========================================================================
  VARIOUS WRITIINGS (WIP)
  by John Leland
========================================================================

A collection of writings by John Leland, the influential Baptist minister born
in 1754 who advocated for religious liberty in early America. His
autobiographical accounts reveal the formation of his Baptist convictions
through his father's theological struggles.

  Chapters: 7

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  TABLE OF CONTENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. 001 Preface
    2. 002 Evwnts in the life of John Leland
    3. 003 Further Sketches
    4. 004 The History of Jack Nips
    5. 005 The Bible Baptist
    6. 006 The Virginia Chronicle
    7. 007 The First Rise of Sin

========================================================================
  CHAPTER 1: 001 PREFACE
========================================================================

PREFACE. THE candid reader is earnestly requested, before entering upon the
perusal of the following pages, to follow the compiler through a short preface.
It was at the suggestion of one of Mr. Leland’s family that I first thought of
attempting this work; and after her removal by death, it was with the subsequent
encouragement and approbation of others, that I continued to pursue it. When
first proposed to me, I viewed it as an impossibility, both on account of my
inadequacy, and of the little leisure afforded me by a vocation which involved
arduous labors and anxious cares; but an ardent desire to see the work
accomplished, and the uncertainty that it would be attempted by an abler hand,
together with the consideration that time was continually thinning the number of
those who could furnish accurate information, or correct unavoidable mistakes,
at length determined me to make the trial. Had I then foreseen, that, by the
death of some, and the removal of others, I should be deprived of the aid on
which I mainly depended, and left to complete the task alone, I should have
yielded entirely to the sense of incompetency which, even with the prospect of
such assistance, scarcely permitted me to hope for success. It is not,
therefore, as a mere matter of form, but with a painful consciousness of the
imperfect manner in which the work has been executed, and of the disappointment
which many will probably feel on seeing it, that I mention the circumstances
under which it was commenced, and some of the embarrassments that have attended
its progress and completion. Viewed as a literary performance, I am happy to
feel assured, that, so far as my own share in it is concerned, it is beneath the
notice of criticism; on that point, therefore, I am free from solicitude.

Circumstances have rendered the task a much more arduous one than I at first
anticipated. These circumstances were so unexpected to me, that I should have
supposed their occurrence, in this instance, singular, had I not met with the
following passage, in a book of similar kind, published many years ago, which
describes so nearly my own difficulties, that I cannot forbear transcribing it.

"Various causes have contributed to create the delay which has attended the
publication of the book. It was with considerable difficulty that I collected
the materials necessary for my purpose. I had imagined, from the general
impression which prevailed, at least, among" (Mr. L.’s) "friends, of the
propriety of such a publication, that information would have been spontaneously
offered, from every quarter whence it might be furnished. But in this I was
disappointed; and it was some considerable time from the annunciation of my
design, before I was sufficiently supplied to commence, with any degree of
prudence, the composition of the volume. In addition to this, the laborious
duties of my charge, conspired often to suspend the prosecution of the work, for
the appearance of which, I knew many to be anxious, but none more so than
myself."

Several important works it has been impossible to obtain, and I have, therefore,
though with deep regret, been compelled to omit them. Whether they are entirely
out of print, or whether the notices calling for them, have not been seen by
those who possess them, or from some cause they were not disposed to furnish
them for publication, it is in vain to inquire. Such, however, is the fact. And
here I would present my sincere and heartfelt thanks to those kind friends, in
various parts of the Union, who have interested themselves in procuring such
materials as I have needed, and would assure them, that their efforts, though
many of them may have been unsuccessful, shall ever be remembered with
gratitude. In one or two instances, writings have been forwarded, supposed by
the friends who sent them to be those of Leland, which proved to have been from
some other pen; but my thanks are equally due to those friends for their
promptness in offering the aid I needed, though their kindness was, by that
mistake, rendered unavailing. The object proposed in this work, is a full and
correct exhibition of the character and sentiments of John Leland. Every thing,
therefore, that seemed calculated to throw additional light on these, or without
which the exhibition of them would have been imperfect, has been inserted. Some
pieces have been omitted wholly, and others in part, to prevent the unnecessary
repetition of the same ideas; and this has been done, in most cases, except
where those ideas are so connected with others, or so brought to bear upon
different subjects, that they could not be disconnected without doing violence
to the author’s evident meaning. In some of his poetical efforts, Mr. Leland
evidently falls below himself. While some of his hymns are equal in poetical
merit, as well as in spirituality and devotion, to most of those in general use,
there are other pieces which are manifestly deficient in the former of these
qualities. In such cases, they are inserted, not because of their poetical
merit, but for other reasons which their deficiency, in this respect, could not
set aside.

It is well known that his sentiments, on some subjects, differed from those
entertained by many of his brethren at the present day. Individuals have,
therefore, sometimes attempted to explain his ideas in such a way as to make
them harmonize with their own views; in some instances, entirely destroying, by
their exposition, the force of his own words. This I have had opportunity of
knowing, was extremely annoying to him. He has frequently been heard to express
the wish that his own language might be permitted to speak for itself, and to
express, as he intended it to do, the honest convictions of his own mind. This
being known to be his feeling on the subject, it is hoped that if ever any of
his writings are republished, his wishes may be regarded as sacred. His opinions
can be by no one better expressed than by himself, and his life is their best
comment. The order followed in the arrangement of most of the works is that of
the time (as nearly as can be ascertained) when they were written or published.
This will amble the reader to trace the workings of his mind, and to discover
whatever changes took place in his views from time to time. A number of pieces
will, perhaps, appear to those acquainted with them, somewhat changed. It may be
proper to mention, in regard to such, that there being several copies differing
from erch other, I have taken the liberty, in some cases, to put the parts
together, and in others to select the one that appeared to me the best.

I will only add that the delay in the appearance of the work, since its
preparation for the press has been completed, (a period of more than a year,)
has been occasioned entirely by the want of a sufficient number of subscriptions
to defray the expenses of publication.

NOTE.

IT having been thought advisable, by those who executed the following work, to
throw it into smaller type than was at first contemplated, the number of pages
falls considerably short of the original estimate, though the same amount of
matter is contained. It was deemed most expedient, under the circumstances, to
include the whole in one volume; but it is presumed the consequent reduction in
the price, together with the superior style of binding in which it now appears,
will render it equally satisfactory and acceptable to subscribers. With great
reluctance the compiler was obliged to forego the personal examination of the
proof-sheets, which could not be done without occasioning great delay in the
issuing of the work. A number of errors of considerable importance remain
uncorrected except in the errata, which the reader is desired to consult. Other
inaccuracies in orthography, punctuation, etc., may be observed; but those which
it was supposed the reader would easily understand and correct for himself, are
not noticed in the errata.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 2: 002 EVWNTS IN THE LIFE OF JOHN LELAND
========================================================================

EVENTS IN THE LIFE OF JOHN LELAND WRITTEN BY HIMSELF. And thou shalt remember
all the way which the Lord thy God led thee. - MOSES.

Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not - PAUL.

I WAS born in Grafton, about 40 miles west of Boston, in the year of our Lord
1754, on the 14th of May. The earliest public events which I can remember, are
the death of George the Second, and the coronation of George the Third, together
with some melancholy accounts of the French and Indian war. But a number of
juvenile incidents are fresh in memory, which took place when I was two, three,
and four years old; some of which I will here relate. When my father was a young
man, he was convinced, (as he has told me,) by reading the Bible, that believers
were the only proper subjects of baptism, and immersion the only gospel mode;
but when he broke his mind to his mother, she gave him an alarming warning
against heresy; and as there was no preachers thereabout but pedobaptists, he
sunk from his conviction, and concluded that his mother and the ministers were
right. Accordingly, after he was married, and had a son born unto him, he
presented his child for baptism: but after the rite was performed, his mind was
solemnly arrested with the text, "Who hath required this at your hands?" that it
was with difficulty he held his son from falling out of his arms; nor did he get
over the shock until he had six more children born. He then got his scruples so
far removed, that he invited the minister of the town to come to his house on a
certain Sunday, after public service was over, and baptize all of them. At this
time I was something more than three years old. When I found out what the object
of the meeting was, I was greatly terrified, and betook myself to flight. As I
was running fast down a little hill, I fell upon my nose, which made the blood
flow freely. My flight was in vain; I was pursued, overtaken, picked up and had
the blood scrubbed off my face, and so was prepared for the baptismal water.

All the merit of this transaction, I must give to the maid who caught me, my
father and the minister; for I was not a voluntary candidate, but a reluctant
subject, forced against my will. In early life I had a thirst for learning. At
five years old, by the instruction of a school dame, I could read the Bible
currently, and afterwards, in the branches of learning, taught in common
schools, I made as good proficiency as common. But what proficiency soever I
made in learning (owing to a stiffness of nature and rusticity of manners) I
could never gain the good will of my masters, nor was I a favorite among the
scholars. The character which one of my masters gave me, seems to have been the
opinion that all of them formed of me. Said he, "John has more knowledge than
good manners." The minister of the town was importunate with my father to give
me a collegiate education for the ministry. The doctor of the place was equally
solicitous to make me a physician. My father designed me to live with him, to
support his declining years. My own intention was to be a lawyer, if possible;
but in our designs and wishes, we have all been disappointed. As my father had
no library, and I was fond of reading, the Bible was my best companion.

Deism and Universalism I never heard of, and of course was what is called a
believer in revelation.

I had no thought that I myself was right, but believed that some great thing
must be done for me (I did not know what) or I could not be saved. At times I
had awful horrors of conscience, when death, judgment and the world to come
arrested my attention; but these horrors did not reform me from vice nor turn me
to the Lord.

I was almost in all evil, full of vanity, exceedingly attached to frolicking and
foolish wickedness. When I reflect on the follies of my youth, the question of
Paul involuntarily rises in my heart; "What fruits had you then in those things
whereof ye are now ashamed?" In this course I continued until I was eighteen
years old. In the summer of 1772, I met with one thing singular. When I was
returning from my frolicks or evening diversions, the following words would
sound from the skies, "You are not about the work which you have got to do. "
The last time I heard those sounds, I stood amazed; and turning my eyes up to
the heavens, it seemed that there was a work of more weight than a mountain,
which I had yet to perform.

Soon after this, I cannot tell how or why, a conviction took place in my mind,
that all below the sun could not satisfy or tranquilize the mind. The world and
all that was in it appeared of small consequence. And without any unusual horror
of mind or dread of damnation, the charms of those youthful diversions, which
had been sweeter to me than the honey-comb, lost all their sweetness, nor could
I conceive how there could be any pleasure in them.

About this time, there was an evening frolic in the neighborhood, and I
concluded to go to see whether there was delight in it or not; and if not, to
find out the cause of its death in my mind. Accordingly I went, but found
nothing to please, but everything to disgust. After I had tried the experiment,
I asked a young man if he would return home with me, which he agreed to do. On
our return, I introduced the subject of religion for conversation on the road.
The next day he reported, that he believed John would soon be a preacher, for he
would talk on no subject but religion. At this time, a young preacher (Elhanan
Winchester) came into Grafton, and preached and prayed to the astonishment of
the people; and a young woman, it was said, was converted. When I heard the
report, it greatly effected me, for I had been at many dances with her. The
result with me was, now the waters are troubled, and it is time for me to step
in.

Reading the Bible and meditating on the shortness of time, and the importance of
being prepared for death and judgment, occupied the chiefest of my time.

After a few weeks, in the month of September, Mr. Winchester came to Grafton
again. I heard of it on Saturday evening, and concluded that I would read the
Bible that evening, and attend meeting the following Sunday, and be converted
like Priscilla, (for that was the name of the young woman.) When I went to
meeting, I heard the man preach, and while he was preaching, something kept
answering in my breast, yes, yes, yes, it is so. After he had done, I question
whether all the men in the world could have convinced me that it was not the
truth. After public service was over, the people retired to the water, where
Priscilla was baptized. What I saw and heard at the water, greatly effected me.
There I stood upon a rock, and made my vows to God to forsake all sinful courses
and seek the Lord, if he would direct me how. From this, I began to pray, but
was hard put to it to find a place secret enough. I was afraid someone would
hear me, and was confounded to hear my own voice. How often did the words of
Jesus sound like thunder in my ears: "He that is ashamed to own me before men, I
will be ashamed to own him before my Father and before his angels." From this
time down, fifteen months, a volume might be written on the views, exercises and
conflicts of my mind. As the work of God broke out in Grafton, Northbridge and
Upton, I heard much preaching and conversation about the change which is
essential to salvation; on which I formed the following conclusions:

1 st. That I must be deeply convicted of sin, greatly borne down under the
weight of it, and heartily repent of it. This led me to pray much for
conviction, read the threatenings of God to alarm myself, and study to make sin
look horrid.

2dly. That if ever I was converted, I should know it as distinctly as if a
surgeon should cut open my breast with his knife, take out my heart and wash it,
put it back again and close up the flesh. This caused me to think light of any
pleasing views, which sometimes would break into my mind, how God could pardon
sinners for the sake of the Mediator. All was nothing to me, without I could be
converted in the way which I laid out, and know for certain that I was born of
God.

3dly. That whenever I should be enabled to believe in Jesus, I should see him as
plainly as I could see an object of sense. While waiting and hoping for these
things, (some of which I have never yet seen or felt,) my mind was led to the
following views and exercises:

First. To see the extent and purity of the holy law: That it was the perfect
rule of eternal right, which arose from the relations that exist between God and
man, and between man and man; that it will remain unalterable while the
perfections of God and the faculties of men exist, and that the least deviation
from this rule is sin.

Secondly. By looking into the law, as a clear glass, to see my own weakness and
wickedness. Here, I found myself as incompetent to repent and believe in Jesus,
as I was to keep the whole law. Never was a poor creature more perplexed with a
hard, unyielding heart, and a corrupt nature, than I was. I often compared my
heart to a spring of water, rising up against God and godliness.

Thirdly. To view the justice of God in my condemnation. Never did the
benevolence of God appear more pleasant to me than justice did. I was not
willing to be damned; but thought, if damnation must be my lot, it would be some
relief to my mind that God would be just.

Fourthly. To discover the sufficiency of a Mediator. For a number of months
before I had a settled hope of my interest in Christ, the plan of atonement, by
the blood of the Lamb, appeared to me as plain as ever it has since. Once, I
remember to have broke out thus, when walking in the road: "O what a complete
Saviour is Jesus, every way suited to my needs: I can be saved no other way - I
do hot wish to be saved any other way - but fear I shall never be saved in that
way."

There were a number of young people converted in the place, who assembled
together for religious worship, with whom my heart was greatly united. While
thinking of them, at a certain time, the words of John came into my mind: "We
know we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren;" which
gave me a small hope, for a few minutes, that perhaps I was born of God.

One morning, about day-break, as I was musing on my bed, upon this text, "After
ye believed, ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise," it struck my mind
that souls first believed before they were sealed; on which conclusion, the
following words rushed into my mind, as if they had been spoken by some other,
"Ye are already sealed unto the day of redemption." If so, said I to myself,
then surely I am converted. But as I had never passed through stages of distress
equal to some others, nor equal to what I supposed an essential prerequisite to
conversion, I could not believe for myself. And yet the words continued to run
in my mind, "Ye are already sealed unto the day of redemption."

One morning, my father was reading a chapter, when the following text arrested
my attention with irresistible force: "If ye will not believe, ye shall not be
established." At another time my thoughts ran thus: "If it is possible that I am
a Christian, it is certain that I am the least of all. " On which the words of
the Prophet came into my mind with great force: "Peace, peace to him that is
near, and to him that is far off, saith the Lord, and I will heal him."

Though very far from being satisfied with myself, yet with a very feeble hope
which I began to have, on the solicitation of others, I did sometimes attempt to
pray in small circles. And here I will relate a strange event, which I know to
be true, but can never account for it. In the month of February, 1774, in the
time of great snow, a very respectable preacher, Rev. Samuel Dennis, came into
Grafton and preached one afternoon at a Mr. Wheeler’s. I attended; and
notwithstanding his talents, he appeared muddy in his mind about salvation
freely by grace. After he had done, the people all took their seats, and strange
to tell, that I, naturally bashful, with hardly any hope that I was converted,
should rise and state my objections against the discourse, and give another
interpretation to the texts which the preacher had quoted to support his
doctrine: after which I retired into another room; but very soon a messenger
came and told me I must return and dispute the point with Mr. Dennis. I
returned, but who can describe what I felt? I said thus to myself: "I am not
converted myself, and it must be the Devil that has instigated me to harrass the
people of God. " Mr. Dennis addressed me like a gentleman and Christian. Said
he, "Mr. Leland, you have lodged your objections against my doctrine; I wish to
discourse with you on the subject, for the cause is not mine but God’s." Upon
which the battle began between a venerable preacher, clothed in black, with a
large white wig on his head, and a beardless boy, not twenty years old, coarsely
clad, and wearing a leather apron. The people all stuck to see and hear. After
about three-quarters of an hour, there was a cessation of arms. At any rate, as
I was the querist, and he the defendant, such questions were flung in his way
that he could not well solve; and concluded by saying, "The Lord have mercy on
us, for we are poor ignorant creatures." On this, there sprang up immediately in
my heart a strong desire to pray. Indeed, I felt as if I must pray or burst; but
the preacher, the whole congregation, and my father among the rest, were all
present, and I had never attempted the like before. At this crisis, one of the
young converts came to me, and said, "John, won’t you pray?" I durst not refuse,
lest I should quench the Spirit. I proposed it, and the congregation united by
rising. I had not spoken many words, before the preacher, my father, and all
others were out of the way. I felt strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus.
Prayer being closed, I felt impelled to give the people a word of exhortation,
which was the first address of the kind that ever I made. After this a psalm was
sung; when the line came forward, "We tremble and rejoice," I felt confident in
myself that I did tremble before the greatness, and rejoice in the goodness of
God; and spake within myself thus: "I am converted, and will not believe Satan
any more when he tells me otherwise." This frame of mind continued a few
minutes, and then the vision closed, and I returned home full of heaviness,
reproaching myself for my forwardness and presumption. The next day, I went
around and told some who heard me the day before, that they need not mind any
thing that I had said, for I was a poor unconverted sinner. My desire was to be
searched and not deceived. I spent nearly a whole day, as I was going a little
journey, praying in David’s words, "Search me, O God, and try me, and know if
there be any evil in me, and lead me in the way everlasting. The night
following, I dreamed that I must read Psalms 32:8, which I did as soon as I
awoke. The words are, "I will instruct thee and teach thee in the way which thou
shalt go. I will guide thee with mine eye." My heart was greatly attached to the
Holy Scripture. I have not yet forgot the burning desire - the soul-longings
that I had to know what was the mind of God, contained in his word. I would read
- then pray - then read and pray again, &c. that I might know the truth as it is
in Jesus.

