At this time, Thomas was a prominent Campbellite. In the early 1840s, he turned to Millerism/Adventism, and eventually founded the Christadelphians. Thomas had ties to Henry Grew, George Storrs, Benjamin Wilson, and other Adventists.

Campbellism was a reform movement in the early 19th century, which eventually led to the founding of the "Disciples of Christ", or "Christian Church".

(Price Fourpence)

THE CHRISTIAN MESSENGER AND REFORMER; CONTAINING ESSAYS, ADDRESSES, ORATIONS, LETTERS, &c. &c.

BY ALEXANDER CAMPBELL AND OTHERS.

Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the foundation corner-stone.

No. 1. MARCH 1838. VOL. 2.

CONTENTS PAGE.

1. Preface ... 1

2. The Kingdoms of Europe .... 2

3. The Evidences of Christianity-a Debate between Robert Owen and Alexander Campbell, continued. ......... 7

4. Schism.-The Church of Christ.-No.2 .... 15 5. Apostles ....... 22

6. "Strictures on Campbellism" Strictured. By John Thomas M.D. ........................ 26 7. An Occasional Visitor to the New Testament Church in Nottingham .................... 33 8. Empty Forms in Worship ............... 33 9. News from Reforming Brethren and Churches ......... 34 10. New Version .................35

LONDON:
PUBLISHED BY SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, AND CO.,
STATIONERS' HALL COURT;
AND BY T. KIRK, PETER GATE, NOTTINGHAM,

Also by Marples and Co., Liverpool; Bentham, Manchester; Knight, Leeds; Ramsden, Beverley; Winks & Tebbut, Leicester; J. Briggs, Newcastle-upon-Tyne; Scotts, Carlisle; Potts, Banbury; Lancashire, Huddersfield; Miller, Dunfermline; Robinson, Stockton-upon-Tees; Bayley, Wrexham; and may be had by order of any Bookseller.

T. Kirk, Printer, Nottingham

"STRICTURES ON CAMPBELLISM"
STRICTURED

BY JOHN THOMAS. M.D.

Two considerations prompt me to offer a few remarks on Mr. Jones' pamphlet; first, that "Friend Truth" may be defended against his well-intentioned, but unenlightened efforts; and second, because being a party concerned, I feel it my duty to stand forth in the breach, and to assist in maintaining the integrity of her works in the face of "church" and "world." We hold nothing which we are ashamed to defend. We court inquiry. We know there is no permanent or real good to be derived from holding or propagating what is untrue. Error can benefit no one. If we be errorists, we would rejoice to be converted from the error of our way; and not only to believe, but to do the truth. Mr. Jones, or Mister anybody, will be entitled to abundant gratitude, if, by any means, he can reclaim us from what is wrong, to that which is right. We are not, however, of the number

27

of those who succomb to age, talents, or authority, unless these be manifestly sustained by, and are indeed on the side of, truth.

I know that many will think this a bold, and perhaps, daring proposition. I hold it, nevertheless, in the sense in which I affirm it. My position is this, that in matters pertaining to the faith, the age, talents, authority or reputation of uninspired men, especially in this uninspired age, ought not to weigh one feather; as far as we are acquainted with the uninspired living and dead, we know of none of the so-called "good, great and wise" whose judgment of what the Scriptures teach, ought to be confided in. As helps, some of their labours have been beneficial; but as guide, they are none of them trustworthy. The only authority in matters pertaining to the faith, is Holy Scripture. There are no men in existence, nor are there the writings of any extant, whose interpretation of Scripture should be received as authority. The meaning of Scripture, as it is apparent to an unsophisticated mind, is alone authority with such a man. This man may be young or he may be old, he may be literary or not, his youth or his seniority, adds nothing to the meaning, neither can they detract from it. It is the meaning of Scripture as it appears to a believing reader, which ought to be authority with him: nothing else can be received as authority by one who would please God. The aged men of Christendom during the last 1600 years, have for the most part grown old in error, and gone down with grey hairs to the grave in ignorance of the faith. It is not being the subject of some 60 or 70 annual revolutions of the earth, that makes a man wise or more competent to understand the truth. The fact is, if men's youthful minds have been the sponge, as it were, of human tradition, and well-saturated with the doctrines of men, they are more likely to be confirmed in them by age, than emancipated therefrom. I am always inclined to suspect the validity of a man's positions, when I find him appealing to the accumulation of the years of his animal life, in recommendation or support of his arguments. As to a man's talents, of what weight ought they to be in the question of what the Scriptures teach! Talents are but too often the hand-maid of error. Reputation too. This can add no weight to truth, at least it ought not. Let truth stand upon her own merits. She asks not the fallacious patronage of human attributes, however esteemed of men, to enable her to prove that she is worthy of all reception, veneration, and worship. I revere the aged believer as a father or mother in Christ, provided

28

they have put him on according to truth. In short, I would at all times "render to all their dues;" and, it appears to me, that this is quite compatible with the sentiments we have expressed; but when we come to inquire, "What do the Scriptures teach?" we conceive that it is God speaking by and through the sacred word alone, who can unfold their meaning in their several parts.

