed the God of Israel, were devoted to the same destruction. But the law of Moses was given for a limited time. The world was about twenty-five hundred years old before it was given; for until the law sin was in the world,' and this law was designed only to continue till the promised seed should come, the great Law-giver. Moses pointed Israel to this great Law-giver. Malachi told the Jews to remember this law until Elias should come. The Messiah said plainly, that the law and the prophets preached till John ;' but since that time the kingdom of God was preached.' Paul repeatedly affirms that Christians are not under the law, but under the Gospel, as a rule of life. In teaching the Jews, he compared the law to a school-master until Christ came; but since faith or Christ came, he assured them they were no longer under the school-master. He declared they were delivered from the law.they were free from it- they were dead to it.' He says, it is done away it is abolished'—' it is disannulled."" 6 "Then,' say the popular teachers,' you have no moral law as a rule of life-no preaching of the law as a means of conviction of sin; you may live as you list your doctrine is licentious-it is Antinomian-it is dangerous to morals-to piety-to all good.' "Blessed Jesus! art thou thus insulted by pretended friends? Are thy laws an inadequate rule of life? Guided by thy statutes, will our lives be licentious, our morals loose, ourselves abandoned to all crime? Was Moses a more consummate law-giver than thou? Did his commandments more fully or more clearly exhibit the moral, the godly course of life than thine? Were the sanctions of his law of more solemn import, of more restraining authority than thy precepts? Is there no means of conviction of sin, of its evil and demerit, in thy doctrine, manner of life, or in thy death? What argument, what |