One evening, as I was walking the road alone, I was greatly cast down, and
expressed myself thus: "I am not a Christian; I have never been convicted and
converted like others, who are true saints. The Devil shall deceive me with
false hopes no longer. I will never pretend to religion, until I know that I am
born of God! " These words I spoke aloud; but immediately the words of Peter
rushed into my mind, with great energy, "I know not the man. " These words
dashed my conclusion and resolution to atoms in a moment. It was a shock to the
centre of my heart. From that day to this minute, which is a term of forty six
years, amidst all the doubts, darkness, troubles and temptations that I have
had, I have never said that I knew not Christ, or that I was unconverted.

Soon after this, I received great comfort from Proverbs 30:5. Every word of God,
both precept and promise, seemed pure. I felt my soul yield up to Christ and
trust in him, and believed he would be my shield and defence. A young man, about
my age, in the neighborhood, professed to be converted. The work was short with
him, and he came out strong and bold. He and myself set up evening meetings, to
sing, pray, and speak according to our proportion of faith, as the Spirit gave
us utterance. A number of men opened their houses, and many came in to hear the
boys. It was common for each of us in turn to preach two or three of our sort of
sermons at each meeting. When I was going to these meetings, I often had such
fears that I was not converted, but only deceived - that I had learned these
things of men and not of Christ; and viewing the greatness of the work of
manifesting truth to the consciences of men in the sight of God; all together
would nearly take away my strength, so that I could not walk. At such times, I
would resolve to appoint no more meetings. But when I got to the meeting, the
gloom and horror of my mind would subside, which emboldened me to appoint
another; but when I had left the meeting and was returning home, the same load
would fall upon me. In this course I continued from February to June. The work
of ingathering, which prevailed the year before, seemed to be over; and I know
not that any new cases of conversion took place at these little meetings.

Within the time that I have been treating of, I visited one of the young
converts, who told me his dream. Said he,

"I dreamed I was down by the burying-ground in Grafton, and saw a large company
of people coming from the north-east, and you were in the midst of them, riding
in a horse-cart. The procession came to the place where a gallows was erected.
The hangman drove his cart under the gallows, and fastened the halter which was
around your neck to the transverse of the gallows. You then arose, and, with
hands and eyes towards heaven, said, ’Lord Jesus, for thy cause I am brought to
this end.’ The hangman then led off the horse and cart - you swung, and I awoke.
Soon I slept and dreamed again, that I was in Worcester, where was a vast
concourse of people, and Captain G. among the rest: said the Captain to me ’Do
you know John Leland?’ I answered, ’yes.’ ’Well,’ said he, ’John is to be hanged
today, for preaching heresy.’ The procession then moved into the burying-ground,
in Worcester, with you in the cart, where the same tragedy was repeated that was
done in Grafton." This dream, told to me with great solemnity, when I was so
weak and fearful, made me more ready to halt than I was before.

Two things greatly perplexed me at this time. One was, that I felt more moral
evil in myself, than I could see or believe there was in the young converts.
When I saw them with their lamb-like faces and dove-like eyes, and heard them
pray and praise, they appeared to me seraphical; and I had formed the
conclusion, that if I should ever be converted, I should be so too; but now,
(notwithstanding the little hope which I entertained for myself, and durst not
deny it,) I found more corruption in me than can be described. The other was,
the want of will. At times, I would feel as if my whole soul was absorbed in the
fountain of love, and devout prayer was the breath of my heart; at other times,
I would feel such amazing languor and want of will, that if I might have had all
the glories of heaven for asking, I could not have sincerely done it. This gave
me a very poor opinion of myself. Indeed, from that time to the present, I have
had a constant falling out with myself; which leads me to cry out, O, wretched
man that I am! To these two perplexities, I may add another, which was a
constant worry in my mind about preaching. No sooner was my mind exercised about
the salvation of my soul, than it was agitated about preaching. The number of
sermons (such as they were) that I preached, when alone by myself, was very
great. Both saints and sinners said, "John will be a preacher." My mother
professed that she had the same impressions about me when I was a sucking child;
but my fears were, that the Devil was at the bottom of it, seeking to deceive
me, and cheat me out of my soul. 1 Text after text would crowd into my mind to
urge me on; but I could not tell whether they were the voice of God or the voice
of Eli - whether the Devil suggested them to me - whether they were accidental,
or whether they came from the good spirit of God.

Strange to relate, one hour I would entertain a comfortable hope that my sins
were pardoned; the next hour, nearly give up all hope; fearing that all my
exercises were self-learned, and that I had not been taught of God; the third
hour, be impelled that I must preach or perish. This conflict wore off my flesh,
and made me irresolved about anything. My faith was firm in this: that no man
should undertake to preach until he was born of God: that no man born of God
was, by that change, prepared to preach; that Christ called unto him whom he
would, for the work of preaching, either fishermen, herdsmen, or men of science;
and when he called and ordained them, if they neglected the work, and conferred
with flesh and blood, they would be disobedient to the heavenly vision. The
first of June, 1774, Elder Noah Alden, of Bellingham, came to Northbridge, and
baptized seven others and myself. Four of them were men, and the others women. I
was extremely dark in my mind; but when I gave a relation of my exercises, I had
this hope, that if I was deceived, the preacher would discern it and reject me:
and that if he rejected me, it would strike such conviction into my heart that
would lead me en to a sure conversion. The preacher, however, only asked me if I
believed in the Calvinistical doctrine? I replied, I did not know what it was,
but I believed in free grace. As he received me, dark as my mind was, I would
not give back. The preacher was a short man, and, therefore, requested me to go
into the water with him, to assist him in raising and leading the women, which I
consented to. After it was over, the people said, "John has begun and he will
keep on. " The day afterwards, on reflection of what was past, I felt
strengthened, and could say, "Thus it is written, and thus it behooved me." On
Sunday, the 20th of June, I went to meeting at Grafton, where there was no
preacher. My mind was greatly embarrassed about preaching, and my prayer was,
that I might know my duty. The words of the Prophet occurred to my mind, "There
is none to guide her of all the sons she has brought forth." Having the Bible in
my pocket, I drew it out, and, without design, opened to Malachi 3:9. "- this
commandment is for you. If ye will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart,
to give glory unto my name, saith the Lord of Hosts, I will even send a curse
upon you - . " Whatever the original design of the text was, at that time it
arrested my conscience thus: Thou art the man. Attempts to evade the force of it
were all in vain. I must either lay it to heart, open my mouth and give glory to
the name of God, or his curse would fall upon me. Fearing the hot displeasure of
the Lord, I rose in great distress, and, having read Malachi 3:16-17, I told the
people, if there was no objection, I would attempt to speak a little from the
text. Being answered with silence, as custom led the way, I divided my text into
several heads of doctrine. At the beginning, my mind was somewhat bewildered,
and my words sounded very disagreeable to myself; so much so, that I partly
resolved to quit; but continuing, my ideas brightened, and after a while I
enjoyed such freedom of thought and utterance of words as I had never before. I
spoke about half an hour and then closed. One of the old Christians made a
prayer, and thanked God for what he had discovered in the young man. At
noontime, I was all delight; my burden of soul, which had borne me down so long
and so low, was all gone, and I concluded I should never have it any more. But
when the people collected for afternoon worship, my spirits sunk within me. I
retired into a lot, and fell down upon my face, by a fence, full of dismay; but
suddenly the words which God spoke to Joshua, "Why liest thou upon thy face? -
up, " gave me to understand that there was no peace for me in indolence. I
therefore went to the meeting-house, and tried to preach again, but made
miserable work of it. I continued, however, to try to preach, as doors opened;
but I tried it more than ten times before I equalled the first, in my own
feeling. A question rose in my mind, whether I should be received if I gave
myself wholly to the work; which was answered by Solomon thus: "A man’s gift
maketh room for him, and bringeth him before great men. " From a sense of my
insufficiency, I trembled at the attempt; but what was said to a king in another
case, was now spoken to a feeble youth: "Be ye strong, therefore, and let not
your hands be weak, for your work shall be rewarded."

I finally surrendered, and devoted my time and talents to the work of the
ministry, without any condition, evasion or mental reservation. In myself, I
have seen a rustic youth - unacquainted with men, manners and books; without the
smallest prospects, or even the thought of gain or applause, turn out a
volunteer for Christ, to contest with all the powers of darkness. It is
possible, however, that I have been deceived in the affair, (for thousands are,)
but if I have been deceived, it was an error in my judgment. A hypocrite, I was
not; for, at that time, nothing could have tempted me to engage in the work,
until I was moved by the Holy Ghost. The greatest obstruction that I had, when
undertaking the work, was this: I did not believe that I had the longing desire
and holy zeal for the salvation of sinners, that some preachers had; indeed,
this was my heaviest trial for the first five years of my ministry. I had,
however, a love for the gospel and the gospel worship, and was pleased when I
saw people turning to the Lord. 2 From this beginning, I preached in the towns
around where I was requested. The first preaching tour that I made, was a small
one, about forty miles in length; preaching to little congregations on the way.
My mind was dark when first setting out, but grew darker and darker all the way,
till, at length, I concluded that I had run before I was sent, and, therefore,
returned home with precipitance, resolving to attempt the work no more.

Before I went on this journey, I had appointed a meeting to attend after my
return; had it not been for this circumstance, I know not what would have
brought me into action. But attending that appointment, I obtained great
comfort, and resolution to persevere. At one of these little meetings, a young
woman received a gracious change, and gave good evidence of it. This encouraged
me, that my labor was not in vain. About thirty years afterwards I saw her. She
had joined with the Presbyterians, and blamed me for being a close communicant.
I asked her, if her ministers and church would let me preach in their
meeting-house; she said, she believed not. Why then, said I, should I be blamed
for not communing with those who have no fellowship with me? The autumn of this
year, I joined Bellingham church, (for till then, I belonged to no church,) and
after about six months, that church gave me a license to do that which I had
been doing for a year before. In October, 1775, I took a journey to Virginia,
and was gone eight months. One person in New Jersey, one in Connecticut, and two
in Virginia, professed to receive some impression, under my improvement, which
turned them to the Lord.

September 30, 1776, I was married to Sally Devine, of Hopkinton; and immediately
started with her to Virginia. As we made a stay of six weeks at Philadelphia,
and a longer stay in Fairfax, Virginia, we did not reach Culpepper until March.
At Mount Poney, in Culpepper, I joined the church, and undertook to preach among
them half the Sundays. In August, I was ordained by the choice of the church,
without the imposition of the hands of a Presbytery. As this was a departure
from the usage of the churches in Virginia, I was not generally fellowshipped by
them. I spent all my time travelling and preaching, and had large congregations.
The first person that I baptized, was Betsey Tillery. I saw her in 1814. She had
then supported a Christian character for thirty-eight years. In the close of the
year 1777, I travelled as far south as Pee Dee river, in South Carolina, and
returned to Culpepper early in 1778. Soon after this, I removed into Orange
county, where I acquired me a residence, and where I continued all the time of
my stay in Virginia. My stay in Culpepper was not a blessing to the people. I
was too young and roving to be looked up to as a pastor. Difficulties arose, the
church split, and I just obtained a dismission and recommendation. God had
another man for Mount Poney church. William Mason became their pastor, and he
has done wonders in the name of Jesus. Having moved to Orange, I commenced my
labors with ardor. Twelve and fourteen times a week I frequently preached. But,
notwithstanding the constancy of my preaching, and the multitudes that attended,
there was but small appearance of the work of God’s spirit. I said before, I
knew my heart did not burn with the holy fire as it ought to. In the spring of
1779, I appointed a string of meetings, about one hundred and twenty miles, as
far down as York county. As I had sold my horse to pay for my house and lot, I
concluded to go on foot: accordingly I started; but, as I had a pair of new
shoes that pinched my feet, I found I must either desist - go barefoot, like the
old Apostles, or purchase a horse. I chose the last, and promised the Lord if he
would aid me to pay for the horse, I would spend it in his service. I gave my
note for the beast, and pursued my journey. It so happened, in the event, that
when I returned home, I had more than money enough to pay for my mare; and many
thousands of miles she carried me about to preach. But though she was good, she
was not invulnerable; for, on the 8th of June, as I was returning from Bedford
county, I called at a friend’s house, and found, by the badness of the saddle,
her back was so swelled that I could not ride her. A man, twenty miles distant,
had fallen from a fence and broken his neck, and this day I had appointed to
preach his funeral sermon commemorative. My friend could not help me, and,
therefore, I arose at daybreak and travelled twenty miles, preached to the
people, and then returned on foot to my friend’s, where my beast was. 3 In
September, this year, I was likewise returning from Bedford, and had an evening
meeting at a place called the North Garden. After preaching was over, a Mrs.
Baily informed me that she had a desire to be baptized, but her husband had told
her, if she was ever baptized he would whip her within an inch of her life, and
kill the man that should baptize her. That he had once seen me, and liked me so
well, that he said if Leland should come that way he might baptize her; and now
she wished to embrace the opportunity. I asked her if she was willing to suffer,
on supposition her husband should revolt to his first resolution. "Yes, " said
she, "if I am whipped, my Saviour had long furrows ploughed upon his back."
"Well," said I, "if you will venture your back, I will venture my head."
Accordingly, the candles were lighted - we went to the water, and she was
baptized. My engagements called me to start very early next morning. I heard
afterwards that he whipped her, but the head of John the Baptist is not taken
off yet.

I now come to a period, which was very interesting to me, and, possibly, on
account of the incidents of this period, may be profitable to others. In the
month of October, my mind was graciously impressed with eternal realities. Souls
appeared very precious to me, and my heart was drawn out in prayer for their
salvation. Now, for the first time, I knew what it was to travail in birth for
the conversion of sinners. The words of Rachel to Jacob were the words of my
heart to God: "Give me children or else I die. " One night, as I lay on my bed
weeping and praying, I thought if it was spring instead of autumn, I would spend
all my time at the feet of Jesus in prayer, and at the feet of sinners, praying
them to be reconciled to God; but winter was coming on, the summer was ended,
and the opportunity past. On which reflection, the following words burst into my
mind with surprising effect: "The shepherds rejoiced on a winter’s day. " These
words awakened all the latent energies of my soul. I resolved to double my
vigor, and had faith to believe that I should see souls return to the Lord, and
that I should rejoice at it that winter. For eight months after this, I had the
spirit of prayer to a degree beyond what I ever had it in my life; and, if I
mistake not, my preaching savored a little of the same spirit. My field of
preaching was from Orange down to York, about one hundred and twenty miles. From
November, 1779, to July, 1780, I baptized one hundred and thirty, the chiefest
of whom professed to be the seals of my ministry. As this was the first time
that ever such a work attended my ministry, it was refreshing indeed; nor can I
think of it now, without soft emotions of heart. The chiefest of my success was
in York, where Lord Cornwallis and the British army were made prisoners, in
October, 1781. Matthew Wood, Robert Stacy and Thomas Cheesman, (all preachers
afterwards,) were the children of this revival. In the first of my preaching in
York, I had a meeting in the edge of Warwick. Just as I had read my text,
Colossians Harwood, with six others, entered the house. "Sir, " said the
Colonel, "I am come to stop you from preaching here today." Without any time to
think, I gave a heavy stamp on the floor, and told him in the name of God to
forbear. He replied, "I did not come to fight, but to stop you from preaching."
A Mr. Cole Diggs, son of a counsellor, was there, and said, "Colossians Harwood,
you are a representative in the General Assembly, and the Assembly has just made
a law to secure the religious rights of all, and now you come to prevent them.
What does that look like?" Said the Colonel, "Mr. Diggs, I only came to prevent
an unlawful conventicle, for this meeting draws away the people from the
church!" Mrs. Russell, the mistress of the house, replied, "Hah! Colonel, I
think it is a pity that people cannot do as they please, in their own house."
"Madam," said the Colonel, "I did not come to dispute with ladies." And here the
fracas ended. The Colonel and Co. went off, and the meeting was continued. When
he returned home, his mother said unto him, "Well, Neddy, what did the man say
unto you? " "What?" said the Colonel, "He stamped at me, and made no more of me
than if I had been a dog. I shall trouble them no more." Some of his servants I
baptized afterwards.

Captain Robert Howard, of York, had a beautiful and pious wife whom he adored.
She wished to be baptized, but as he was a vestryman in the church, he opposed
it. At a time, however, she came forward and was baptized. When he heard of it,
he called for his carriage, and took his cow-skin, and said he would lash me out
of the county. His sister replied, "Brother Bobby, Mr. Leland is a large man,
and will be too much for you. " "I know it, " said the Captain, "but he will not
fight." His wife made answer, "Perhaps he may - he goes well armed; and if he
should wound you in the heart, you would fall before him." "Ah! " said the
Captain, "I know nothing about this heart-work." "I wish you may, my dear," said
his wife. He finally declined the contest, and afterwards became serious,
penitent, believing, and was baptized. After his reform, as he was riding in
company with me to meeting, one of his uncles met him in the road, and accosted
him thus: "Nephew Bobby, I pity you in my "heart, to see you following that
deluded people, and wasting your time so much, that you will raise no corn this
year." "My uncle," said the Captain, "I wish you had pitied me as much two years
ago, when you cheated me out of my mill."

About the same time, a gentlewoman, in James City, was convinced that it was her
duty to be baptized, but neglected it until she could evade it no longer. She
came to my quarters on Saturday, and made known her desire; accordingly the
neighbors were collected, and she was baptized: when she returned and told her
husband of it, he would not sleep with her that night, nor eat breakfast with
her in the morning. She came to meeting on Sunday and informed me of what had
taken place, and asked my advice in the affair. I knew the lady to be an
excellent cook, and her husband was fond of good dinners. My answer was, "My
sister, give yourself no uneasiness; his appetite will bring him to his reason
by dinner time;" which accordingly came to pass. At the close of the eight
months, which I am now treating of, as I was taking leave of the young disciples
in York, to return home to Orange, and was preaching to them, from "Little
children, keep yourselves from idols," I was taken with a pain in my head, and
an ague, followed by a bilious fever, and preached not again for eighteen weeks.
Reports reached my home that I was dead, and a kind of funeral sermon was
preached on the occasion. Notwithstanding this, I was carried home in a
carriage, after six weeks sickness, but did not preach until twelve weeks more
had elapsed. In this sickness, my mind was greatly depressed. The spirit of
prayer left me. My hope for heaven was shaken to the centre. The truth of what I
had been preaching was doubted. The fear that I had been governed by an
ambitious spirit, like Jehu, was great. In short, I was a poor, forlorn, sick
worm of the dust.