As for the experience of those called Christians in this day, we think, that so far from their urging this as authority upon their contemporaries, they have more reason to repent in dust and ashes on its account. Their experience, which is essentially composed of doubts and fears, and of expedients and devices by which to satisfy themselves in some slight degree of their adoption into the family of God, can add nothing, but contrariwise, detracts from, the sublime assurances of the word of God. He that walks by the light of the experience of the aged "christians" of the 19th century, will certainly have little cause to felicitate himself on the agreeableness of his way. No, reader, if you would be safe; if you would walk in the light of truth; if you would be benefitted by the experience of christians; if you would be filled with peace, wisdom, and joy in believing; if you would yourself experience the assurances, the hopes, and the delights of the Christian life; fly you for refuge to the word of God-to the "sacred scriptures which are able to make you wise to eternal salvation by the faith which is in Christ Jesus;" they alone are able to "make you perfect"-to "completely fit you for every good work."

These reflections have been suggested to my mind by the "Strictures on Campbellism" on the desk before me. I see there the last effort of an accomplished writer, and of a very aged man. If age, talents, reputation, learning are to speak authoritatively, and according to their views of what the Scriptures teach, to judge and pronounce sentence, then are Alexander Campbell, Walter Scott, John Thomas, and Henry Grew cast out of the pale of the church by the aged, talented, and learned Mr. Jones. For, concerning brother Campbell, he decides, that "he is no longer the inquirer after truth; he has changed that character for the bold dogmatist,-the champion of a party." He considers that "he is subverted from the faith of the gospel," and departed from the form of sound words,"-"the faith once delivered to the saints." "He exhibits a melancholy instance of human versatility." Mr. Jones quotes from his writings to evince "the profaneness" of his style. Charges him with charicaturing the operations of the Holy Spirit; rejects him as

29

no longer one of his friends; says that "he has yet to learn the doctrine of the great apostle of the gentiles, touching the justification of the ungodly;" pronounces the superstructure he has been raising for the last years of his life, as "a bowing wall or a tottering fence,"-"wood, hay, and stubble," -which the fire shall destroy. As to his faith, he says, it is more easy to tell what he does not, than what he does believe. That he condemns text preaching, while in "the Christian Preacher," he has preached a rambling rhapsody. Terms his doctrine "poison;" and concludes by shearing him of all merit, but that very poor one of being a pretty good writer; an accomplishment which he has prostituted to garbling and mutilating "the ancient gospel," so as to render it no gospel at all.

Here is certainly a catalogue of henious sins. If God were to appoint Mr. Jones as brother Alexander's judge, I fear he would stand but a poor chance of eternal life; for surely Mr. Jones could not be so inconsistent as to admit into the heaven where he hopes to be, one whom on earth he can no longer call his friend; a man, whom he charges with being ignorant of God's justification, and with having departed from the faith once delivered to the saints, and, therefore, worse than an infidel. What a pity Mr. Jones cannot see the mote in his own eye! Why does he judge anything before the time? Let him look at home, and see if he be himself sound in the faith. We would say with all respect due to the length of his animal life, to his talents, and reputation- "physician heal thyself."

There is much in brother C's writings I do not approve; and I believe I have never hesitated to express my dissent. But as to the charge of "caricaturing the operations of the Holy Spirit," it is absurd and untrue. Mr. Jones, like brother C., upon another occasion, makes no distinction between a caricaturing the opinions of men concerning the operations, and a caricaturing the doctrine of the Scriptures respecting his work. Mr. Jones has fallen into the same error respecting brother C., that brother C. did concerning me, when I satirized the opinions of men in regard to the Christian hope. I have been much amused in reading these "Strictures on Campbellism."

There is an inconsistency in Mr. Jones' bill of indictment. He says that brother Campbell has yet to learn the doctrine of Paul concerning the justification of the ungodly: and yet he has departed from the faith once delivered to the saints; if he has yet to learn the doctrine, he can never have known it; consequently has not believed it; and is therefore an infidel; and

30

though as diligent a student of the scriptures perhaps as his late friend, these are inadequate to enlighten him as to the justification of the ungodly; and he must, therefore, yet sit at the feet of Mr. Jones, that he may be taught the truth! Now, if it be true, as Mr. Jones states, that brother C., is ignorant of the true doctrine of justification, how can he have departed from the faith? Can a man depart from the belief of a thing, of which, it is affirmed, he is still ignorant. Paul's doctrine of justification is a part of the faith. if, then, brother C. can be proved ignorant of that, he can never have obeyed the faith; unless it can be shown that a man can obey ignorantly. He must be in a woful plight indeed, unless he repent and embrace the "particular redemptionism" and "hyper-calvinism" of Mr. William Jones; which is the only true doctrine of Paul concerning the justification of the ungodly!!

No! We would speak the truth to Mr. Jones in love, and yet without disguise. The foundation which brother Campbell has been building upon is, that Jesus is the Christ. Paul, "as a skilful architect," says that "he laid this foundation." Let everyone, whether John Calvin, William Jones, or their contemporaries, take heed how they build upon it. "For other foundation no one can lay, except what is laid, which is Jesus Christ." Mr. Jones' great authority Calvin attempted to build; but his building was made up of rubbish-"wood, hay, stubble" indeed. His crazy work has long been manifested, and to say nothing of England and Scotland, were his rival Arminius presides over the ruins of his architecture, here in America, Calvinistic Presbyterianism is being devoured by Unitarian and Arminian cormorants. The "wood, hay, and stubble" of his gloomy fanes, are crackling in the fire like thorns under a pot; and the enemies of Calvinistic decrees are avenging the murder of servetus by destroying his tormentor's work. Had Mr. Jones addressed his strictures against John Calvin as a corrupter of the faith, they would have contained more truth than they do in their denunciation of brother C. on that score. I would by no means say that all brother C's building or superstructure is constructed of precious stones. We have to regret, that there are but too many who have the name of reformers without the thing. These are they who are Campbellites in deed; persons who have been permitted too easily to incorporate themselves among the brethren. But there are many, on the other hand, who can bear witness to the injustice of Mr. Jones "Strictures," as to his ignorance of

31

Paul's doctrine of justification of the ungodly, which constitutes a part of what he terms his building of "wood, hay, and stubble." Paul delivered to the Corinthians what also he had received concerning the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus; who was "delivered for our offences, and raised again for our justification." These things brother C. teaches and prescribes to such as believe, that they repent and be baptized, according to the ancient rules for the remission of sins. This is the gospel which Paul himself obeyed; and this is the gospel which is THE POWER OF GOD for salvation to every one that believes-a gospel which John Calvin, Mr. Jones' oracle, was never the subject of, and which Mr. J. condemns as "a baptismal regeneration" with which he imagines the Holy Spirit has nothing to do.

As to our much-esteemed friend brother Scott, Mr. Jones does not seem to have told Scotland a very "flattering tale" concerning this "one of her sons,"-brother S. repudiates the Calvinistic doctrine of "total depravity," which, in the sight of a hyper-calvinist, is immortal sin. This sin has brought him also into condemnation; and Mr. Jones has pronounced sentence on him as "a very unfit man to preach the gospel," because he does not care about (calvinistic) human depravity; and affirms that, "at any rate, his gospel cannot be identical with the original gospel, which the first heralds of salvation proclaimed." If brother S. were a servetus, and Mr. Jones an ecclesiastic of Geneva, we fear that his lot would be unenvied by all who had not imbibed a taste for martyrdom!-Can brother Scott show cause why the sentence of death should not be executed upon him?

The next poor delinquent whom the worthy and learned judge arraigns at the bar of public opinion, is my humble self. "This same man," John Thomas, is accused of "denying the existence of the human soul." It is urged that he insists "that the blood is the soul," and that he has proved by "a chemical test" that there is no distinct intelligent principle in man.

What is to be done with "this same man?" Is there no law by which he may be punished? No means by which he may be neutralized, and incur contempt? Oh yes, there is. The many of mankind are not afflicted with too much reflection;-they are the creatures of passion, prejudice, and zeal, but not according to knowledge. Heap ridicule upon him, and appeal to prejudice; give him some ugly names, and the thing is done. Accordingly, Mr. Jones has thought to place him in a ridiculous light, and therefore penned, and

32

printed and published to the world, that superficial paragraph in the "Strictures" concerning me.

But misrepresentation is rarely consistent with itself. He says I deny the existence of the soul; and almost immediately tells the reader, that I insist that the blood is the soul. How then can he say that I deny to man a soul, when he affirms, that I say that he has a soul, and that this soul is the blood?

Mr. Jones knows that his representation of my views without qualification or explanation is well calculated to arouse all the prejudices of orthodoxy; which, when under the tuition of priestcraft, identifies such views with infidelity and atheism. This was done, manifestly, with the intent of making brother C. as obnoxious as possible; for if he could fraternize with "this same man," and publish him to the world as "a chosen vessel," it would certainly be concluded, that he was as much of an infidel as his "dear brother."
Had Mr. Jones read my writings on this subject, instead of the Harbinger, he would certainly, as an honest man, have come to different conclusions; or at least have stated them in les exceptionable terms.

The fourth and last offender on this side of the water, is Mr. Henry Grew,-"an open and avowed sabellian; an anti-trinitarian; an utterer of bold blasphemy." "This Grew" is another of brother Campbell's dear brothers. What a quarto have we here! "A bold dogmatist,"-"a very unfit man,"-"a materialist,"-"a bold blasphemer!" Verily, our cases are desperate, our accuser being our judge!