One thing, however, stuck by me, because I felt it, viz: "That a death unto sin,
and a new birth unto righteousness, was absolutely necessary to constitute a man
either safe or happy." When my sickness abated, my spirit was so peevish that I
was out of all esteem of myself. When my health was so far recovered that I
could preach, I resumed the work again, but ah! my hair was shaven, my strength
was gone. Through the mercy of God, however, I was holpen with a little help;
and after I was tried I saw brighter days. From this time to the year 1785, by
the siege of Lord Cornwallis, the refunding of paper money, and removals to
Kentucky, religion ran low in Virginia. A few events that took place in those
four years, connected with the narative which I am here giving, I shall
nevertheless notice.

One day, I went from home about eight miles. On my return, there arose a heavy
thunder storm. Being in summer dress, I stopped under the large branches of a
lofty oak, to shelter me from the rain. The rain, however, continuing, I started
for home. I had gone but a little distance before the lightning struck. The next
time I passed the road, I found the lightning had struck the oak, and split off
one of the huge limbs, which had fallen on the very spot where I had stood about
three minutes before. In the bend of Pamunky river, a little below New Castle,
there is an Indian town. By the circle of the river, and a cross creek, a gate,
with two lengths of fence, enclose it around. There was at that time about
seventy-five proprietors. The name of their king was John Tohon. His royal
majesty gave me an invitation to visit the town, and preach among them.
Accordingly I went, and preached at the royal pavilion. After preaching, I
baptized two persons, and then heard the king preach; for, like Melchizedeck, he
was priest as well as king. His majesty did not seem to be possessed with much
regal power, and by the text which he preached from, one would think that he did
not seek after hierarchal authority. His text was, "Be ye not called Rabbi, for
one is your master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren." I ate a good dinner
with the king, slept in his apartment the following night, and left the town in
the morning. Soon after this he died.

Funeral sermons in Virginia are seldom preached at the time of the interment,
but sometime afterwards. I was invited to preach a sermon, on the death of a
small child, long after it was dead. This was in the county of Louisa, about
eighteen miles from home. The text was Isaiah 57:2. At this meeting, three
persons were first awakened, who became and lived shining Christians. This was
the first fruits of my labor in Louisa, where, afterwards, the Lord gave me a
rich harvest. An inn-holder in Pagestown strongly importuned me to preach at his
house. When I went there, he did not open his own doors for worship, but
provided another place. There was some appearance that he wished the people to
collect, more to purchase his drink and dinner, than to have their souls
converted. After some time, he pressed me again to come and preach; when I went,
he would not open his house, nor could he get any other; we, therefore, repaired
to a tobacco house for worship. In this instance, I felt as if my master was
mocked; and if I had felt gracious enough, I should have shaken off the dust of
my feet against him; but as I was a poor imperfect creature myself, I peaceably
pursued my course, after the meeting was over. Some weeks afterwards, as I was
travelling the road a little distance from the place, I saw the landlord’s
chimney standing, but the house was consumed by fire. When I saw it, my heart
burst out in sacred language, "Righteous art thou, Lord God Almighty, because
thou hast judged thus." In the year 1784, I travelled northward as far as
Philadelphia, where I tarried six weeks. As I went in company with Mr.
Winchester, the Baptists in Philadelphia were so fearful that I was a
Universalist, that I was not invited by them to preach in their meeting-house. I
therefore preached Sundays and almost every night in the Hall of the University,
and in private houses. But when I saw the many thousands of people in the city,
and those who attended at the Hall did not exceed 200, I was resolved to try the
street. Accordingly, I appointed a meeting to preach one afternoon at five
o’clock, at the sign of the Blue Bell. When I went, but few appeared. I stepped
upon a stick of ship timber and began by singing: on which the people came
running from every lane, and continued to increase until preaching was over,
when I judged there was about three hundred people. I then appointed to preach
there again, when there were about twice as many. During my stay in the city, I
baptized four persons in Schuylkill river, and returned home to Virginia by
water. Six years afterwards I was in Philadelphia, and having preached one
evening in the Baptist meeting-house, a man took me by the hand and invited me
to take lodgings with him that night, which I accepted of. As we were walking to
his house, he gave the following account of himself:

"Sir, formerly I attended meeting nowhere, but when you was here six years ago,
as I was at work in my shop, I heard the voice of singing as if it came down
from heaven. I left my shop and ran out to see what was coming, and beheld you,
sir, upon a stick of ship-timber at prayer. After prayer, I attended to your
preaching, which sunk so deeply into my heart, that I have never lost it; and am
now a member in the Baptist church."

Late in the year 1784, I travelled to the south-east about one hundred and fifty
miles, near the Dismal Swamp, and returned in six weeks. In the spring of 1785,
I went to the same district, and ranged and preached much more than I did in my
first visit.

I now come to a period when religious appearance began to assume a more pleasing
face than it had done for many years. In Powhattan county the work first broke
out, and many became the subjects of victorious grace. Some old professors, on
the other side of James River, about Chickahominy, went to see what was going
on, who caught the spirit, and returning home, were instrumental of a similar
work in their neighborhood, and round about in Goochland. The last of this year
I took a preaching tour into the lower part of North Carolina. Preached eighteen
times in that state, in a circular course, then came into Virginia and steered
home.

There was a place for preaching on the line between Louisa and Goochland, called
Hodger’s Seats, where I sometimes preached. In the spring of 1786, I appointed a
long and circular string of meetings. And as I had a strong impression that God
would work at that place, I reserved five days in my tour to spend among that
people. After the Association at Boar Swamp was over, I travelled through
Goochland, where many people seemed to be on the alert for heaven, and came to
Mr. Hedger’s, where a large number of people were waiting for me. I introduced
worship by repeating a hymn, "O that my load of sin were gone," &c.

All of a sudden, it seemed as if something fell from heaven upon the people. I
could not speak for weeping, for some time. I am but a poor preacher, at best,
and the sermon which I then preached was hardly middling, but the effect on the
people was amazing. Some were crying out, some on their knees, and others
prostrate on the floor. In the course of a few weeks about forty were baptized;
and I believe that a majority of them dated their first awakenings at the
meeting at Mr. Hedger’s. In August, the same year, I attended a meeting of the
General Committee, at Buckingham; after which I travelled southward to
Pittsylvania, to visit that great man of God, Rev. Samuel Harris; and on my
return, preached on a Sunday in Prince Edward. In the midst of the meeting, a
Mr. Owen Smith was brought out, and by his shouting, and praising, and
exhorting, he set the whole assembly in motion. I have never seen him since, but
have received a number of letters from him. His last letter was in 1816. He was
then well, and reminded me of the meeting in Prince Edward, and wrote that nine
of his family belong to the church.

I had met Mr. Harris on the banks of James river, and accompanied him at his
meetings through Goochland, Fluvanna and Louisa to Orange. At a meeting in
Goochland, after preaching was over, Mr. Harris went into the yard, and sat down
in the shade, while the people were weeping in the meeting-house, and telling
what God had done for them, in order to be baptized. A gentlewoman addressed Mr.
Harris as follows: "Mr. Harris, what do you think all this weeping is for? Are
not all those tears like the tears of a crocodile? I believe I could cry as well
as any of them, if I chose to act the hypocrite." On this address, Mr. Harris
drew a dollar out of his pocket and replied, "Good woman, I will give you this
dollar for a tear, and repeat it ten times;" but the woman shed no tears.

Among the seven that were baptized at that time, was a Mrs. Johnson, daughter of
Colossians James Dabney, of whom take the following account: Colossians
Johnson’s son Christopher paid attention to the young lady, and gained her good
will, but could not obtain the consent of her father; on which Miss Betsey
agreed to elope with young Johnson; and from her chamber window, on a ladder,
she descended in the night, and was conducted by her lover to the house of his
father. In the morning Colossians Dabney missed his daughter, and suspecting
where she was gone, he armed himself with sword and pistol, and steered his
course to Colossians Johnson’s. When he got within call, he demanded if his
daughter Betsey was there? Being answered in the affirmative, he gave orders for
her to meet him on the risk of her life. Betsey’s affections no ways accorded
with the demand of her father, and seeing him thus armed, she was greatly
distressed. Colossians Anderson being at the house, seeing what was passing,
said, "Come Betsey, don’t be discouraged, I’ll effect a reconciliation." With
that, he armed himself with sword and pistol, and marched into the field to meet
Dabney, with his arm stretched out, holding his glittering sword, and Betsey
walking under it. When he got near Dabney, he exclaimed, "Colossians Dabney,
here is your daughter, Betsey, who wishes for a reconciliation; I have
undertaken to protect her, and shall defend her with the last drop of my blood."
Betsey fell upon her knees - Dabney softened - a reconciliation was effected -
the young couple were married; and, at the meeting just spoken of, she was
baptized: nor was it long before her husband followed her example. This event
has often led my mind to reflect on an incident, infinitely more important. The
guilty runaway sinner is pursued by the holy, fiery law, and threatened with
eternal death; but the Mediator appears to interpose, and when the sinner is
humbled by grace, a reconciliation is obtained. In June, 1787, I was ordained by
laying on of hands. The ministers that officiated, were Nathaniel Saunders, John
Waller and John Price. By this, not only a union took place between myself and
others, but it was a small link in the chain of events, which produced a union
among all the Baptists in Virginia, not long afterwards. In 1787, old Colossians
Harris made me a visit, whose coming called out a vast crowd of ministers and
people. His eyes - his every motion was preaching; but after he had read his
text, his mind was so dark that he could not preach; and of course the lot fell
on me. From my house, Colossians Harris went down to Spottsylvania, where the
work of the Lord, like a mighty torrent, broke out under his ministry. A few
weeks afterwards, I went down through Spottsylvania and Caroline, and was glad
to see the grace of God, but was extremely mortified to find myself so far
behind the work of God. In this visit, however, I caught the spirit of prayer,
which lasted me home. 4 Indeed, before I got home, I gained an evidence that God
would work in Orange. Having such confidence, I addressed myself to the work of
the ministry with fresh courage. There was a dancing school set up in the
vicinity, which was much in my way. On Sunday, after service, I told the people
that I had opened a dancing school, which I would attend one quarter gratis:
that I would fiddle the tune which the angels sung, if they would dance
repentance on their knees. The project succeeded; the dancing school gave way,
and my meetings were thronged. Solemnity, sobs, sighs and tears soon appeared.
The last Sunday in October I began to baptize those that were brought out, and
the work prevailed greatly. The tract of land which I occupied in this revival
was more than twenty miles square, including the corners of Orange, Culpepper,
Spottsylvania and Louisa. When the work seemed to languish in one neighborhood,
it would break out in another, and consequently, there was a continual fall of
heavenly rain from October, 1787, until March, 1789, during which time I
baptized about 400. Precisely 300 of them were baptized in 1788 - more than I
have ever baptized in any other year. During the ingathering, the following
events took place. In the south part of Orange, a man took his gun, with the
professed intention of killing me. He had given his consent for his wife to be
baptized, and the meeting was appointed for that purpose; but when we got to the
water, and I had taken her by the hand to lead her into the water, there was an
alarm that the man was coming with his gun. While a detachment of the
congregation went to meet the man and pacify him, I thought, "now or never," and
baptised her. No mischief ensued. In another part of Orange, a woman, who was in
the habit of intimacy with myself and wife, invited me to preach at her house on
a certain evening. When we got at the gate, her son, who was a Captain, (having
been reproved by his mother, and taken offence at it,) met us, and said I should
not preach there. I asked him if he thought he was right. "No, " said he, "I
know I am wrong, and I expect to be damned for it; but I have said it and shall
abide by my word." The man of the house came also to the gate, and desired us to
go into the house, and said the house was his own and not his son’s. The woman
was at a loss what was best. I hesitated, but finally went in. As the people
began to collect, the Captain withdrew with threatenings. After I arose to open
the meeting by singing, he came rushing into the house, like a bear bereaved of
her whelps- sprang upon the bed - took his sword and drew it out of the scabbard
- and stepping off the bed with his arm extended and sword glittering,
exclaimed, "let me kill the damned rascal!" As he made a stroke towards me, the
point of the sword hit the joists, and he behaved like an awkward soldier. The
case was this: my wife, who was seated near the head of the bed, when she saw
the Captain step from the bed with his sword drawn, and draw back his arm to
give the thrust, like a female angel, sprang like the lightning of heaven,
clasped her arms within his elbow, around his body, locked her hands together,
and held him like a vice, till the men took away his sword. We then took a
lantern and went into the road and carried on our meeting. As God would have it,
a young man and a young woman dated their change of heart at this meeting. As I
was returning from Fredericksburg, in the lower part of Orange, a young man had
married and brought his bride to his father’s, where there was music and
dancing. I stopped in the road, and the groom came out and wished me to drink
sling with him. I asked him what noise it was that I heard in the house? He
answered it was a fiddle. As he was going to the house, I requested him to bring
the fiddle to me. But as this was not done, I lighted off my horse and went into
the house. By the time I got in, the fiddle was hidden, and all was still. I
told them, if fiddling and dancing was serving God, to proceed on, and if I
could gain conviction of it, I would join them. As they did not proceed, I told
them I would attempt to serve God in my way. I then prayed among them and took
my leave. The next week I was sent for to come and preach at the same house. The
power of the Lord was present to heal. In the course of a few weeks, numbers
were converted and turned to the Lord, whom I baptized in a stream of water near
the house. At another time, I had a meeting at John Lea’s, in Louisa, when
something seemed to descend on the people, like that which took place at Mr.
Hedgers’s, (mentioned before,) but the effects were not so great. The next day
there were five to be baptized. The day was very cold.

While Mr. Bowles was preaching to the people, I composed the hymn:

Christians, if your hearts be warm, Ice and snow can do no harm;

If by Jesus you are priz’d, Rise, believe, and be baptiz’d.

Jesus drank the gall for you, Bore the Cross for sinners due; , Children, prove
your love to him,, Never fear the frozen stream.

Never shun the Saviour’s Cross, , All on earth is worthless dross; , If the
Saviour’s love you feel, , Let the world behold your zeal. At an Association in
Caroline, two others with myself were chosen to preach on Sunday. When my turn
came, I felt every way unprepared. I was hoarse with a cold, and exceedingly
barren in spirit. I therefore declined, and one of the others preached. While he
was preaching, I doubted whether I was right in declining, and resolved that as
soon as he had finished, I would do what I could. Accordingly I did. My voice
improved; my ideas brightened so much that I preached about forty minutes. The
people were greatly affected. On account of a similitude used, together with the
shortness of the discourse, it was called the GINGER-CAKE sermon. Mr. Waller,
who was the stated minister at that place, told me afterwards, that in the
relations which the people gave before baptism, not less than fifteen persons
had reference to the GINGERBREAD sermon. In the year 1789, nothing of importance
turned up. In 1790, I travelled into New England, to see my father and
relations. I preached on the way, going and coming. The term of my absence from
home was four months. The number baptized thirty-two. The winter following, I
made my arrangements to move into New England. Having baptized precisely seven
hundred while I lived there, and leaving two churches, one in Orange, and the
other in Louisa; the first containing three hundred and the other two hundred
members. On the last of March, I started, with my family of a wife and eight
children, and a small quantum of effects, and travelled by land to
Fredericksburg, where I took ship for New England. We fell down the Rappahannock
river, crossed the Chesapeake, and entered the sea between the Capes of Henry
and Charles. The day after we entered the Atlantic, we were attacked by a
thunder gust and heavy gale of wind, which lasted fifteen hours. The boat was
crippled, the oars swept off, the quadrant injured, and some of my goods were
swept from the quarter-deck. That passengers should be affrighted, is not to be
wondered at; but here, the sailors all turned pale. In the midst of the gale,
the wind shifted, and flung the vessel into the trough of the sea; on which the
Captain stepped to the cabin door and said, "We shall not weather it many
minutes." This he said, (as I judged,) not to terrify the sailors, but for my
sake. The sense of it, to me, was this: "Leland, if you have got a God, now call
upon him. " But there was no need of this admonition, for I had begun the work
before; and can now say, that that night is the only one of my life that I spent
wholly in prayer. That I prayed in faith, is more than I can say; but that I
prayed in distress, is certain. About day-light, April 15th, the wind abated,
but we knew not where we were for five days; for the quadrant was injured. The
distress which I had at that time, so affected my nervous system, that I did not
entirely recover from it for more than ten years. In time, however, we gained
the port of New London, on a certain Saturday night. I did not intend to make
any stay at that place, save only to get some refreshments, but the Captain had
written from Fredericksburgh, to his friends in New London, that he had turned
his vessel into a meeting-house, and was bringing a preacher and his family with
him. On Sunday morning early it was known that the vessel lay by the wharf, and
before I was up the brethren in New London came down to the vessel, to see what,
for a cargo, the Captain had brought into port. The Captain told them that he
intended to go to the insurance office, and demand the sum that was insured on
the vessel; for if it had not been for my prayers he was sure the vessel would
have been lost. The brethren invited me to go ashore, and preach to them in the
state-house, which I acceded to. Finding myself courteously received, I tarried
there about two months. Here I met with some success in winning souls; and here
my wife was sick nigh unto death; but she had more faith in prayer than she had
in physic. The godly old Elder, Z. Darrow, came to visit us, whose prayer for my
wife seemed to be answered, and she recovered. The people were very kind and
liberal to me; but the expenses of my family, and the sickness of my wife, cost
me about twenty dollars more than I received. But this thought came to my mind:
"Jesus gave his life and blood for sinners, and shall I begrudge a few dollars
for their salvation!" After preaching around in the towns about New London, on
the 1 st of July we left the place, and, in boats and scows, went up Connecticut
river to Sunderland, and then by land to Conway, where my father and old
acquaintance were living. In Conway, I purchased a house and small lot, for a
temporary residence until I gained more acquaintance in the country. At this
place, my family abode eight months. My travels in the meantime in the country
were considerable - my success some. The last day of February, 1792, I moved
into Cheshire, which has been my home the chiefest of the time since. For two or
three years there was a sprinkling of blessings on the people in Cheshire,
Lanesborough and Adams, so that about seventy were baptized. And in Philip’s
town, Canaan and the Gore, I had good success. In the year 1795, the work of God
appeared in Conway. A messenger came and desired me to visit them; I went and
preached twelve times among them, and baptized twelve persons at that time, and
more afterwards. Here my heart caught a little heavenly fire, and I returned
home to Cheshire, longing and praying that God would pour out his spirit on the
people in Cheshire. I set up evening meetings, and preach about as often as once
a day, for seventy days running. I have never known a time like this, when I had
so much of the spirit of praying and preaching, and met with so small success.
No more than seven came forward as the reward of my painful labor. In the
compass of these seventy days, I had a night meeting at Deacon Wood’s, in
Cheshire. Going to the meeting, my mind was so solemnly impressed, that I could
hardly walk. When I arose to speak, I could scarcely stand. Of the many
thousands of sermons that I have preached in my life, (for solemnity of mind,
discovery of heavenly things, and flow of words,) I give that the preference,
and yet but small effects followed. An individual young woman only was divinely
wrought upon. Christ’s time was not yet come to work miraculously in Cheshire.