But all this is nothing more than was to be expected. Mr. Jones has long been pulling down the apostacy with one hand, and building it up with the other. The epistolary correspondence between him and brother Campbell, we always considered as a species of editorial coquetry. We were convinced, and have often said as much, that they would split on the question of the operations of the Holy Spirit. A hyper-calvinistic and a reformer can never gee together so long as the calvinism is retained and enforced. It is subversive of the gospel of Jesus Christ. It misrepresents the divine attributes; it makes God partial, cruel, and unjust; and strips faith of the obedience in which God delights more than in whole burnt offerings, or the fat of rams. Nor is this to be wondered at. For, who could expect from a barbarian, the murderer of a better man, any other representation of God, than is to be found in the theory of religion set forth in the Geneva institutes?

33

EXCERPT

The following works are just published, and to be had through the medium of any Bookseller.
***
THE NEW VERSION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

EDITED BY A. CAMPBELL, OF AMERICA

Price 4s. 6d.

***

AN ESSAY ON DOMESTIC AND CHURCH ORDER.

BY ALEXANDER CAMPBELL, OF AMERICA.

Price 6d.

***

ESSAY ON THE REMISSION OF SINS.

BY A. CAMPBELL

Price 9d.

***

A TRIBUTE TO THE MEMORY OF THE APOSTLES, AND AN EXHIBITION OF THE FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCHES.

BY HENRY GREW.

***

THE CHRISTIAN MESSENGER AND REFORMER.

Vol. 1st, neatly bound in cloth, price 4s. 6d.

***

Christian Messenger

March 1840

Excerpt

Turiff, Scotland

December 1839.

ALTHOUGH not personally acquainted with you, nor with any of your brethren in Nottingham, or in the South of Scotland, yet holding one Lord, one faith, one baptism, &c. I venture, with the concurrence of my brethren here, to write you.

On the 29th of April last year, six of us agreed to associate ourselves together, with a desire to attend to all things which Christ has commanded, taking the word of God alone as our guide. Our number is now increased to eighteen. We have received very great benefit from the Christian Messenger, Essay on Remission of sins, Church Order, Grew's Tribute to the Memory of the Apostles, &c. These works have been the means of suggesting truths, which, without their help, probably would not have been discovered.

I have also to acquaint you, that a few brethren meet alternately in Banff and Petgair, on the Lord's day, for christian worship, according to the primitive plan.

I have located a reference to a Henry Grew "Letter to the Editor" in the July 1827 issue of The Christian Baptst.

Grew also had several "Letters" published in The Millennial Harbinger:

Letter to R.T. Brown. Nov. 1830, p.492

Letter. April 1833, p.153

Letter. July 1833, p.304

Letter. August 1833, p.395

Letter. March 1834, p.117

Letter. September 1834, p.466

Letter to M. Winans. April 1835, p.174

Letter. November 1835, p.561

Letter. September 1839, p.409

There are also several references to Grew in the following issues:

August 1830, p.361

May 1832, p.239

April 1833, p.154

March 1834, p.119

June 1835, p.269

December 1835, p.608

June 1836, p.282

May 1839, p.227

August 1839, p.382.

This reference to Alexander Campbell appeared in Thy Kingdom Come, page 114, which CTR published in 1891.

EXCERPT

EXCERPT

WHAT TO DO.

Several have written to us that they have carefully read article in September number, 1880, on "Importance of Baptism," and would like to fulfill the outward sign of the death of the fleshly nature, as symbolized by immersion into water, but are at a loss how to accomplish it.

EXCERPT

ALEXANDER CAMPBELL'S VIEWS.

DEAR BRO. RUSSELL:

As many readers of the WATCH TOWER, like myself, are warm admirers of that renowned champion of the Bible, Alexander Campbell, and are always interested in anything from his pen touching the mysteries of the Book, I beg leave to give below a scrap from his writings on the Prophecies, directly bearing upon the thoughts uppermost in our minds, and showing the drift of his investigations in that line.

He says:--

"What now if we should attempt to prove arithmetically, the certainty of the prophecies concerning the final consummation of all things? The expectation of Christendom is notorious. It is this: that sometime soon, perhaps in the present century, a new order of things in the political and religious relations of society will commence; that it will pervade the whole human family; that after its full introduction, it will continue a thousand years; and that soon after its completion, the present state of things will terminate and the multiplication of human beings cease forever. Without going minutely into detail, such is the general expectation of Christendom built upon those writings called prophecies.

Well, now, should we prove by an arithmetical calculation the certainty of such conclusions relative to the final consummation--what will the skeptics say? The premises or data are these: the present population of the earth is estimated, say, at one thousand millions. Now I will leave it to them to furnish the data, or to state what the population was two, three or four thousand years ago. They may even furnish me data from the census of any nation of Europe for two, three, four or five hundred years back. It will give the same result. We shall take the Bible data until they furnish another. According to the Bible data the whole human family, about four thousand years ago, was composed of eight individuals, four males and four females; and to keep our calculations in whole numbers, we shall evacuate Europe and America of all their population and place them in Asia and Africa on the population there, which will fill that half as full of human beings as can subsist upon its surface. We have now got, say, the half of our globe empty and the other half full. Now, the question is, if eight persons in four thousand years fill the one half of the earth as full as it can subsist, how long will one thousand millions be in filling the other half? If in despite of wars, famines, pestilences and all waste of human life, under the corruptions of the last four thousand years, such has been the increase of human beings, what would be the ratio of increase were all these to cease, and peace and health and competence be the order of the day for one thousand years? Why there would not be one half acre of land and water upon the face of the globe for every human being which would live at the completion of the Millennium or the seven-thousandth year from the creation, what I contemplate from these oracles to be about the end of the present state of human existence. Either then some devastation must empty the earth of its inhabitants or the human race be extinguished. Logic and arithmetic compel us to the former conclusions; but when we add to logic and arithmetic the prophecies of holy Scripture, we are compelled to embrace the latter. I think no prophecy ever admitted of so certain a calculation or so exact and definite a computation; in fact no other oracle in the annals of the world is proved by arithmetic so inevitably and unanswerably as I conceive this to be."

Query: Did not Brother Campbell see Restitution at least dimly?

E. A. SADDLER.

RELATION OF JESUS TO GOD.

     
Dear Brother Campbell:

     
There are several of your readers, besides myself, in this vicinity, who respectfully solicit, for the truth's sake, and our fellowship in the same, a brief, but definite explanation of your remarks in the last Harbinger, page 9, on the nature of our blessed Lord. Whether it is to be attributed to obtuseness of understanding on our part, or to indefiniteness of statement on yours, the fact is, beloved, that from the closest attention we are capable of giving to all you have written on this subject, we do not yet understand you.

     
We are equally opposed with you to "Trinitarian, Arian, and Unitarian speculations on the divine essence." From the systems of fallible and erring man, we trust the Son has made us free. Our desire is, simply to understand what the Spirit of truth teaches on this and every other subject.

     
Most cordially do we, unite with you in acknowledging the Messiah as "a divine person, the only begotten of God." Most devoutly would we love, "worship and adore him" as "the only begotten of the Father, full of favor and truth." But we tremble at the word of HIM who will not give the glory to another, and we obey that word which teaches us to love and worship the Son "to the glory of God the Father."

     
Will you favor us with a definite answer to the following queries?

     
1. Who is the One God, besides whom there is none else--who is

[97]

to be acknowledged, loved, adored and worshiped as the eternal, unbegotten, independent ALL IN ALL, of whom are all things?

     
If you reply, in the words which the Holy Spirit teaches, (I. Cor. viii. 6,) "the Father," we ask--

     
2. Do you, in the term Father, used in the above sense, as "the one God," include or exclude the only begotten of the Father, who was with him "before the world was"?

     
3. Do you, or do you not, understand the terms first, only begotten Son, beginning of the creation of God, first born of every creature, "in the full import and meaning of (these) words," as we do, viz.: as teaching that the Son, in his highest personal nature, is a distinct being from the Father, and had a "beginning" of existence?

     
4. Do you understand our Lord's words, "My Father is greater than I," in a limited, or unlimited sense? Do you understand him to affirm this without any reservation? When the Son, or Word, was with the Father, before he came down from heaven, was he, or was he not, as independently wise, powerful, self-existent and eternal, as the Father?

     
5. Do you, or do you not, make distinction in the worship you offer the Father and the Son? Do you not worship the Son as the begotten of the Father? Do you not worship the Father as unbegotten? Do you not worship him as the one God, of whom are all things; who, by his own infinite, underived wisdom, power, and goodness, creates, upholds, saves, and judges? Do you thus worship the Son, also? or do you worship him as the one Lord BY whom are all things, by whom God made the worlds, by whom he saves, and by whom he will judge us? Do you not worship the Son to the glory of the Father, and the Father to his own independent glory?

     
I am aware that an answer to some, of these questions will necessarily involve an answer to others; but I have thus presented the subject, that we may, by a singleness of eye to truth and the favor of our Lord, obtain an understanding of what is written in our Father's book concerning his best beloved, and that believing we may have life through his name.

     
I have too much confidence in your kindness and candor to think that you will decline publishing this communication; nor can I imagine that you will excuse yourself from giving a definite answer (which many, for the truth's sake, are wishing to hear) with the plea that we have presented to your vain speculations. It will not be denied that Jesus Christ is the one God of whom are all things, or he is not. Nor can it be denied that it is important for us to know whether he is so or not, that we may worship with understanding and in truth.

 
Yours in the good hope through favor,

HENRY GREW.

           Hartford, Conn.,

February 6, 1833.

[98]

TO BROTHER HENRY GREW.

Dear Sir:

     
With that promptitude and candor due to yourself and those of my readers whom you represent, I proceed to answer the questions which you have so affectionately and respectfully propounded to my consideration.