I continued my travels in the New England states, and state of New York, until
1797. In August, that year, I made a tour to Virginia, and was gone six months.
I preached all the way there, and travelled and preached among my old friends
three months, and then returned home, having travelled more than two thousand
miles, and preached more than one hundred and seventy times. My friends through
the whole received me kindly; but I saw no great revivals of religion anywhere,
save only at Scotch Plains, among Mr. Vanhorn’s people. After my return, I was
busily employed in domestic concerns for about eighteen months, preparing to go
to Virginia again, in August, 1799. To this end, I had sent on appointments for
meetings, about one hundred miles on my way, as far as Carmel meeting-house.
Having finished my domestic affairs a fortnight before my appointments began, I
told the people in Cheshire, that I would preach for them every day or night
until I started. At this time, a heavenly visitant came to my house - my heart,
with the salutation of "Peace be to you - peace on earth and good will to men."
5 When I sat in my house, it would seem as if the room was white-washed with
love. When I went into the field, a circle of heavenly mildness would seem to
surround me, and the following words would be injected into my heart again,
again, and again: "The Lord will work." My meetings, during this feast of
tabernacles, (as I called the fortnight,) were crowded. At the meeting-house,
such silence reigned as I had never seen before. My struggle of mind was great,
whether I should go to Virginia and leave these hopeful appearances, or stay at
home and strive to fan the sparks. And as the time drew on, my struggles
increased. I prepared for my journey, and preached my last sermon a few miles on
the way. The people followed in droves, and, in time of meeting, wept bitterly.
I finally went on my journey, and attended my appointments, which I before had
made, the distance of one hundred miles, and then returned back. I was gone
about twenty days, and preached about the same number of sermons, and baptized
thirteen persons. On my return, I found the work had broken out like the mighty
rushing waters. This induced me to preach every day or night until the March
following, in which time more than two hundred were baptized.

Before the work made a visible appearance, and for three months afterwards,
there was not a day but what I had the spirit of prayer, and a travail for
souls; and often felt as if I should sink under the weight of my burden if souls
were no delivered. Sometimes, individuals would lay in my heart; at other times,
the longing desire would be more general. After three months I felt that spirit
of prayer abate, but the spirit of preaching continued for three months
afterwards, until the ingathering was over, and then the peculiar impression
which I had, subsided. 6 In 1800, I made a tour of four months, travelling
southward as far as Bedford, N. Y. Then eastward through Connecticut to
New-London. Then pursued my course through Rhode Island, (visiting Providence
and Newport,) into Bristol county. Then returning through Worcester and
Hampshire counties, reached home the last of October. I was somewhat debilitated
when I left home, and the summer was unusually hot, but I was preserved and
enabled to preach about as many times as there were days. In this journey, I saw
eight old preachers, whose ages in average, exceeded eighty years. The venerable
Backus was one of them. There was a revival in his congregation, and on his
request I baptized a few in the place. I have never seen him since, nor either
of the eight; nor shall I ever see them in mortal bodies, for they are all dead.
My journey was not altogether lost. By letters and verbal accounts, I was
afterwards informed that in several places a divine blessing attended the
preaching, which proved effectual unto salvation. In November, 1801, I journeyed
to the south, as far as Washington, in charge of a cheese, sent to President
Jefferson. Notwithstanding my trust, I preached all the way there and on my
return. I had large congregations; led in part by curiosity to hear the Mammoth
Priest, as I was called.

After this, I lived several years in great barrenness of soul, and had but
little, if any success. In March, 1804, I removed into Dutchess County, N. Y.,
where I continued two years, which, (as it respects my ministry,) was a gap of
lost time. Just before I left the place, a revival took place about ten miles
off, where brother Luman Birch, an unordained preacher, improved, which called
me there to baptize a few. In 1806, I removed back to Cheshire. The day before
the total eclipse, brother Birch was ordained. It was my lot to preach the
sermon, which seemed to be blessed among the people. The substance of that
sermon was offered to the public, in a pamphlet, afterwards entitled "The Flying
Seraphim." The following winter, I sunk into great distress of mind. It has’
always been a question with me of great importance, to know how to address a
congregation of sinners, as such, in gospel style. And this winter it attacked
my mind with great force. Neither Gill, Hopkins, Fuller nor Wesley, could remove
my difficulties. My fears were, that I did not preach right, which was the cause
why I was so barren in myself and useless to others. This burden lay heavy upon
me a long time. At length, at an evening meeting at a school house in Cheshire,
my heart waxed a little warm with holy zeal, and I gave my spirit vent to the
youth and school children, regardless of all authors and systems, which had a
good effect. Four of the school children and a young man besides, came forward
for baptism in a few weeks, who dated the beginning of their religious
impressions at that meeting. This little success, obtained at that trying time,
gave me both relief and courage. 7 The year 1808 was a memorable year in Pownal.
Religion had a great triumph in that place at that time. A man by the name of
John Williams was their preacher; but he was not ordained; of course I preached
and baptized, through the cold winter. The number baptized was more than sixty.
Williams did not behave like a wolf, seeking to destroy, but like a goat, as if
he was ignorant of what was going on. He finally turned out an abandoned
character. In this revival some little boys set up a conference meeting; and as
they were poor, they would meet in cowsheds and on the mountains. This was in
the winter, and some of them had no shoes. When it was known, the neighbors
gladly opened their houses for their accommodation. In the year 1811, while I
was in the General Court at Boston, a time of refreshing came in Cheshire. After
my return I baptized forty. There was a division among the people. Other
ministers baptized about ten. In the height of this revival, I was taken sick of
the typhus fever. What I passed through in that sickness has been published in a
pamphlet. 8 In December, 1813, I started again for Virginia; and preaching on
the way to Washington, I crossed the Potomac into Virginia the last day of
January, 1814. I was in the state eighty days, in which time I travelled seven
hundred miles, and preached more than seventy times. I never had before - I
never have since - nor do I ever expect to preach to as many people in so short
a time. The kindness of the people to their old friend, whom they had not seen
for sixteen years, was unbounded. I shall never forget it while my memory
remains. I reached Richmond on Saturday, March 5th. The Sunday before that,
Elder Courtney had baptized seventy-five persons in the basin on the canal. He
descended into the water and took his stand, from which he did not remove until
all were baptized. He had assistants who led the candidates to and from him; and
he performed the whole in seventeen minutes, notwithstanding he was seventy
years old. The chiefest of the candidates were people of color. As I returned
home, I preached in Dr. Staughton’s meeting-house in Philadelphia, on the
evening preceding the meeting of the great Convention which formed the plan of
the missionary society. I arrived at home in June, after an absence of six
months; having travelled in that time eighteen hundred miles, and preached about
one hundred and fifty times.

After my return home, I went into the Genessee country to see my children, and
late in the fall I sold my residence in Cheshire, with a view to move westward;
but before I had made any purchase, as I was travelling for that purpose, about
eighty miles from home, the beast on which I rode, like Balaam’s ass, not only
crushed my feet, but threw me to the ground and fell upon me, which broke my
leg. After nearly a fortnight, I was carried home in a sleigh. The old bone was
a long while growing and strengthening, and I was reduced very low. As this
disaster happened, I was entirely defeated in my object of moving to the
westward. My family advised me to purchase the place where I now live, which,
with great reluctance I consented to, and was drawn in a sleigh, on bare ground,
to my new home. After my leg got well enough, and my strength sufficient, I
began to preach again, leaning on my staff.

Late in the fall of 1817, there was a precious, though not a very extensive
revival in Hancock, where I attended as preacher, and baptized thirty-one, who
(excepting three others) were the first that I baptized after my leg was broken.
In March, 1819, a like work began in the north part of Adams, which progressed
several months. The people in that place had no settled minister, but were
visited by ministers who lived around them; of the seventy who united with the
church, I baptized twenty-seven.

Since I began to preach in 1774, I have travelled distances, which, together,
would form a girdle nearly sufficient to go round the terraqueous globe three
times. The number of sermons which I have preached, is not far from eight
thousand. The number of persons that I have baptised is one thousand two hundred
and seventy-eight. The number of Baptist ministers whom I have personally known
is nine hundred and sixty-two. Those of them whom I have heard preach, in
number, make three hundred and three. Those who have died, (whose deaths I have
heard of,) amount to three hundred. The number that have visited me at my house
is two hundred and seven. The pamphlets which I have written, that have been
published, are about thirty.

I am now in the decline of life, having lived nearly two-thirds of a century.
When Jacob had lived twice as long, his days had been few and evil. I have spent
my years like a tale that is told. Looking over the foregoing narrative, there
is proof enough of imperfection; and yet what I have written is the best part of
my life. A history seven times as large might be written of my error in
judgment, incorrectness of behaviour, and baseness of heart. My only hope of
acceptance with God, is in the blood and righteousness of Jesus Christ. And when
I come to Christ for pardon, I come as an old grey-headed sinner; in the
language of the publican, "God be merciful to me a sinner."

How long I have to stay on earth I know not. What labors or sufferings I have
yet to sustain below, I cannot tell. O, that the God of all grace would keep me
in his holy care, and never suffer me to make shipwreck of faith and a good
conscience, but make me faithful unto death, that I might finish my course with
joy and receive a crown at last.

June 15, 1824. - It is now more than four years since I closed the fore-going
narrative of events. My life and health have been preserved until the present
time. In several places within the district of my ministration, there have been
times of refreshing, so that I have baptized seventy-four persons in the four
years. The 14th of May past was my birthday: I preached on the occasion a
septennarian sermon.

January 14,1825 - I have preached in four hundred and thirty-six meeting-houses,
thirty-seven court-houses, several capitols, many academies and school-houses;
barns, tobacco-houses and dwelling-houses: and many hundreds of times on stages
in the open air. Not the place, but the presence of Christ, and a right temper
of mind, makes preaching solemnly easy and profitable. My congregations have
consisted of from five hearers to ten thousand.

December 12, 1826. - Faint yet pursuing. The summer past I have spent chiefly in
travelling and preaching. I have attended three Associations - the jubilee and
funeral of the Presidents - as also a general meeting which lasted four days -
preached eighty-one times, and seen eighty-six Baptist preachers since the first
of June.

Two remarkable events have taken place the present year. Two old patriots, both
of them Ex-Presidents, died on the 4th of July; just fifty years after they
signed the Declaration of Independence - John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. The
first aged ninety-one, the other eighty-three. Mr. Jefferson drew the
Declaration of Independence; and by his writings and administration, he has
justly acquired the title of the Apostle of Liberty. In the state of Vermont,
the Governor and Lieutenant - Governor are both Baptist preachers - Ezra Butler
and Aaron Leland. This is a new thing in the world.

March 25, 1827. - Baptized ten candidates, which makes my baptismal number one
thousand three hundred and sixty-two. It is not probable that I ever shall
baptize many (if any) more. From pretty correct information, I find I have now
living eighty-two descendants, including children, grand-children, and
great-grand-children. A few of my posterity have died at their respective homes;
but I have never had a coffin or a death at my house.

If a conscious sinner may apply words to himself which were spoken of Abraham,
they are as follows: "For I called him alone, and blessed him, and increased
him." May 6. - Beyond my expectation, this day I baptized fifteen, making up the
number 1,377 May 27. - Wondering still: preached this day to a large concourse,
and baptized eleven, making 1,388

Baptized 4 July 4. - Preached to nearly 1,000 people, and baptized six, two of
whom were my grandchildren, making 1,398 July 15. - Baptized another of my
grand-children and four others, 5 Baptized 3 July 29 - Baptized 6 Aug. 12. -
Baptized five in Cheshire and three in Lanesborough, 8 Making 1,420

I have a great-grand-child, (Helen Maria Brown,) who has now living ten direct,
and great grand-fathers and grand-mothers.

Aug. 26. - Baptized 5 Baptized 1 Sept. 9. - Baptized 5 Oct. 7. - Baptized 10 One
of these last was Eunice Baxter, whose grand and great grandmothers I baptized
more than thirty years past.

Oct. 21. - Baptized 4 Nov. 4 - Baptized 2 Nov. 5. - Baptized 2 Nov. 11, -
Baptized 2.

One of these was seventy-seven years old, which added to the age of the
administrator, (seventy-three) would make one hundred and fifty years.

Nov. 30. - Baptized 1 Dec. 9. - Baptized 2 Dec. 17. - Baptized 1 Dec. 30. -
Baptized 2 Feb. 1, 1838. - Baptized 1 The father and mother of this candidate
have fourteen children now living; ELEVEN of whom I have baptized.

Baptized five more, making 1,465. May 14, 1828. - I am this day seventy-four
years old, able to travel and preach as doors open; and labor with my hands as
duty calls. The sins of childhood - the vices of youth - the improprieties,
pride and arrogance of riper years; with the presumptuous and blasphemous
suggestions of my mind, up till the present time, lie heavy on my mind, and sink
my spirits very low. It is true, I have had a hope for more than fifty years,
that my sins were attoned for by the blood of Christ, and forgiven for his
name’s sake; but still I find them attached to my character, and must forever,
for truth cannot decease. When the saints in heaven look on the blessed Jesus,
and remember the doleful sorrow and pain which their sins cost him, what kind of
feeling must they have? To call, their feeling sorrow, tears or mourning, would
be unscriptural; but a remembrance of their sins, a view of their Redeemer, and
a sense of his bloody agony, must give them a surprizing - - , fill them with an
exquisite hatred to sin, and raise their songs of praise to him who has redeemed
them.

December 7, 1828. - This day, for the first time, I baptized a man in a font,
near the pulpit, in Albany. During my stay in Albany, which was four days, I was
introduced to three governors. My rusticity of manners, and the humble rank I
fill, make such interviews more painful than flattering. May 14, 1829. - This
day I am seventy-five years old. Nothing singular with respect to myself has
occurred in the course of the last year. My greatest afflictions in life have
been of that character that I have had to bear them all alone; a communication
of them to others, (if indeed I could have done it,) would only have added to
their weight.

I noticed, in a former page, that in the year 1795, I had the most solemn
meeting at Deacon Nathan Wood’s, that I had ever experienced, which was attended
with but small success. I have now to add, that in the lapse of something more
than thirty years, I have baptized fifty-seven grand and great-grandchildren of
the said Deacon Wood; all of whom, except one, are now living, as is believed.
May 14, 1830. - Another year of my unprofitable life is gone. Nothing worth
recording has taken place with me in the year. Of the fourteen hundred and
seventy-one that I have baptized, but very few of them had the seal of the
covenant put upon them in infancy, and but one or two ever attended Sunday
Schools. May 14, 1831. - I am yet living and enjoying good health. The year past
I have had a large epistolary correspondence with distant friends; and have been
advertised in the newspapers, through the states, as an infidel and an outcast.
May the Lord increase my faith and make me more holy, which will be the best
refutation of the libel. From the uttermost parts of the earth have we heard
songs; even glory to the righteous: but I said, my leanness, my leanness. It is
now said that there is a great ingathering into the fold of Christ in all the
country around; but according to appearances, I am left behind. Well, let me,
like John the Baptist, be full of joy, that others increase while I decrease. I
have had my day, and must now give way to the young. The unchangeable God has
one class of servants after another to work in his vineyard.

July 11. - Why art thou cast down, O my soul! The morning cometh as well as the
night. Since writing the above note, God has graciously poured out his spirit in
Hancock.

Yesterday I baptized ten, which, together with three scattering ones, raises my
baptismal list to fourteen hundred and eighty-four.

Baptism does not put away the filth of the flesh; it is the answer of a good
conscience towards God, and only figures out the salvation of the soul; which is
by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead: who died for our sins and
rose again for our justification.

July 17. - Baptized 4 " 24 - Baptized 2 " 31 - Baptized 4

One of these four was eighty-two years old. In the winter of 1800, I baptized
one who was ninety years of age. The youngest that I ever baptized was nine
years old, in 1788. I have ever found water a harmless element, and baptism a
pleasing work.

Aug. 22. - Baptized 1 Sept. 4 - Baptized 1 " 18. - Baptized 2 Oct. 2. - Baptized
4 Oct. 16 - Baptized 3 " 23 - Baptized 7 " 30. - Baptized 3 "

Total Making 1,515

Nov. 10. - After living in New-Ashford more than sixteen years, this day I
removed into Cheshire again. My age and decays admonish me that the time of my
departure is not far distant. When I die, I neither deserve nor desire any
funeral pomp. If my friends think best to rear a little monument over my body,
"Here lies the body of JOHN LELAND, who labored - 9 to promote piety, and
vindicate the civil and religious rights of all men, " is the sentence which I
wish to be engraved upon it. May 14, 1834. - I am this day fourscore years old;
have just returned from Chatham, (30 miles off,) where I preached three times,
at the opening of a new meeting-house, and this day at Cheshire, to 600 people
by estimation. I have now several little preaching tours appointed; but my Maker
only knows whether life and strength will be given me to fill them.

It is now sixty years since I began to preach. But ah! how little I have done!
and how imperfect that little! May 15. - Last night fell the largest snow that I
ever knew so late in the season.

Many changes in the mechanical, political and religious world have taken place
in the course of my life. Most of the changes among us in factories and machines
are trans-Atlantic. The steam machines are original Americans. The plea for
religious liberty has been long and powerful; but it has been left for the
United States to acknowledge it a right inherent, and not a favor granted: to
exclude religious opinions from the list of objects of legislation. Sunday
schools and missionary societies are of long standing; but camp-meetings and
protracted meetings (in their present mode of operation) are novel. What changes
may hereafter take place, to me is uncertain. None, however, that will change
the character of God, destroy the kingdom of Christ, or assure any of heaven
without repentance towards God, and faith towards the Lord Jesus.