     
Averse to all speculations which can have no practical influence on the hearts or behavior of men, the only reluctance which I could feel in replying to some of these interrogatories is their apparent propinquity to the high and cold latitudes of metaphysical theology. In our ascent to these high and cold regions of abstract. speculation, it is no easy matter to keep the mercury from freezing. I will, however, attempt to give them as practical an aspect as the off-hand and desultory thoughts of an hour snatched from other pressing subjects of examination will afford.

Before replying to your queries in the form of direct answers, 1 would request your attention to the following preliminary reflections. These considerations will, indeed, explain some of the reasons which influence the answers which I may tender, and therefore I would urge the necessity of giving them due attention.

     
The modus of the Divine existence, as well as the modus of the Divine operations in creation, providence, and redemption, is, to our finite minds, the creatures of yesterday, wholly inscrutable and incomprehensible. On both, the Bible is silent.
Becomes it us, then, to be dogmatical on such a theme, or to stretch our inquiries beyond the terra firma of revelation?

     
My principal objection to the popular doctrine of "the Trinity" is not that it is either irrational, or unscriptural, to infer that there are three Divine persons in one Divine nature. That these three equally have one thought, purpose, will, and operation, and so one God;--or, to use the words of the Westminster Confession, "In the Unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity;" I say I object not to this doctrine because it is contrary to reason, or revelation, but because of the metaphysical technicalities, the unintelligible jargon, the unmeaning language of the orthodox creeds on this subject, and the interminable war of words without ideas to which the word Trinity has given birth. For example, in the same section from which I have quoted the above words is found the following jargon: "The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son."

     
Were any one to ask me, Can there be three distinct persons, or even beings, in one God? I would say, Reason informs me not, and revelation does not assert it. But if asked, Can there be one, and

[99]

one three in the same sense? I reply, Both reason and revelation say No. But then no Trinitarian or Calvinist affirms that the three are one, and the one three, in the same sense.

     
Language fails and thought can not reach the relation in which the Father and Son have existed, now exist, and shall forever exist. But that there is, and was, and evermore will be, society in God himself, a plurality as well as unity in the Divine nature, are inferences which do obtrude themselves on my mind in reflecting upon the divine communications to our race. I will add, that common sense, reason, and revelation, give one and the same testimony, in my ear, upon this subject.

     
If you ask how this can be, I will ask you, How can there be one self-existent, independent, unoriginated, eternal God? You will say, I believe, but can not comprehend. So say I. But while our faith has in its first effort to encounter a truth so incomprehensible, and to receive it; a truth so mysterious, supernatural, unsearchable, transcendent; a truth which, in its stupendous dimensions, encompasses infinite space, an eternity past--the universe, natural, intellectual, moral; a truth which leaves out no existence, past, present, or future; which overwhelms every intellect, and sets at defiance the combined efforts of all created intelligence--I repeat it, since this must be the Alpha of our faith, where shall we place our Omega, on the mode of the Divine existence? He that comes to God, must first believe THAT HE IS.

     
But I am not more confounded than delighted with the idea of the One, Self-existent, and Eternal God. To me, its incomprehensibility is a source of joy. With exultation I ask, "Who by searching can find out God, or know the Almighty to perfection?" My child says, Who made God? and, methinks, I am no wiser in the estimation of my superiors.

     
But, sir, the Alpha and Omega of all the scholastic strifes about trinity, and all the questions agitated for fifteen centuries on the mode of Divine existence, appear to me to spring from one source. None appears to me to have noticed, with sufficient attention, that there is but one word in the language of mortals which is absolute and irrelative. If angels have a language, although I am in perfect ignorance of their stipulated signs, one thing I can affirm, that they too have but one word in their language which is not relative.

     
All the names of God are, with the exception of this one, the names of relations. God, Almighty, Lord, Creator, Father, King, Governor, Judge--infinite, omniscient, eternal, etc. If no Satan, there could be no God: if no mighty, no Almighty; if no dominion, no Lord; if no creation, no Creator; if no Son, no Father; if no subjects, no King. etc But what sublimity, what unspeakable meaning, in the

[100]

address to Moses (Ex. vi. 2, 3): "And God said to Moses, I am Jehovah. I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, by the name of God Almighty; but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them. I AM knows no relation to any creature, or being; to past, present, or future; to time or to eternity. It is equivalent to I exist, a name which can not be given to any being which by nature is not God, or self-existent.