I have never labored hard to support the CREED of any religious society; but
have felt greatly interested that all of them should have their RIGHTS secured
to them beyond the reach of tyrants.

Brevity is the soul of wit, the nerve of argument and the bone of good sense,
but loquacity palsies attention, massacres time, and darkens counsel.

August 17, 1834. - This day I baptized five, which are the first that I have
baptized since I was eighty years old. My baptismal list is now fifteen hundred
and twenty-four.

January 28, 1835 - I have been preaching sixty years to convince men that human
powers were too degenerate to effect a change of heart by self-exertion; and all
the revivals of religion that I have seen have substantially accorded with that
sentiment. But now a host of preachers and people have risen up, who ground
salvation on the foundation that I have sought to demolish. The world is gone
after them, and their converts increase abundantly. How much error there has
been in the doctrine and measures that I have advocated, I cannot say; no doubt
some, for I claim not infallible inspiration. But I have not yet been convinced
of any mistake so radical as to justify a renunciation of what I have believed,
and adopt the new measures. I am waiting to see what the event will be; praying
for light; open to conviction; willing to retract, and ready to confess when
convicted.

July 4, 1835. - It is now fifty-nine years since the independence of the United
States was declared. In this length of time the inhabitants have increased from
three to fourteen millions. The changes that have taken place are innumerable.
Sixty-five years ago I was old enough to observe the face of things, and see
what was going on: had I been in a dead sleep the sixty-five years, and were now
to awake, such a change has taken place in the face of the earth, in
architecture, in all the arts, in costume and regimen, and in the forms of
religion, that I should doubt whether I had awakened in the same world. The love
of money, sexual correspondence, diseases and death, however, remain stationary.

1. To quote and transcribe all the texts, with the peculiar bearings each had on
my mind, would swell the narrative too large.

2. From a manuscript, written mostly in 1800, the following extract is taken:

"Volumes might be written upon the wanderings, darkness and errors of my life,
which would afford no pleasure to others in hearing thereof, and which would be
of no advantage to myself to relate; and, therefore, I shall pass them by, and
attend only to a few of God’s gracious and notable dealings with me, a great
sinner, in my ministerial labors. Under all the trials and temptations that I
have passed through for twenty-six years, I have never felt guilty for
undertaking to preach at the time when I began. I cannot reproach myself with
undertaking the work from any other motive than a real belief that it was my
indispensable duty. I might have been deceived; but a hypocrite I was not, so
far as I have ever yet seen. Yet, from the 20th June, 1774, until November,
1779, I had one general trial in my mind. It was this: I did not possess that
strong desire for the conversion of sinners, that many others evidently had.
This made me fear that all was not right with me."

3. In June, this year, the first Camp Meeting was attended in Caroline county,
that I ever heard of. By arrangement, eight or ten Baptist preachers held the
meeting three days and nights; but, as nothing extraordinary followed, it was
not repeated; and it was a number of years before those meetings arose in the
West, and have spread all over the United States.

4. "On my return through Caroline county, after I had been preaching, I sat in
the door-yard of a friend’s house conversing as usual; but here a strange
solemnity seized my mind, and a strong drawing of soul to God inspired my
breast, such as I had not enjoyed for some years. I soon lost sight of my
company, and was conversant at the throne of grace. This frame of mind
continued, with some abatements, until I reached home, which was two days
afterwards. About three miles before I reached home, I obtained great comfort in
believing that God would work among the people in Orange.- MS.

5. In August, 1799, my soul was again visited with the same peace and holy
longings after God and the salvation of men as at former times. My preaching
then, through grace, was not coasting around the shallow shores of doubt and
uncertainty, but launching out into the deep for a draught. Attention and
solemnity followed." - MS.

6. At the close of the original MS., before referred to, he writes, "I have
experienced seven instances in my life in praying for the sick and maimed, when
there appeared to be such an immediate relief granted, that I should be
unbelieving and ungrateful not to mention them among the signal favors of God to
me. I have passed through many fatigues in travel, several perils occasioned by
mobs and furious men, many wants and pinches in life, and many tokens of
providential relief; but after all, remain an unholy, helpless creature, and if
the Lord does not keep me, I shall fall, disgrace myself, bring the ministry
under blame, and be ashamed to read what I have now written. Amen."

7. "At the close of the year 1806, I got amazingly distressed on account of my
preaching, fearing that my barrenness in the ministry was owing to improper
addresses. The Methodists were amazing successful and zealous, and the addresses
of their ministers were general and undaunted. I visited them - I conversed with
them; they were all for heaven, and assured they were in the way; but their zeal
and confidence appeared to me like the mighty wind and fire in Elija’s vision,
and I could not discover that any with whom I conversed had any knowledge of
themselves, of the law of God, or of the way of pardon. The Gillite mode of
addressing sinners, seemed a little different from the New Testament mode. The
Hopkinsian method appeared as if it took all the wisdom of God to devise a way
for an honorable pretence to damn men. Dr. Fuller only cast another bundle of
straw on the fire. So that the great query which has agitated my mind for more
than thirty years, ’How is a congregation of sinners to be addressed?’ at the
time I am speaking of, fell with such distress upon my mind, that I could hardly
contain myself. But in the midst of my difficulties, I had a meeting at a school
house; in the time of service my soul got into the trade winds, and without
consulting Gill, Hopkins, Fuller, or Wesley, without comparing our translation
with the Septuagint, Chaldee, or the King of Spain’s Bible, I addressed the
scholars and young people in a way I never can without God helps me. The spirit
of the Lord fell upon them. Very soon after this, five of them came forward and
confessed Christ." Continuation of MS. 1807.

8. Five Hours Conflict.

9. It is now (1831) 57 years.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 3: 003 FURTHER SKETCHES
========================================================================

FURTHER SKETCHES OF THE LIFE OF JOHN LELAND.

IT is much to be regretted that Mr. Leland has not left us a more full and
minute history of his eventful life. Rich as it was in interesting and
instructive incidents, he has compressed the whole in the space of a few pages,
remarking, with his characteristic modesty and humility, that "this was all that
was worth preserving;" while, had he registered them all with as much minuteness
as is usually found in biographies, the narrative must have extended to volumes.
The difficulty of authenticating incidents, as well as the narrow limits to
which the further notices must be confined, render it impossible to add more
than a brief continuation of his history to the time of his death, together with
slight sketches of some important circumstances, which he has deemed proper
entirely to omit, or slightly to mention. The intervening period, between the
year 1835, (at which time his narrative closes) and the death of his wife,
October 5th, 1837, was spent in Cheshire, Massachusetts, to which place he had
removed in 1831. Here he occupied the leisure left him by his ministerial
labors, in the care of the little spot of ground he had chosen, where he
probably expected to end his days; while Mrs. Leland, who had been emphatically
a "helpmate" for him through many years, attended, alone, to the management of
his domestic affairs, and gave considerable attention to the cultivation of a
small garden. Here they exercised that cordial hospitality for which they were
always remarkable, in the entertainment of the many friends who visited them
from time to time, setting examples of piety and of the Christian virtues which
will not soon be forgotten by those whose good fortune it was to be their
neighbors. The afflictive stroke which at length deprived him of the companion
who had trodden with him so great a share of the rough path of life, was
rendered doubly painful by the nature of the disease, which left to her friends
not even the sad consolation of alleviating the distress they could not remove.
A difficulty in her throat, which had been a long time increasing, at length
reached such a height, that some months before her death, she could swallow
nothing but liquids. The ability to do even this, continued to decrease from day
to day, her strength wasting for want of nourishment, till life could no longer
retain its feeble hold, and she literally starved to death. A more than passing
notice is due to the character of this extraordinary woman. She was not less
remarkable in her sphere, than her husband in his. Her eulogy has been written
by the pen of inspiration. No one who knew her and was acquainted with her
history, can fail to observe that in the whole of the admirable description of
the virtuous woman, (Proverbs 31:1-31.,) there is scarcely a circumstance named,
that did not meet in her, a literal fulfilment.

Liberality, and kindness to the needy, formed a prominent feature in her
character; none that appealed to her for aid that it was in her power to bestow,
were ever sent empty away. This liberalality, joined with that love of
independence, which was always a predominant and cherished peculiarity of both
Mr. and Mrs. Leland, forbade her ever forgetting an act of kindness shown to
herself, or failing to cancel the obligation by bestowing a much greater in
return. In strength of mind, firmness of purpose, courage and self possession in
danger, fortitude in circumstances of trial and suffering, indeed, in all those
qualities that combine to produce energy of character, she has probably had few
superiors, in any age; yet, in the exercise of these manly virtues, as they are
sometimes called, she never acquired that masculine bearing that is too apt to
accompany the possession of these qualities in the female sex. Though far
removed from the softness and weakness which unfits a woman for enduring
hardship, privation, and suffering, she was equally so from the opposite
extreme; sustaining as well the delicacy as the dignity of the female sex. An
example of that habitual presence of mind as well as courage, which never failed
her in any emergency, is found in the instance in which, like a guardian angel,
she saved her husband from the murderer’s sword. A similar illustration of
these, and other strongly marked traits, is presented in the fact, that when one
of her children, a little girl of four years old, had her head crushed under the
wheels of a loaded cart which passed directly over it, she sat through the long
hours of night with the child in her arms, pressing with her fingers a divided
artery, to prevent the effusion of blood which would have caused immediate
death. The child, almost miraculously saved, "rose up to call her blessed," and
still lives to receive the same tribute of gratitude from a numerous posterity.

Constant, active industry was a distinguishing characteristic of Mrs. Leland.
From its beginning to its close, her life was one of unceasing toil. Even in
age, when necessity no longer required such exertion, the habit of active
employment had become so much a part of her being, and her natural independence
of feeling was so strong, that she could not be prevailed upon to desist from
her accustomed round of domestic labors, till her exhausted strength compelled
her to relinquish them into other hands. Neither was her industry of that noisy,
bustling kind, whose results are usually in inverse proportion to the amount of
effort employed. To her might be applied, with peculiar propriety, the encomium
bestowed upon another. "She was always busy, and always quiet." The guiding hand
of Providence was never perhaps more evident, than in directing Elder Leland’s
choice to so suitable a companion for the stormy times of the revolution. Her
training had been emphatically in the school of adversity; and her history is a
striking exemplification of the sentiment which one of her own sex has no less
truly than beautifully expressed.

-Strength is born In the deep silence of long suffering hearts; Not amidst joy."
At the age of two years she lost a fond and somewhat affluent father, and was
driven from a good home by a brutal step-father, when a little more than four
years old. Her feet were partly frozen off by exposure; soon after the canker
attacked her throat, eat out her palate, 10 and for a long time her life was
despaired of. At length, he, who in the midst of wrath even remembereth mercy,
bound up her broken constitution, and gave her grace to see how great things she
must suffer for his name’s sake. When she recovered her health, she found that
others had taken possession of all the property, and nothing lay before her but
a life of dependence and servitude. But the God in whom she trusted fortified
her heart and strengthened her hands, and when he, to whom her faith was
plighted, said, "I go to proclaim a Savour’s love in a land overrun with
Brittish soldiers and American tories, and trodden down by a dominant
established clergy, she replied like Rebecca, "I will go. " Her faith was firm
in him who had said, "I will never leave thee nor forsake thee." The "poor man’s
blessings" were here. She had a numerous family, but scanty means, and through
the revolution which had begun when she married, her trials were many and
severe. Often was she left alone with her little ones, far from neighbors, her
husband gone, with very little prospect of pecuniary reward, while runaway
blacks who had neither courage to join the British army, nor patriotism to join
the American, were horded together around her for plunder and sometimes murder.
Many a long hour she plied her needle by moonlight, to prepare clothing for her
little ones, fearful lest the ray of a lamp from her window might attract a
bloody foe. Often, too, the famished soldier came to her for food and shelter
through the stormy night. Her God had said, "feed the hungry," and she obeyed;
but when she had given till naught was left, the sleepless hours were spent in
watchfulness and prayer - for oh! if the assassin’s knife should be concealed
beneath the soldier’s garb, she could not fly and leave her little ones behind.
How often she prayed that God would preserve the children he had graciously
given, and all were preserved to lament the best of mothers. This sketch, given
by one of her family, who had often heard from her own lips, the story of those
"troublous times," may serve to give some idea of the strength of character and
depth of piety which sustained her in the midst of trials such as few women are
called to endure. The following circumstance is introduced as illustrating her
capability of endurance, not only of physical, but of mental suffering.
Incredible as it may seem, and inexplicable as it certainly is, the fact itself
is unquestionable, as it rests on the testimony of Elder Leland himself.

One afternoon, they were startled by a sound somewhat similar to that made by a
large fly when suddenly confined, apparently proceeding from within the wall of
the house. After an unsuccessful effort to discover the cause, he left home and
was absent six weeks without thinking again of the circumstance. On the evening
of his return, however, he was reminded of it by a groan so sudden and piercing
as to make him start up in amazement; his surprise was not lessened, when, upon
inquiry he learned that the same had been heard every night of his absence,
recurring each night a few minutes later than the preceding, and continuing
about ten minutes at a time. It continued to be heard in the same manner, eight
months, becoming at every return louder and more terrible. As this was at the
period (spoken of in the autobiography) of an extensive revival in York and the
adjacent counties, he was, consequently, absent a considerable part of the time,
and Mrs. Leland was left alone with two little children, the eldest less than
three years old, who, when the sound began to be heard, would cling around her
in terror, exclaiming "the groaner has come." As often as any examination was
made of the spot whence the noise seemed to issue, with the view of discovering
whether it proceeded from some animal confined within the wall, it removed to
another place, and thus defied all attempts at investigation. Wearied at length
by unsuccessful efforts to discover a natural cause, Elder Leland resolved to
try the effect of prayer; accordingly, when in the darkness of midnight, the
dreadful moanings again commenced, he betook himself to the all-conquering
weapon. Said he, in relating it to a friend, "if ever I prayed in my life, it
was then." He prayed, that if it was a messenger of good, he might be emboldened
to speak to it, and learn its errand, but if it was a spirit of evil, that it
might be commanded to depart, and suffered to trouble them no more. During the
prayer, the sound grew louder and more terrific, till at the conclusion, in a
piercing shriek it departed, and never returned again. Those who have heard
Elder Leland relate the incident, describe the sound he made in imitation of it,
as unearthly and frightful to the last degree. It may be left to the imagination
of the reader to picture to itself the amount and intensity of mental suffering
which this event alone must have produced.

It has been remarked of Mrs. Leland, that her faith was strong. Indeed, on some
occasions, it seemed to rest on grounds that partook of the character of
revelations. An instance of this kind occurred in the storm by which they were
overtaken on their passage from Virginia to New England, in 1791. After twelve
hours of incessant watching and agonizing prayer, expecting momentarily to go to
the bottom, she appeared to sink into a slumber; but presently turning to her
husband, she exclaimed, "We shall not be lost." She had received this assurance
from a figure in white which seemed to stand before her, measuring off piece
after piece of a long white cord, and which said to her, "The vessel cannot
sink, I have under-girded it." In her last illness, she exhibited the utmost
patience and resignation under all her sufferings. She spoke with great warmth
and animation of the Divine goodness to her, and especially found cause of
thankfulness in the circumstance, that for many weeks before her death, she did
not feel the sensation of hunger. She had very humiliating views of herself; and
desires proportionably great to exalt and magnify the riches of that grace which
had proved sufficient in every scene of trial hitherto, and which she trusted
would not fail her in the last; and truly it did not; for when the hour of
release arrived, so gently did the hand of death loosen the bonds of her
captivity, that not a groan was heard by those who stood around her bed, and a
long life of eminent usefulness was crownd by a death of "perfect peace." On the
12th October, 1837, a few days after the death of his wife, Elder Leland removed
to the house of his son-in-law, Mr. James Greene, in Lanesborough, where he
resided most of the time until his death. Thence he made frequent preaching
excursions to the neighboring towns, and sometimes took journeys of considerable
length. In the summer of 1838, he visited Utica and its vicinity, (the residence
of his eldest son,) and was absent several weeks. The following letter, to his
daughter, was written during his absence.

August 8, 1838.

* * I am now at Deerfield, and have made it a call by home for about ten days
past. The crops of the earth, and the heat of the air, are great in all places
where I have been. I have calls enough to preach, and have hitherto had strength
to answer those calls, though in a poor, imperfect manner. My health and
appetite are as good as common. All is uncertain when, or whether ever I shall
return to Berkshire again. My life is not in my own hands, but I commit it, and
all that I have, to the care of that Gracious Being who has fed and preserved me
through an unprofitable life. I hope you will indulge no unnecessary anxiety
about me; for I deserve but small favors from men, and less from the Creator.
Farewell, my Fanny. Shun all the errors you have seen in me: be faithful unto
death, and you will receive a crown of life.

JOHN LELAND. His health, after his return, was such as for some days seriously
to alarm his friends. He, however, soon recovered. In the fall of 1839, his
daughter, with whom he resided, was attacked by an illness, which, after two
years and a half of intense suffering, released her from the world and its
cares; not, however, till she had seen her father, whose anxious solicitude in
her behalf she fully reciprocated, removed to a better world. During the winter
of 1840-41, he thought best, in consideration of her health, and some other
circumstances, to remove, for a few weeks, to the house of Mr. Chapman, in
Cheshire. He continued to "do the work of an evangelist;" and at the time of his
last call at his daughter’s, was on his way to North Adams, where he was soon to
end his days. On the evening of the 8th January, he preached, for the last time,
to the people of that village. It is matter of regret, that this discourse,
interesting not only in itself, but especially so from the circumstances of its
delivery, cannot be presented entire to the public. But, as it is well known
that he never wrote even the heads of his sermons, the memories of his hearers
are the only source from which we can draw, for even these. A friend has kindly
furnished a sketch from recollection, which is here sub-joined.

"The text was from 1 John 2:20; 1 John 2:27 - ’But ye have an unction from the
Holy One, and ye know all things. But the annointing which ye have received of
him, abideth in you; and you need not that any man teach you; but as the same
anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as
it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.’

"He first spoke of the nature and character of the Holy Spirit, the unction
referred to, from whence it came, &c., and remarked that the same that is
sometimes compared to fire and water, is here likened to oil. He spoke of the
properties of oil; its being used to lubricate the wheels of machinery; and when
ignited, to give light and heat; and when applied to an abraded surface, or
painful limb, to mitigate pain and suffering, and to heal the injury or wound.,
in all which uses it resembled the unction spoken of in the text. True
Christians are anointed ones; anointed with gifts and spiritual endowments by
the Spirit of Grace which comes from the Holy One, enlightening and
strengthening the eyes of the understanding, and enabling those who receive it,
to ’know all things’ concerning Christ and his religion. Those who know the
truth, are by it prepared to discern what is contrary thereto. It will preserve
those in whom it abides, and teaches them to abide in Christ. He spoke of the
resurrection - of the new birth - said no one could experience it while
believing in the doctrine of universal salvation. 11 He could extend hope and
charity to those who believed that sentiment, after a change of heart, but not
before.

"It is pleasant and mournful to my soul, at this moment, to recollect with what
benignity of countenance he pronounced his last benediction."

After the services were closed, he went to the house of Mr. Darling. A number of
friends calling, he conversed freely and cheerfully, and attended prayers before
retiring to bed, which he did at a rather late hour. An unusual noise being soon
after heard in his chamber, Mr. D. went immediately to the room, where he found
him prostrate on the floor. Feeling unwell, and a disposition to vomit, he had
attempted to rise, and, as he said, "his limbs would not obey him. " He was
placed in bed, and means used to restore warmth to his stiffened limbs. They
were partially successful, and he obtained a little rest. He had chills,
however, through the night, followed by heat and thirst. He arose and dressed
himself in the morning; but, being very feeble, a medical friend in the village
was called in. He was pronounced very ill; and, when asked whether he thought he
should recover, said "he had not the token." In his former illnesses, though he
had been, to human appearance, on the very verge of the grave, he had received
some token which impressed him with the conviction that he should recover. But
as, in this instance, he gained no such evidence, he seemed to think it useless
to make much effort for his recovery.

"In this," says the physician who attended him, "I was not much disappointed,
having known before that he had little confidence in medicine, unless well mixed
with prayer. He freely consented, however, to use whatever remedies I thought
best to administer. Not wishing to burthen his mind with even the small quantity
of medicine I thought proper to give him, I directed the watchers, during the
night, to mingle it with his drinks. This plan succeeded only until the next
morning, when he said, ’take it away, and give me some clean water.’ On the
morning of the 10th, he was apparently better - rather talkative - related a
story, or drew a comparison at every change in the conversation. At evening he
was worse. He complained that he could neither stop thinking, nor direct his
thoughts. His cough was becoming harder, and his breathing more laborious. He
spoke with difficulty - said his tongue would not obey him. He had now most of
the distinguishing symptoms of peripneumonia notha.

"11th. In the morning, easier - at evening, worse than the preceding. He had so
little command of his tongue, that it was difficult to understand him. I
continued the use of some medicine, though I now despaired of his recovery. On
the morning of the 12th, we thought him somewhat better. He conversed
pleasantly, and his eyes sparkled with much of that brilliancy of intellect
which they were accustomed to exhibit when in health. In the evening, he was
again worse; and while I was sitting by his bed, supposing him asleep, he said,
(addressing himself,) ’well, I have nothing more to do, but die.’

"13th. Failing. He suffered apparently little, execpt his laborious breathing.
Indeed, during his sickness, there was but a solitary instance in which he
mentioned having any pain - it was in his left side, and continued but a few
minutes. His dissolution was now almost hourly expected.

"On the 14th, Mr. and Mrs. Chapman, with whom he had been boarding in Cheshire,
visited him. He seemed much gratified, and, to our surprise, immediately began
to make arrangements to return with them. In this, a little aberration of mind
was apparent. With some assistance he clothed himself, called for his satchel,
into which he put his Bible, then for his bills for board and medical
attendance, all which being adjusted, he expressed a desire to set out for home.
He was, however, prevailed on to lie down and rest a while after the fatigue he
had undergone, and was assisted to the bed, from which I do not recollect that
he ever again rose." To those members of his family who could not be with him,
it was a consoling reflection, even in the midst of their grief, that the hand
of Providence had cast him into a family of kind friends, where nothing
conducive to his comfort or recovery, would be left untried. One daughter alone
was permitted the privilege of watching his pillow of sickness, and standing by
his dying couch. Speaking of some of his exercises, and of the closing scene,
she thus remarks:-

"In the beginning of his sickness he seemed conscious of his approaching
dissolution - said he was ready when called, and calmly gave orders respecting
his funeral. The day on which he died, he said to his physician- ’Yesterday,
doctor, a dark cloud came over - I did not know but I should fail in my
expectations above.’ Choked with the bitter remembrance, he paused, but soon
added - ’It’s not so today.’

"His thoughts would frequently run back to her who had so often bent over his
wasting form in previous sicknesses, and he would speak of the good things she
used to do for him.

"Early in the evening, a young preacher (Rev. Mr. Alden) came in, and said to
him - ’Well, Father Leland, we are going to hold a prayer-meeting this evening.
Have you any advice to give?’ ’If you feel it in your hearts, I am glad. Forms
are nothing.’ These were nearly his last words; but his arm was not paralyzed,
neither was his heart chilled. With his own hand he gave his own tobacco to his
friends present, and indicated by signs that they should smoke. About 11
o’clock, he beckoned me to him, and tried to say ’go to bed.’ I found his limbs
were stiffening, and his senses lulling, and anxious to be near him till all was
over, I hesitated, but finally, at the solicitation of one of the watchers, left
the room. The man soon followed, and said, ’you had better come back.’ I, came.
Not a finger had moved. His spirit had taken rest in the bosom of its God."

Thus died JOHN LELAND - a man eminent above many for piety and usefulness, whose
name is connected with all that is pure in patriotism, lovely in the social and
domestic virtues, philanthropic in feeling and uction, arduous, disinterested,
and self-denying in the labors of the ministerial calling; one whose place in
society, in the church, and in the ranks of the ministry, will not soon be
filled - in the hearts of those who knew him - never.

He died, as he had lived, a witness for the truth, testifying, with his last
breath, the value of that religion, and that only, which has its seat in the
heart. His life had been unostentatious; his aspirations after worldly honors,
ever low and feeble; his humility and sense of dependence on God, deep-felt and
abiding- and thus he died.

"Being with him in his last illness," (Mr. Alden remarks in his funeral sermon,)
"more or less every day, I think I may say, I never saw a Christian feel more
deeply his own unworthiness. ’Bury me,’ said he, ’in an humble manner. I want no
encomiums; I deserve none. I feel myself a poor, miserable sinner, and Christ is
my only hope.’ Being asked, very near his end, what were his views of the
future, he exclaimed, with both hands extended upward, and a smile I can never
forget, ’My prospects of heaven are clear.’ He seemed already to feel the
everlasting rest laying its sweet influences over his soul, and bearing it up,
taking away the sting of death." His remains were conveyed to Cheshire for
interment, where, on the 17th, a funeral discourse was pronounced over them by
Rev. John Alden, from Revelation 14:1-20 and Revelation 13:12 The weather was
extremely unpropitious, yet the concourse, assembled from that and the adjacent
towns, was large, and many a tearful eye testified that no common occasion had
called them together. Though but one child, "according to the flesh," was
permitted to follow his relics to the grave, yet many, from the youth to the
gray-haired man, who mingled their tears over his coffin, felt that they were
gazing for the last time upon the countenance of a beloved "father in the Lord."

He was laid beside his wife, and a simple obelisk of blue marble, commemorative
of both, marks their common resting-place. On its west side is inscribed the
epitaph prepared by himself some years before his death: "Here lies the body of
the Rev. JOHN LELAND, of Cheshire, who labored 67 years to promote piety and
vindicate the civil and religious rights of all men. He died January, 14, 1841,
aged 85 years and 8 months." On the north side is the following: "Sarah, consort
of Rev. John Leland. She died October 5, 1837, aged 84 years." On the south:
"This monument was erected by the children of the deceased, to point out the
resting-place of their revered parents."

Having followed him to the end of his course, it remains for us to glance, in a
brief retrospect, at some circumstances which he has omitted. It is doubtless
the case that many of these, could they be collected, and their authenticity
proved, would add greatly to the interest of the narrative; but the fact, that
it has been found impossible to obtain them, will sufficiently account for the
omission of any that may be deemed important. To understand and appreciate the
character of Elder Leland, it is only necessary to read his writings, and to
trace the operation of the principles and sentiments they contain, in the
actions of his life. That his writings were a transcript of his mind and heart,
none will deny, who knew him. The candor and openness with which he ever avowed
his sentiments, even when they subjected him to reproach and censure, are well
known. Conversing with a friend on one occasion, he remarked - "Though I have
secrets which I would not reveal to you, or any one else, I have not a religious
secret in the world." The same frankness marked the expression of his political
opinions. That his independence of mind aided materially in supporting this
character, will be evident when we consider how many individuals there are who
dare not be honest - who have not the moral courage to sustain them in a course
which they feel to be right, and in the expression of sentiments which they
inwardly approve. A remark of Elder Leland, on this subject, is suggested by
these reflections.

"Though in a religious point of view," said he, "self-dependence (by which he
meant the opposite of the Christian’s-trust in God) is most pernicious and fatal
in its tendency, yet, in worldly matters, it is one of the best qualities a man
can possess."

Through a long life, Elder Leland sustained, with uniform consistency, the
two-fold character of the Patriot and the Christian. For his religious creed he
acknowledged no directory but the Bible. He loved the pure, unadulterated word
of truth; and, as a minister of that word, zealous and faithful, he preached it,
as far as he was able, unmixed with the doctrines and commandments of men, "not
for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind." He was clear in exposition, happy in
illustration, often powerful and eloquent in appeals to the conscience and
heart. He insisted, in absolute and unqualified terms, on the great fundamental
truths of the gospel, the necessity of regeneration, faith and repentance; but,
on points not essential to salvation, though his opinions were no less firmly
established, and he never shrunk from advocating them on proper occasions, yet
he did not censure or denounce those who differed from him, nor exclude from
fellowship, as Christians, any who gave evidence of a gracious change, whatever
might be their peculiar doctrinal views. He never engaged in controversy; and
when any of his published opinions were disputed, or commented upon, as was
sometimes the case, with severity, he preferred to "let the matter rest a
little, and then give another thrust," as he expressed it, to the waste of time,
repetitions, and tediousness of reviews and replies. His political creed was
based upon those "self-evident truths" of equality, and of inherent and
inalienable rights, recognised by the master spirits of the revolution as the
principles for the support of which they pledged "their lives, their fortunes,
and their sacred honor." As a politician, he was above the influence of any but
sincere and patriotic motives. He was a statesman, rather than a politician. He
studied the fundamental principles of government, and drew his conclusions
directly from them, without any intervening medium of self or party interest. He
judged men by their measures, and measures by their adaptedness to secure that
result which he deemed the legitimate object of government - the greatest good
of the greatest number. In his attachment to the administrations of Jefferson,
Madison, Jackson and Van Buren, he felt that he was contending for the same
principles of democracy that nerved the arms and strengthened the hearts of the
whigs of ’76. His sentiments, on particular measures, it is unnecessary to
comment upon, as they are clearly expressed in his writings. His feelings on the
subject of slavery may be gathered from the fact that, during his fourteen
years’ residence in Virginia he never owned a slave, as well as from his remarks
in in the Virginia Chronicle, and from the resolution offered by him, when a
member of the Baptist General Committee, and passed by them, in 1789, in the
following words:-

"RESOLVED - That slavery is a violent deprivation of the rights of nature, and
inconstent with a republican government; and we, therefore, recommend it to our
brethren, to make use of every legal measure to extirpate this horrid evil from
the land, and pray Almighty God that our honorable legislature may have it in
their power to proclaim the great Jubilee, consistent with the principles of
good policy." His late writings on this subject, though expressing
disapprobation of the measures of abolitionists, we apprehend, will not be
found, upon examination, materially different in sentiment. In all, while he
recognizes the supremacy of law, he pleads for individual right. The great
object, (next in importance to his mission as a preacher of Christ,) for which
he seems to have been raised up by a special Providence, was to promote the
establishment of religious liberty in the United States. His efforts, perhaps,
contributed as much as those of any other man, to the overthrow of
ecclesiastical tyranny in Virginia, the state of his adoption, and exerted a
beneficial influence, though less successful, towards the promotion of the same
end in that of his nativity. In the former, in the years 1786-7-8, we find his
name in the doings of the Baptist General Committee, with which he stood
connected, as messenger to the General Assembly, appointed to draft and present
memorials respecting the Incorporating act, the application of the glebe lands
to public use, etc. Though the cause of religious freedom was the common cause
of all dissenters, yet the Baptists, as a sect, took the lead in those active,
energetic, and persevering measures, which at length pervailed in its
establishment. Many individuals of other denominations took an active part, and
aided materially in bringing about the glorious result; 13 nay, that even many
of the more conscientious and patriotic among the members of the established
church, made praiseworthy exertions in its favor, is a fact too honorable to
themselves, and to the state that produced them, to be passed unnoticed.
Enrolled among the ardent champions of religious liberty, are the names of
Virginia’s most illustrious sons - of Washington, Henry, Jefferson, Madison. To
particularize, in regard to the efforts made, and the good accomplished by each,
is unnecessary in this place; the following Address14 and Reply, which are
inserted entire, will serve to exhibit the enlarged views and the unselfish
spirit of the patriots of that day, as well as the harmony, one might almost say
identity, of sentiment that prevailed among them.

Address of the Committee of the United Baptist Churches of Virginia, assembled
in the city of Richmond, 8th August, 1789, to the President of the United States
of America.

SIR: - Among the many shouts of congratulation that you receive from cities,
societies, states, and the whole world, we wish to take an active part in the
universal chorus, in expressing our great satisfaction in your appointment to
the first office in the nation. When America, on a former occasion, was reduced
to the necessity of appealing to arms, to defend her natural and civil rights, a
Washington was found fully adequate to the exigencies of the dangerous attempt;
who, by the philanthropy of his heart, and the prudence of his head, led forth
her untutored troops into the field of battle, and by the skilfulness of his
hands, baffled the projects of the insulting foe, and pointed out the road to
independence, even at a time when the energy of the cabinet was not sufficient
to bring into action the natural aid of the confederation, from its respective
sources. The grand object being obtained, the independence of the States
acknowledged; free from ambition, devoid of sanguine thirst of blood, our hero
returned, with those he commanded, and laid down the sword at the feet of those
who gave it him. ’Such an example to the world is new.’ Like other nations, we
experience that it requires as great valor and wisdom to make an advantage of a
conquest, as to gain one. The want of efficacy in the confederation, the
redundancy of laws, and their partial administration in the States, called aloud
for a new arrangement of our systems. The wisdom of the States, for that
purpose, was collected in a grand convention - over which, you, sir, had the
honor to preside. A national government, in all its parts, was recommended, as
the only preservation of the Union, which plan of government is now in actual
operation. When the Constitution first made its appearance in Virginia, we, as a
society, had unusual strugglings of mind, fearing that the liberty of
conscience, dearer to us than property or life, was not sufficiently secured.
Perhaps our jealousies were heightened, by the usage we received in Virginia,
under the regal government, when mobs, fines, bonds and prisons were our
frequent repast.

Convinced, on the one hand, that without an effective National Government, the
States would fall into disunion and all the consequent evils; and, on the other
hand, fearing that we should be accessary to some religious oppression, should
any one society in the Union preponderate over the rest; yet, amidst all these
inquietudes of mind, our consolation arose from this consideration,- the plan
must be good, for it has the signature of a tried, trusty friend, and if
religious liberty is rather insecure in the Constitution, ’the Administration
will certainly prevent all oppression, for a WASHINGTON will preside.’ According
to our wishes, the unanimous voice of the Union has called you, sir, from your
beloved retreat, to launch forth again into the faithless seas of human affairs,
to guide the helm of the States. May that Divine munificence, which covered your
head in battle, make you a yet greater blessing to your admiring country in time
of peace. Should the horrid evils that have been so pestiferous in Asia and
Europe, faction, ambition, war, perfidy, fraud, and persecution for conscience
sake, ever approach the borders of our happy nation, may the name and
administration of our beloved President, like the radiant source of day, scatter
all those dark clouds from the American hemisphere. And while we speak freely
the language of our hearts, we are satisfied that we express the sentiments of
our brethren, whom we represent. The very name of Washington is music in our
ears; and although the great evil in the States is the want of mutual confidence
between rulers and people, yet we have all the utmost confidence in the
President of the States; and it is our fervent prayer to Almighty God, that the
federal government, and the governments of the respective States, without
rivalship, may so co-operate together, as to make the numerous people over whom
you preside, the happiest nation on earth, and you, sir, the happiest man, in
seeing the people, whom, by the smiles of Providence, you saved from vassalage
by your valor, and made wise by your maxims, sitting securely under their vines
and fig-trees, enjoying the perfection of human felicity. May God long preserve
your life and health for a blessing to the world in general, and the United
States in particular; and, when, like the sun, you have finished your course of
great and unparalleled services, and go the way of all the earth, may the Divine
Being who will reward every man according to his works, grant unto you a
glorious admission into his everlasting kingdom, through Jesus Christ. This,
sir, is the prayer of your happy admirers. By order of the Committee, SAMUEL
HARRISS, Chairman.

REUBEN FORD, Clerk. To the General Committee, representing the United Baptist
Churches in Virginia.

GENTLEMEN, - I request that you, will accept my best acknowledgments for your
congratulation on my appointment to the first office in the nation. The kind
manner in which you mention my past conduct, equally claims the expression of my
gratitude.

After we had, by the smiles of Divine Providence on our exertions, obtained the
object for which we contended, I retired, at the conclusion of the war, with an
idea, that my country could have no farther occasion for my services, and with
the intention of never entering again into public life. But when the exigencies
of my country seemed to require me once more to engage in public affairs, an
honest conviction of duty superseded my former resolution, and became my apology
for deviating from the happy plan which I had adopted.

If I could have entertained the slightest apprehension that the Constitution
framed by the Convention where I had the honor to preside, might possibly
endanger the religious rights of any ecclesiastical society, certainly I would
never have placed my signature to it; and if I could now conceive that the
general government might even be so administered, as to render the liberty of
conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more
zealous than myself, to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of
spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution. For you,
doubtless, remember, I have often expressed my sentiments, that any man,
conducting himself as a good citizen, and being accountable to God alone for his
religious opinions, ought to be protected in worshiping the Deity according to
the dictates of his own conscience.