     
I repeat it, I am not more bewildered than delighted, in the idea of the incomprehensibility of the same JEHOVAH. And while this name is before us, let me ask the wavering to reflect, how man could be created social, and in the image of God; man, having in his nature plurality, incomplete in one person; for man is not without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in nature or religion. I ask, How could man be created in the image of God, incomplete in one person, social, and necessarily plural; and that God, in whose image and likeness he was created, could be a solitary eternal unit, without society and plurality in himself! This I can not comprehend, when I believe that God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let him have dominion;" and, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

     
While, then, I do most cordially repudiate the whole scholastic phraseology of the Trinitarian, Arian, and Socinian speculations, I do not, with some Trinitarians, regard my Lord Messiah as having always been an eternal Son; nor can I, with the Arlen, view him as some super-angelic creature, filling an immense chasm between Jehovah and the supernal hosts; and still less can I degrade him, with the Socinian, to the rank of a mere man, the son of Joseph. Common sense, reason, and revelation, put their veto on such hypotheses. No; my Lord and Saviour is no creature, nor the son of a creature. In the beginning he was THE WORD OF GOD, is now the Son of God, and will, when government is no longer necessary, be again recognized as the Word of God, "a name which no man knows, but he himself."

     
I must be born again, and be endowed with other reasoning powers and have another revelation, before I can become an Arian. I will give you one reason out of a hundred, and but one, because I feel that it alone, if I had not another, would forever preclude the hypothesis: it is, in one sentence, Because the Arian philosophy converts the wisdom of God into folly.

     
If I am asked to explain how this can be, I refuse not. The Arian toils and sweats, and taxes his ingenuity to show what a glorious creature the Son of God was in his pre-existent state. He fancies and represents the Son as filling some intermediate rank more than midway between the Arch Seraphim and the Deity. He thinks he devoutly consults the honor of the Son, when he finds for him some

[101]

vacant throne, nearest to the Self-existent and Eternal, beyond the aspirations of the cherubim and seraphim. There he places him, a sort of sub-deity, whence he descends to become incarnate. Yet, strange to tell, when this first and high-born One, of unrivalled glory amongst the creatures of God, appears in human flesh, he gives him nothing to do, which the son of Joseph could not have done as well!!! Was ever folly more consummate! What is folly, but the adoption of inadequate means to ends? Is it not folly to give a diamond for a straw?--to raise a tempest to move a feather?--to discharge the artillery of heaven against a worm?--to hurl the thunderbolts of Omnipotence against a fly?--to despatch the Archangel on an errand which: the son of Joseph could have as well performed?

     
What creature could do more than Abel, Moses, John the Baptist, Stephen, Peter, James the just, or Paul did--tell the truth, the whole truth, lead an exemplary life, and as a martyr offer up his soul to God!

     
What, let me again ask, is folly, if this be not folly? To waste resources, or squander means, is as foolish as not to provide them. He who provides the materials for a palace, and builds a cottage, is as very a simpleton as he who attempts to build a palace out of the materials of a tent. Could not Gabriel, who waited on Daniel on the banks of Ulai; nay, could not Paul himself, do as much for the redemption of the world, as the Arian Son of God? When some philosopher appears, who with a dash of his pen can blot out sin, or show me that the tears of the penitent, or the blood of bulls and goats can wash it from the universe, then, but not till then, will I turn Arian.

     
For the same, or a similar reason, I can not be a Socinian. This is but a new edition of the fable--the mountain in labor, and a mouse is born. Heaven taught sages; legislators, kings, prophets, priests, and seers, for four thousand years, filled with the spirit of wisdom and revelation, exhaust all the similitudes, analogies, and imagery of this creation; impoverish the eloquence of heaven and earth, all figures and forms of speech, to raise the expectations of mankind in anticipation of a wonderful child, on whose shoulders the government of the universe was to remain, whose name was written, "Wonderful--Counsellor--the Mighty God--the Father of Eternity--the Prince of Peace--Immanuel"; yet when the prediction is accomplished, Mary travails, and the carpenter's son is born--a Son of God, it is true, as Adam was!!!

     
With me, consistency must precede faith. I must see types, figures, prophecies, promises, harmonizing; I must see the means and the end correspondent; I must see wisdom, power, goodness; justice, mercy, love; condescension, truth, and holiness, shining in all the splendors

[102]

of Divinity, before I can subscribe to any proposition touching the personal dignity and standing of my Lord the King.

     
It will not suffice to puzzle me with hard questions about how this can be, since my faith has in its infancy to master the master truth of revelation--to admit that God is Jehovah; or, that God was, and always is, the self-existent, immutable and eternal, never-began-to-be, the eternal inhabitant of eternity. Believing this, I find no difficulty in believing that there was, and is, and evermore shall be, society and plurality--a liberal I, and thou, and he--a we, and our, and us, in one divine nature. This to me is as easy as the idea of SELF-EXISTENT; yea, more easy when I, and thou, and he deliberate on creation, providence, and redemption. I can not, for my life, even fancy a nature destitute of I, and thou, and he. I am certain it is not the human--I am certain it is not the angelic--certain, too, that it is not the divine.

     
In our nature there is no more than I, and thou, and he, as respects primary relation. There is no more in the angelic, and the Bible reveals no more than I, and thou, and he in the divine. But not turning aside to answer objections which are anticipated, be it observed that I make not this a matter of inference only; for there is an association of the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit in the revealed relation of the three persons, I, thou, and he, and just in the dignity of these three. "I send thee," "I and thou send him," "Jehovah and his spirit has sent me." On this principle the Christian economy is arranged and developed. So I read the volumes of revelation. These reflections premised, I proceed to answer your ingenious questions:

QUERY 1, ANSWERED.