While I recollect with satisfaction, that the religious society of which you are
members, have been, throughout America, uniformly, and almost unanimously the
firm friends to civil liberty, and the persevering promoters of our glorious
revolution; I cannot hesitate to believe, that they will be the faithful
supporters of a free, yet efficient general government. Under this pleasing
expectation, I rejoice to assure them, that they may rely upon my best wishes
and endeavors to advance their prosperity. In the meantime, be assured,
gentlemen, that I entertain a proper sense of your fervent supplications to God
for my temporal and eternal happiness. I am, gentlemen, your most obedient
servant, GEORGE WASHINGTON.

Elder Leland’s removal to New-England took place in 1791. 15 As soon as he
landed again on its shores, he commenced anew the warfare against religious
intolerance, and the defence of the cause that had so signally triumphed in
Virginia. During his stay in New London, he published his "Rights of Conscience
Inalienable," and afterwards, from time to time, other works of the same
character; some of which will be found in these volumes, and others it has been
impossible to obtain. Our limits do not allow us to enter upon the history and
progress of religious liberty in Massachusetts. This may be found elsewhere. It
had struggled for existence, and found some advocates from the first settlement
of the state, but was kept constantly shackled by certificate laws, and other
expedients of ecclesiastical tyranny. At length, in the beginning of 1811, a
decision by Judge Parsons, that no society, not incorporated by law, could claim
even the pitiful privilege of drawing back money, awakened the fears of the
dissenters, and a circular Address, accompanied by a petition to the
legislature, praying for a revision of the laws respecting public worship, was
circulated through the state. At the solicitation of the people of Cheshire, Mr.
Leland accepted a seat in the legislature, for the special purpose of aiding the
measures petitioned for. His speech, delivered during the debate on the subject,
may be found in another part of this work. A law was finally passed that gave
some relief, but not complete satisfaction. The "stump" of the tree of
ecclesiastical oppression, so carefully preserved "with a band of iron and
brass," continued, therefore, to furnish a subject for his animadversion, in
various essays, addresses, etc., and he improved such opportunities as were
offered him, as a matter of duty, and in fulfilment of the public pledge he had
given, that "as long as he could speak with his tongue, wield a pen, or heave a
cry to heaven, whenever the rights of men, the liberty of conscience, or the
good of his country were invaded by fraud or force, his feeble efforts should
not lie dormant." His letters, etc., on the Sunday Mail question, have the same
bearing, and breathe the same spirit. To neutralize the effect of these, and to
destroy the confidence reposed in him, reports were industriously circulated in
some newspapers, that "he had renounced the Christian faith, and the sacrament
of the Lord’s Supper, and been excommunicated from the church." The reader is
requested to turn to his reply to a letter from Rev. O. B. Brown, on this
subject, where he will find a sufficient refutation of this calumny. To show its
probable foundation, however, it will be necessary to return to the period of
his removal to Cheshire, and give a connected narrative of a series of events,
which misrepresentation and falsehood have so distorted to his prejudice, as to
render a true statement of them an act of indispensable justice to his memory.
As the professed object of this work is to exhibit fully his character and
sentiments, facts which have so important a bearing upon that object, cannot,
with propriety, be withheld.

Soon after Elder Leland came to reside in Berkshire, the town of Cheshire was
organized. There was, at that time, within its bounds, a large and flourishing
church, called New Providence Grant, whose pastor was Elder Werden. There was
also, another, called the Six Principle Church, making the laying on of hands a
prerequisite to communion. The church, with which Elder Leland united, and of
which he continued a member until his death, had dissented from the Six
Principle Church, and contained about seventy members. This was usually called
the Second Baptist Church.

Considerable additions were soon made, and in 1793, it was determined to build a
meeting-house. Elder Leland drafted a Constitution which was unanimously
adopted, and the house was built during the succeeding year. The Constitution
reserved the control of the pulpit to the Baptist church, giving any proprietor,
not a member, the liberty of inviting any man, "in character," to occupy it his
proportional part of the time, and if, at any time, the church should fall away,
or be unable to support a meeting, or a minister, it secured the property to the
original proprietors, and their heirs at law. The inhabitants of Cheshire, were,
at that time, principally thriving farmers, who had removed there when the
country was yet a wilderness, and by untiring industry had cleared their lands,
built comfortable houses, school-houses, etc., and were training up large
families of very intelligent children. The wealthier portion of the church
seemed ever ready to help the poor, and encourage the weak. Their records
furnish numerous instances of their watchfulness and promptness in providing for
the wants of their needy members. This church, with all others in Berkshire,
belonged to the Shaftsbury Association; a very respectable body, but containing
a number of talented men, who were every way aristocratic, in their views of the
powers of Associations over churches, and of churches over their respective
members. As Elder Leland, and his brethren in Virginia, had just thrown off the
yoke of the established clergy, and built up their institutions upon the most
liberal plan, it will not be thought strange if his feelings and views were not
relished by the more narrow-minded, and his increasing popularity looked upon
with other than friendly feelings.

Revivals of religion in Cheshire, and the adjacent towns, for some time kept up
large congregations in their new meeting-houses, and scarcely a covenant-day
passed, without the addition of one or more to their number. Under date of
December, 1795, the following entry is found upon the records: "Elder Leland
appears to stand in the power and demonstration of the spirit of God, in the
administration of the word and ordinances of the gospel." But when religion
began to decline, and a worldly spirit crept in, he was exceedingly pained to
see leading members of the church, (of which he then had the care,) indulging in
harsh language towards each other; yet ever ready to give a word of exhortation,
to draw the reins of discipline closely with their neighbors, and virtually to
say, by coming to the communion, "we are one. " This became very trying to his
feelings, and as he had never enjoyed the Lord’s supper, as he had preaching and
baptizing, he felt no little embarrassment in constantly administering it under
such circumstances. But as these members were respectable, stood high in church
and society, were warm friends to him, and not complained of by others, he
thought it more prudent to smother his feelings, and seeing his own
imperfections to be great, to exercise forbearance towards the faults of others.
At length, however, he manifested his feelings to the church, who, being unable
to remove them, consented, according to his request, to "have patience to wait
on him a little longer." It is not certain at what time he left the pastoral
charge, but it is probable he had not filled that office for some time previous
to 1799, when he was requested to resume it, but declined. He spent considerable
portions of every year in travelling and preaching from place to place, but when
at home, (as may be seen by reference to the auto-biography,) he was never idle.
In August, 1799, the powerful work of grace, called, by way of eminence, the
great Reformation," commenced in Cheshire, and its vicinity. His labors and
successes during that interesting season, are recorded by his own hand. One of
the members of the church, who had, during the ingathering, not only absented
himself from public worship, and church-meetings, but "spoken lightly of the
work of God among the people," professed to be aggrieved that Elder Leland
should not break bread to the church, "let the embarrassments be what they might
in his own mind," and also found fault with the church "for not forbidding him
to pray and preach, inasmuch as he had neglected a known precept." The church
sustained Elder Leland in his course, and contended that they had no right to
forbid him to pray and preach, "inasmuch as he had been guilty of no immoral
conduct." After a series of unsuccessful efforts to convince the refractory
member of his errors, and to bring him back to duty, the church withdrew from
him the hand of fellowship.

Thus it appears, that the church both knew and respected his feelings, and did
not feel disposed to urge him forward in the performance of that which he could
not look upon as duty, nor to impute to him the omission, as a crime; and it is
believed, that, when he removed to Dutchess county, he left no enemies in
Cheshire. Not long after his removal, Elder Lemuel Covell, a young, talented,
and highly esteemed minister, passing through Cheshire, preached so much to the
edification of the church, that they immediately appointed a committee to visit
him, with a view to obtain his services as pastor. They found him rather
disposed to come; but as he had been unfortunate in his outward concerns, had
become involved, and the church at Pittstown had paid the demands against him,
(amounting to nearly seven hundred dollars,) on the condition, "that he should
never leave them to become the pastor of any other people, unless that people
would refund the money to them; an obstacle was presented apparently difficult
to be overcome. The trial which followed, would, but for its consequences, have
found no place in these pages. The committee, who waited on Mr. Covell, were
disposed to engage him, but on submitting it to the church, a number of the
members in good standing, and somewhat wealthy, objected, and by their
arguments, nearly dissuaded others. The committee took the alarm - insisted
strongly upon the powers of the church - and, though their reasoning did not
convince, their perseverance conquered - and perhaps it will not be uncharitable
to say, that Elder Covell’s debts were paid, and his family removed to Cheshire,
rather in a spirit of defiance. The terms of settlement were the same as at
Pittstown, with the additional proviso, that if the church failed in affording
him a decent maintenance, the seven hundred dollars were not to be refunded,
though he should leave the place.

About this time, a mortgage being closed on the farm where Elder Leland resided,
his friends in Cheshire gave him a pressing invitation to come and reside with
them; to preach whenever he felt disposed, and duty seemed to call him. Having
children residing there, and being still a member of the church, he complied
with the solicitation. He and Mr. Covell had always been warm friends, and their
intimacy continued uninterrupted till the lamented death of the latter, while on
a mission to Canada, October 19, 1806, less than six months from the time of his
removal to Cheshire.

Mr. Covell viewed the proceedings of the church in the same light with the
majority of the people of Cheshire. In a conversation with Elder Leland, he
said, "had I foreseen the troubles that would ensue in consequence of my coming
here, I would sooner have begged my bread from door to door." The shock produced
by Mr. Covell’s death, was succeeded by a calmless, which lasted a considerable
time, and gave the friends of peace, reason to hope that the breach in the
church would soon be healed. Both church and society seemed seriously to regret
the hurrying spirit that had set them at variance. Not so with a few leaders of
the opposite party. "Recantation or excommunication," were their terms, and
strange as it may seem, acquainted as they were with Elder Leland, they applied
to him for help to carry out their plans. Owing no ill will to either party, his
answer was such as might have been anticipated. He thought a little forbearance,
on their part, might have saved all the trouble, and hinted, that by some
recantation from them, the church might still be kept together.

Disappointed in their favorite plans, smarting under the loss of property, their
fond hopes in the grave, they were not a little chagrined at receiving a slight
rebuke where they had expected much assistance. They did not however proceed
immediately to extremities, but, after conversing with members of the Shaftsbury
Association, unfriendly in their views to Elder Leland, (of whom mention has
already been made,) they determined to apply to him as friends, and pretending
ignorance on the subject, to draw from him an expression of his views respecting
church discipline, communion, etc. 16 He freely made a statement, and at their
request committed it to writing. This paper has long been before the religious
world, but as there may be many, who have never seen it, and who have but vague
and indefinite, if not incorrect ideas of what Elder Leland’s views were, a copy
of it is here subjoined, taken from the original on file:

1. I have no doubt about the necessity of internal religion, nor of the great
advantage of social worship, to preach, pray, and praise.

2. Some doubts have ever been in my mind, whether the advantage of what is
called church order, more than compensates for the disadvantages. It is
uppermost in my mind, however, that good church order is scriptural.

3. I lodge no complaint against communing with bread and wine, but for myself,
for more than thirty years experiment, I have had no evidence that the bread and
wine ever assisted my faith to discern the Lord’s body. I have never felt guilty
for not communing, but often for doing it. I have known no instance that God
evidently blessed the ordinance for the conversion of sinners, which often
attends preaching, praying, singing and baptizing.

4. Putting all together, the best conclusion that I can form, is, that church
labor and breaking bread is what the Lord does not place on me, any more than he
did baptizing on Paul.

5. If the church can bear with me, while I possess these feelings, and let me do
what I have faith and confidence in, (which will be but a little while, for
there is nothing left but a stump,) I shall be glad. Whenever I think I can do
good, or get good, I will attend church-meeting and when ever the doubts of my
mind are removed, I will commune.

6. If the church cannot bear thus with me, I wish them to give me a letter of
dismission - such a letter as they Song of Solomon 7:1-13. If such a letter
cannot be given, consistently with the order and dignity of the church, I
suppose excommunication must follow of course.

JOHN LELAND.

Cheshire, August 22, 1811. This is a compendium of what I stated last
church-meeting, and is here written on your request. Let no man follow me where
I do not follow Christ. - J.L.

It will probably appear evident to all, that more of the cunning of the serpent
than of the harmlessness of the dove was displayed in this manoeuvre of false
friends. Most of the church agreed to forbear according to his request. A motion
(made at the same meeting) to call a council, was negatived. A similar attempt
at a subsequent meeting also failed.

They therefore called an ex parte council; but being defeated in this attempt,
by the refusal of the church to attend, etc., they applied to the Association
for aid. A committee of fifteen were appointed, who came and made an effort to
convince the people of their error, in holding in fellowship a man who
entertained sentiments so heretical. The committee met with no better success
than the council.

Previous to the sitting of the committee, Elder Hull, of Berlin, had endeavored
to mediate a peace between the parties, and a vote had been passed mutually "to
bury all passed difficulties, never again to call them up. " As subsequent
events showed this to be a false peace, and it became evident to all, that real
and permanent harmony could not now be restored, the ten dissenting members at
length consented to accept letters of dismission, of which the following is a
copy:

"Whereas, there has been a difficulty subsisting among the members of this
church, and a general agreement cannot as yet be obtained, we have thought it
advisable to part.

Accordingly, the ten dissenting members are dismissed from us, and we will not
nonfellowship any church that may receive them into their communion." 17 The
result of another council, convened about a year after, to which the church
deputed a committee, and submitted a written statement of facts, may be
sufficiently gathered from the following allegory, written by Elder Leland:

NAVAL ENGAGEMENT. In the year 1811, a small, diminutive vessel, with American
colors, was seen sailing on the coast near the place, supposed to have on board
contraband goods. A number of gun-boats called "Aggrieved Brethren," formed a
line and bore down upon the little vessel to sink her; but as the wind shifted
they could not succeed. Their failure only fired them with resolution.

Some of the inhabitants provided a number of armed schooners called a Party
Council, commanded by Captain H - , and made a second attack upon the little
vessel, in March, 1812, but could not bring her to action. They next obtained
two brigs, M - and T - , to join the squadron, and in May, following, attacked
the little vessel with all their force; but when they had spent all their powder
in raking her, they retreated without sinking the worthless vessel. They then
applied to my Lord Shaftsbury for a squadron of armed brigs called a Committee,
with Admiral W - the commander; but before this squadron arrived, there came a
Hull of a vessel from Berlin, with a white flag, and the captain, in behalf of
his government, tendered his services to mediate a peace between the enraged
inhabitants and the little vessel: but did not effect his wish. The July
following, the line of armed brigs arrived; but with all their manoeuvring they
could not bring the little vessel to action, nor get near enough to cut down the
rigging. The inhabitants again applied to Lord Shaftsbury for a squadron of
frigates to blow the little vessel from the ocean. His Lordship granted them
five more frigates, to be commanded by the bold Admiral W - , which formidable
force hove in sight August 25th, 1813. The little vessel came up to the fleet,
and showed her papers, colors, and cargo, at sight of which the squadron
divided. Two of the frigates veered off, and said the little vessel was not a
picaroon, but was pursuing lawful commerce, and there were not contraband goods
on board sufficient to condemn her according to the law of nations. The other
frigates said they had no orders from Lord Shaftsbury as yet to sink her to the
bottom; but unless the inhabitants would join and destroy the little vessel,
they would inform his Lordship of it next June, who would send a force that
would distroy every individual that gave aid to the little vessel, or allowed
her to sail on the face of the deep.

Early in 1814, a vote was passed that the dismissed members should have the use
of the meeting-house so much of the time as they were entitled to it, by the
share they held in the property, and they were requested to appoint their days
of worship. 18 At the meeting of the Shaftsbury Association in June, 1817, at
the request of the messengers of the church, they were, dropped from their
connection with the Association. In the afternoon of the same day on which this
was done,

"A certain schedule of articles of belief, dated at Cheshire, August 22, 1811,
signed John Leland, being presented by the messengers of the Leyden Association,
who desired to know if we held in our fellowship a public character or church
that embraced such sentiments:

Voted, unanimously, that this Association hold fellowship with no man or church,
embracing, or countenancing such sentiments as contained in the paper then
presented." 19

Possessed of that charity which "hopeth and endureth all things," and neither
wishes nor works ill to its neighbor, Elder Leland was employed, during this
long period of persecution, in the pursuit of his domestic concerns, and the
duties of his calling. His friends, surprised at the extraordinory and
unconstitutional proceedings of the "aggrieved party," 20 sought, by every
means, for many years, to set the party and the public right. On the other hand,
the wicked, seeing themselves backed by so many zealous professors, and ever
ready to take advantage of such dissensions, spared no pains to invent and
circulate the most unblushing falsehoods respecting his opinions and practices.
No good ever resulted from the whole course of proceeding; nothing was gained by
any one; but a bad impression was left upon the minds of the people generally,
who seemed to doubt the purity of purpose that actuated to such a course of
conduct as had been pursued, nor could ever be brought to see how any blame
could justly fall upon Elder Leland.

Years passed on, the particular circumstances of which it is unnecessary to
detail. At length, in 1824, a new church was formed, consisting, in part, of the
surviving members of the aggrieved party, and partly of such as withdrew at that
time from the Second Church, or had never united with any. Each church occupied
the meeting-house half the time. A revival in 1827, produced some accessions to
both, and also to a Methodist society which had been constituted in 1823. As
many of the dissenting members had, in years previous to church difficulties,
been warmly attached to Elder Leland, none but his God and nearest friends knew
how trying to his heart was the loss of their society and friendship. At the
darkest hour of the contest, no uncharitable expression escaped his lips, nor
could he ever be induced to occupy the desk, when he thought it belonged, of
right to them. In 1831, another revival occurred. Numbers were baptized, and
united with the churches to which their friends respectively belonged. Others
were deterred from uniting with either, by the consideration that the existence
of two churches of the same faith and order, in one place, necessarily involved
the certainty that a wrong existed somewhere; and, as they could not determine
satisfactorily to themselves where it existed, they judged it better to remain
neutral. Indeed, for the most part, the younger portion of the community knew
not why they should stand aloof from their neighbors in religious concerns, when
they were all of one faith, and friendly in every other respect. The lapse of
years had thinned the number of those whose grievances had first occasioned the
division, and those living, seemed to feel deeply their estrangement from their
brethren, and manifested, by suitable acknowledgments to Elder Leland and
others, or by their friendly conduct, that they retained no longer any hostile
feeling. Time had smothered the disputes that had once risen like mountains
between them and their brethren, and the Holy Spirit’s influence, which, as has
justly been remarked, "can accomplish more in one hour, in bringing Christians
together, than years spent in disputes and discipline," was doing its perfect
work, and fostering a growing spirit of charity in all hearts. In the winter and
spring of 1833-4, Elder Leland and his wife had some rather unusual exercises of
mind respecting the churches, which left upon them the impression that a union
might be effected. Prompt in executing what his feelings of duty led him to
undertake, he immediately visited several members of his own church, told his
feelings and wishes, and proposed, if possible, to bring about a reconciliation,
by meeting their brethren of the other church, on the broad basis of universal
forgiveness, and mutual oblivion of the past. Some did not readily concur: but
he presented to their minds the powerful motives on which their common Master
had urged the duty of forgiveness, and reminded them that every Christian must
have a forgiving spirit. At length their scruples gave way to the reflection,
that if he, who had suffered most, could heartily forgive, they ought to throw
no obstacle in the way of the accomplishment of his wishes. A meeting was
accordingly appointed, and the churches came together. Many spectators were also
present; some, no doubt, drawn by curiosity, and expecting to hear the grounds
of the long trouble laid open and discussed; and others, truly rejoicing at the
prospect of a speedy end of those troubles. The plan proposed by Elder Leland
was characteristically liberal. The following is a copy of it, as written by him
on the first page of the "new church-book."