     
Jehovah is the only living and true God. I can not adopt the answer you suggest (I. Cor. viii. 6), for that answers not your question. Had you propounded the question which Paul had in his eye, then I would have given his answer. It was not the contradistinguishing of the Father and the Son, as respects divinity, which Paul had in view; but the contradistinguishing of the "gods many," and the; "lords many" of Paganism, from the one God and one Lord of Christians.

QUERY 2, ANSWERED.

     
As the phrase, "one God" (I. Cor. viii., 6), is not applied to the Father, but in contradistinction from "gods many;" so we can not say that in contradistinction from the Son or the only begotten, that it either includes or excludes; for that was not in the mind of the Apostle when he wrote to the Corinthians. The phrase "Son of God" in the New Testament imports a participation of the divine nature.

[103]

A little more reflection, and I presume you will perceive how I should err were I to answer your first question in the words of I. Cor. viii. 6. Were you asked, "Do you, in calling Jesus the one Lord, include or exclude the Father from the nature and essential attributes of the one Lord?" what would you answer? Would you not say, "The Father is not excluded; for certainly he is the one absolute Lord: for so the Prophets have named and addressed him a thousand times. But now he has made Jesus Lord. So that in the new economy the Father is our only God, and Jesus is our only Lord."

QUERY 3, ANSWERED.

     
The word "being," in its full latitude, signifies simple existence; but in its appropriated sense here you mean something more than simple existence. I find the personal pronouns always used in the Holy Scriptures, speaking of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and therefore, if I must use an abstract term, I will use person rather than being--though I am not much in love with either. The Scriptures nowhere teach me that the Son in his high personal nature had a beginning of being or existence; "the Word was in the beginning with God," even that Word "which was made flesh and dwelt among us." "The Word was God," and, as such, I venerate "the Word made flesh," "as God manifest in the flesh."
V
QUERY 4, ANSWERED.

     
"My Father is greater than I," I understand in an economical or restricted sense. But it militates not with the dignity of the Son of God, if, in some sense, the Father was always greater than he. The Trinitarians themselves, who make him an eternal Son, fairly concede this; for a Son is, in some sense, inferior to the Father; while, in another sense, he may be superior. But I regard all that was spoken by Jesus of this import as respecting his state of humiliation and its consequences.

QUERY 5, ANSWERED.

In worshiping Jesus, I worship him as my Lord and Saviour, as the Son of God, to the glory of the Father. In worshiping the Father, I worship him through the Son; and therefore I honor both the Father and the Son. But, my dear sir, I do not think of worshiping with that exactitude of which you speak, as if I were to pay so much tax to the King and so much tithe to the Priest. I can not thus mathematically worship either the Father or the Son. The Father and the Son are one in my salvation. The Father is my God, and Jesus is my Lord. They are one in the admiration of my understanding--they are one in the adoration of my heart.

[104]

     
Thus, Brother Grew, if compelled to philosophize, I would answer your questions. I own that much depends upon our views of the personal dignity and standing of the Lord Messiah. Indeed, such was the glory which he had with the Father before the world was, and such is the glory which he now enjoys as Lord of all in our nature, that I think we are much more likely to fail in forming too low, than too high, conceptions of his essential dignity. The Father has so glorified him as our head, and has so signified to us his delight in him, that, of all the texts in the Bible, there is none we could misapply in reference to Jesus more than that which says, "Jehovah will not give his glory to another." he has laid no restrictions upon the admiration and adoration of the human or angelic hosts in reference to his only begotten Son; nay, all angels and men are commanded to worship him. No idolatry in worshiping the King of glory!! I would not for the universe weaken the force of a single expression, or subtract from the boldest metaphor aught of its riches, designed to set forth the peerless claims of our Redeemer to the unqualified adoration of my soul. His is the temple of the universe--his the hallelujahs of the heavens--his the hosannas of the church. All things were created by him and for him. He made himself poor that he might make us rich; and shall our tongues falter in his praise, or our hearts not gladly bear their part in the general song? May it be your and my happy lot to stand before him, when he comes it his glory, approved; and to unite with the admiring and adoring throng, singing:

To him who lov'd us, and has wash'd

Us from our sins in his own blood,

And who has made us kings and priests

To his own Father and his God,

The glory and dominion be To him eternally. Amen!

     
In this blissful hope, I remain yours,

"It will not be thought by those who know me, that I have been induced to object to your piece because of any partiality for eiter of the theories you have named. I advocate neither. I think it will injure the good cause of the bible; for if you have been induced by bro. Grew's queries to present your philosophy, some other bro. may be induced to present his philosophy in opposition to your's, and so the war goes on."

"... I blame bro. Grew for agitating this subject, but his erring in this matter cannot justify your departure from your own good counsel, ...".