Cheshire, March 6, 1834. This day the Second and Third Baptist Churches in
Cheshire united together, to be called hereafter the Second Church, upon the
following plan of agreement, viz.:-

All former differences shall be buried in the sea of universal forgiveness; and
all the members of both churches, whether present or absent, shall be considered
in the union, under the following provisions:-

Any member here present, who, from local situation, or any other cause, may
decline the union, shall be subject to no censure therefor. Those members who
are not present, shall have the same indulgence, when they make their requests
known. In both cases, the non-unionists shall be under no obligation to tell
their reasons why. A clerk shall be chosen, in whose office the books and papers
of both the former churches shall be deposited, merely for information, but
shall not be appealed to for rules of proceeding. A new book shall be procured,
in which the proceedings of the church hereafter shall be registered. As soon as
the plan was laid before the meeting, a spirit of union seemed to run from heart
to heart; and, to the great joy of all present, not an opposing voice was
raised. The union was effected without a discussion of difficulties, without a
surrender of private judgment - upon the only ground on which it is believed it
could ever have taken place. It was a source of great consolation to Elder
Leland, to have his early friends take him so cordially by the hand; and from
this time until his death, it is believed no member of either church bore him
any ill will; such, at least, was the appearance. The approving smile of Heaven
seemed to ratify the act; for though but few additions to their number have
since taken place, a spirit of harmony has prevailed in all their deliberations,
and brotherly love has continued uninterrupted among the members of the united
church. In this brief sketch of events, we have endeavored to perform with
candor the task which duty imposed. Its object has been, not to call up painful
remembrances from the oblivion where they were buried, but to do justice to the
memory of the man to whose prejudice those events have been perverted, and to
exhibit his character, course, and principles in their true light. No apology
is, therefore, deemed necessary for an act so clearly and imperatively demanded
by truth and justice. That which goes down to later generations as matter of
history, should be sober fact, divested of all the false coloring which
prejudice, ignorance, or party spirit may have thrown around it. Such, it is
hoped, this narrative may be found. Great care has been taken to ascertain
truth, and few assertions have been made that are not sustained by documentary
evidence of undoubted authenticity. A few observations of a miscellaneous
character, will close these sketches. The following extract, from Semple’s
Virginia Baptists, published in 1810, will serve to show the estimation in which
Mr. Leland was held in that state.

"Mr. Leland, as a preacher, was probably the most popular of any that ever
resided in this state. He is, unquestionably, a man of fertile genius. His
opportunities for school learning were not great; but the enegetic vigor of his
mind quickly surmounted this deficiency. His memory was so retentive, that by a
single reading he stored up more of the contents of a book, than many would by a
dozen careful perusals. It is probable that his knowledge, derived from books,
at this day, taken in the aggregate, is surpassed by few. His preaching, though
immethodical and eccentric, is generally wise, warm and evangelical. There are
not many preachers, who have so great command of the attention and of the
feelings of their auditory. In effecting this, his manner has been thought, by
some, to approach too near to the theatrical. Cowper, the poet, says:- ’He that
negotiates between God and man, As God’s ambassador, the grand concerns Of
judgment and of mercy, must beware Of lightness in his speech.’

"Here Mr. Leland and the poet are at variance; he does, sometimes, and, indeed,
not unfrequently, ’Court the skittish fancy with facetious tales.’

"If Cowper says, ’So did not Paul,’ Leland can say, So did George Whitfield,
Rowland Hill, etc., and they have been the most successful of modern preachers.
Mr. Leland’s free and jocund manners have excited the suspicions of some, that
he wanted serious piety. His intimate friends are confident that these are
groundless suspicions. They believe that, among his other singularities, he is
singularly pious."

It is true, there was nothing of superstitious austerity in the tone of his
piety; it corresponded with his own description of the feelings of the
heaven-born soul - "lively as angels, yet solemn as the grave." Deep solemnity
characterized his public ministrations. ’In prayer, he seemed to have an
overwhelming sense of the perfections of the Being he addressed; and his manner,
his words, and the tones of his voice, were expressive of the most reverential
awe, the deepest self-abasement, and the humblest adoration. He was in the habit
of confessing the immense distance of men, as creatures, below the infinite
Jehovah, and the immeasurable increase of that distance by reason of sin.
"Supremely great, infinitely glorious, highly exalted, everywhere present,
all-wise and eternal God, " was often, either wholly, or in part, the
introduction of his prayer. His audience felt themselves carried directly into
the presence of Him who is "fearful in praises," and it was impossible to listen
with an irreverent or trifling spirit. In the administration of the sacrament,
few, if any, were ever more deeply solemn and impressive. In his preaching, he
sometimes, by a single sentence, presented before the mind a view of eternal
things, which left an indelible impression on the memory. Such was the manner in
which he was accustomed to speak of death. It is, " he would say, "a solemn
thing to die; to go - we know not where; to be - we know not what." His manner,
however, was far from being affected or theatrical; and he did not deem it
inconsistent, either with real solemnity, or with the spirit of true piety, to
mingle, not only in his writings and conversation, but in his preaching,
occasional strokes of humor or of satire. But the "facetious tales" had always a
higher object in view than to excite a smile, or "court the skittish fancy."
They were brought in illustration of some important truth, which he wished to
exhibit in the clearest light, and to impress forcibly upon the mind; effects
which their aptness was well calculated to produce. The shafts of satire, too,
pointed though they might be, were not dipped in the gall of malice or ill will,
nor aimed at anything which he esteemed valuable or sacred. Instances
illustrative of this part of his character may be found among his writings, and
will be recollected by all who ever heard him preach or converse. The following
is one example, and will serve to show his manner of treating those
circumstances, which, to many persons of different temperament, or of less
elevated views and aims, would seem to afford sufficient ground for resentment,
and which not unfrequently result in irreconcilable animosity. THE CHESHIRE
RACES. 21 As the annual races of Cheshire drew nigh, about the first of April,
1823, the hippodrome was prepared for the contest. As the speed, wind, and
bottom of the horses were to be tested, the hippodrome included hills, levels,
lanes and hedges, reaching from Savoy to Hancock. The prize to be run for, was
MEETING-HOUSE AND MAJORITY. The horses brought on the ground were, first, the
Duke of Marlborough; a fine, high-bred horse, in fine style; supposed by some,
who judge of horses, to be the best racer ever seen on Cheshire race ground. The
second, was Little Jolly, sired by the imported Jolly Rogers, the famous
courser. Little Jolly had never run but a few races; but his make, nimbleness
and wind, raised the confidence of many. The third horse, was Old Dray, the
sight of whom made some laugh, and others sneer. Old Dray had often been on the
ground; but was never formed for speed, and rarely won the prize; had now grown
old, and unfit to contend with young steeds in high perfection; in short, he had
nothing to commend him, except his being of the fear-not blood. On this
condition alone could he be admitted, that he should carry an extra burden of a
plough and pitchfork on his back, during the race. The distance stake was stuck
forty feet short of the goal, and all things were made ready for the start. At
the beat of the drum, the halters were slipped, and, by some unknown cause, Old
Dray got four feet in front; but this advance was very short, for the
Marlborough came up, and went by him, with great facility; and, had it not been
for two causes, there was every reason to believe that the Marlborough would
have distanced all the rest. The first cause was, he made a violent kick and
bite at Old Dray, and some affirm that he spake, (like the beast that Balaam
rode,) and said, "If Old Dray can be kicked out of the path, it will be the most
glorious race that ever was run, " which rather crippled him in the stifle
joint. His friends, however, say that there was neither kick nor bite; that
although he is all activity to run the race, yet he has no venom in him. The
second cause was, that when he came to Savoy Heights, far ahead, there was a
certain berry on the hills, called Woodberry, which had so strong a scent, that
it rather paralyzed his limbs.

Little Jolly started with great alertness, and the bets in his favor were
greater than for any of the horses on the ground; but, making a bite at Old
Dray, he incautiously stepped over the line, and crossed the path, in doing
which he received a wound; but his friends produced a medicine, made of
fabrication, and administered by offset, which proved a catholicon. They said
that Old Dray had done as bad as Jolly, and one must be offset against the
other. This medicine they had tried on a former occasion, and knew its efficacy.
This treaty, made with their consciences, healed the wound of Jolly, and they
declared him to be the soundest and swiftest horse in the race. And truly, in
that part of the race ground called lanes and hedges, he performed wonders.
Being acquainted with such kind of ground, he jumped with all the agility of a
rabbit. In going over the flat ground of Hancock, Old Dray made considerable
advances on Marlborough, but could not come up with him. In coming out at the
goal, the Marlbo rough was seventeen feet in advance of Old Dray, and Old Dray
seven-teen feet before the Jolly. The judges seemed somewhat divided; but the
decision was, that the Marlborough should have the majority, the Little Jolly
have the meeting-house, and that Old Dray should carry the plough and pitchfork
upon his back as long as he lived, and never be allowed to enter the race ground
again.

It will be admitted, perhaps, by all whose freedom from educational bias, and
habits of close and independent thought, prepared them fully to appreciate the
preaching of Elder Leland, that he was more than usually successful in
reconciling those apparently conflicting portions of the system of gospel truth,
which have been the theme of so much controversy in all ages of the Church. This
was mainly owing to the care he took, never to mix law and grace together;" or,
in other words, never to confound the "system of God’s moral government," with
the "scheme of grace through a Mediator." He viewed the line of distinction, as
commencing at the’ covenant of peace," formed in the counsels of eternity, and
continuing for ever. He did not, therefore, apply to the unregenerate, the
promises and precepts addressed to the penitent and believer, nor hold forth the
terrors of the law to "them who are in Christ Jesus." Yet that he did not
pretend to understand the whole mystery of the gospel, may be distinctly seen in
the following detached paragraphs, from which, with other of his writings, may
be gathered the fundamental points of his belief.

"The gospel is so internally profound, and the minds of men so limited, the
obstructions to science so many and great, that it is but a little of the gospel
that men understand; and yet, no scheme, fraught with fewer incomprehensibles,
could have brought relief to fallen man. The unsearchable riches of Christ,
which pass knowledge, will be continually unfolding themselves to the saints in
light."

"To reconcile the eternal designs of God with the freedom of the human will, is
a question that puzzles all men. That both are true, admits of no reasonable
doubt; but there is a great doubt whether the mind of man is large enough to
reconcile the question: if it is, why is not the matter settled long ago? It
appears to be one of the deep things of God, which we are to believe without
comprehension. Should the Lord use ever so many words to elucidate the subject,
still, the mind of man is so limited, that the matter would remain in the
profound. That God is good, and that men are rebellious; that salvation is of
the Lord, and damnation of ourselves, are truths revealed as plain as a
sunbeam."

"The preceptive part of the gospel addresses men as able to do, and commands
them to do; but the gracious part considers men as weak and polluted, and
reveals what God does for them. The former shows holy authority, the latter
gracious benevolence."

"Repentance for bad works, and the practice of good works, I strive to preach;
but, as repentance will not expiate crimes, and the deeds of the law will not
justify, redemption by Christ is essential. The salvation of God includes three
things: first, something done for us, without us; second, something done for us,
within us; third, something done by us."

"The moral insolvency of man, has not destroyed the equity of God’s law, nor
cancelled the demand."

"The sinner, until he is changed by grace, never feels guilty because he has not
the holy unction, but for the sins he has committed. The prayer of his heart is
not for internal holiness, but for deliverance from punishment."

"Adam, in innocency, with his life of natural purity, was happy on earth, but
not fit for heaven. Had he never sinned, he must, nevertheless, have been born
of the Spirit, (received the holy unction,) to have prepared him for heaven."

"Grace and effort. Some preachers fix their eyes so steadfastly upon the
unchangeable nature of God, his immutable decrees, his personal and
unconditional election of some unto eternal life, that they leave themselves but
little liberty to preach, ’Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand’-
’Repent, and believe the gospel’ - ’Repent, and be converted, that your sins may
be blotted out’ - ’Labor not for the meat that perisheth, but for that which
endureth unto eternal life’ - ’While ye have light, believe in the light, that
ye may be children of the light,’ etc. Others place their minds on the rebellion
of man, the necessity of repentance, and the willingness of Christ to save
sinners, so strongly, that they overlook such passages as these: ’As many as
were ordained to eternal life, believed’ - ’The election hath obtained it, and
the rest were blinded’ - ’No man can come unto me, except the Father draw him’ -
’Thou hast hidden these things from the wise and prudent, and revealed them unto
babes’ - ’Then shall ye seek me and shall not find me’ - ’Not according to our
own righteousness, but according to his own mercy he saved us,’ etc."

Though his sermons, conversation and writings, were characterized by perspicuity
and simplicity, it must be supposed that he was sometimes misunderstood; for he
was claimed, by some sectarians, as the advocate of doctrines which he
considered fundamentally opposed to the truth. He incurred, also, the censure of
many, by carrying farther than they thought necessary the Protestant sentiment,
of the sufficiency of the Scriptures as a guide to Christian faith and practice,
and by questioning the propriety of measures for which Scripture authority could
not be adduced. Some of this class of individuals, however, while they could not
but acknowledge the sincerity of his desires to be "made right," and of his
fervent prayers to be enabled to discern the truth, sought for other motives
than love of truth, to which they might attribute his dissent from their own
views. This was entirely uncalled for; for if ever there was a man, who, in his
search after truth, was honest, unbiassed by sectarian partialities, unshackled
by previously formed opinions, uninfluenced by any selfish considerations, none
who knew him well, will hesitate to aver, that John Leland was that man. There
is evidently a wide difference between searching the Scriptures to find a system
of truth, and searching them for evidence to support one already adopted. That
the latter was not the course pursued by him, the candor evinced in all his
researches fully proves. His object being not so much to convince others, as to
discover truth for himself, he avoided those sophistical methods of reasoning
which too many employ to bring the unwary and unreflecting to their own views,
nor did he resort to denunciation and fiery zeal, or to quibbling and evasion,
to cover the weak part of an argument. He did not undervalue the importance of
the objections that might be urged against his opinions; but giving them their
full weight, he advanced his own arguments to meet them; following, in this
respect, the example of Madison, whom he often quoted as a model of candor and
fairness in debate. With regard to his writings, it may be well to remark, that
he never rewrote his pieces; whatever they are, they were in the original
draught. This consideration, while it accounts for many inaccuracies in
language, both rhetorical and grammatical, shows, at the same time, the
systematic order in which his thoughts naturally arranged themselves, following
one upon another with such method, that it would be difficult, if not
impossible, to find an instance where any important proposition was assumed
without proof, or a succeeding one in a series taken as proof of a preceding.
His views, in relation to the office and work of the ministry, are contained in
various parts of his writings. It was never either his principle or practice to
set a price upon his labors, nor to demand or receive a fixed salary. But though
he never solicited, or made money a condition of preaching, he never refused
what any chose to give him; and he received it, not as alms, but as a gospel
debt. It was his counsel to one who was about to engage in the work of the
ministry, never to make any dependence upon what he expected to receive for
preaching; "if you get anything," said he, "you can work it in afterwards." Such
was his own practice. His own hands, and those of his family, who were all
trained to habits of active industry, supplied their wants, and he had the
pleasure of knowing that whatever he did receive, was given, "not grudgingly,
but with free will, and of a ready mind." His practice with regard to baptism
was in accordance with the views expressed in the letter found on page - of
volume - . He considered baptism a duty plainly enjoined on all the followers of
Christ, by an express command; but connection with a church to be a matter of
choice and expediency. Accordingly he always baptized such as gave evidence of
piety, if they desired it, and left them to connect themselves with whatever
church they pleased, or with none, if such was their preference. He thought the
First Epistle of Peter, to the "strangers scattered" through various places,
was, probably, addressed to such as, from local situation, or other causes, were
not numbered with any of the churches. His preaching, in latter years of his
life, was almost entirely of the expository kind. He would frequently, after
naming his text, go back a number of verses, or to the beginning of the chapter,
and comment upon each clause in succession, and sometimes the close of the
sermon would come without his having reached his text at all. But "it is no
matter," he would say, "so long as I keep within the lids of the Bible. Indeed,
it makes but little difference what text I take, I must come to the third of
John before I close. If I take an Old Testament text, I must preach a New
Testament sermon.

It was equally true of him as of Mr. Haynes, that

"though he seldom held a congregation long without exciting a smile, yet the
predominant influence of his preaching was to produce solemnity of feeling, and
deep conviction of truth. His eccentricities would have been faults in any other
man, but in him they were so inherent and essential to his character, and his
wit was so spontaneous, and came, as it were, without his bidding, that they
neither interrupted the current of his own piety, nor often weakened the
religious influence of his discourses upon others." 22

Many anecdotes and amusing incidents have been related of him, some, probably,
without foundation in truth. Want of space forbids the introduction of more than
two or three in this place. The following, cut from a newspaper, is judged to be
authentic, from the fact that it is characteristic of him. Riding one day in
company with Elder Hull, they were overtaken by a slight shower. Elder Leland
was for seeking a shelter, but the other remarked, "Brother, I am ashamed of you
- a Baptist minister, and afraid of a little water!" "Ah! Brother Hull," replied
he, "I never like these sprinklings."

Calling one day on a Baptist minister, to whom he was not personally known, said
the latter, after the first salutations, "by what name shall I call you? " He
replied, "Why askest thou thus after my name, seeing it is secret?" "Well," said
the other, "is this all the answer I am to have?" "It is the answer of an angel,
what better can you wish for? " "If you are an angel, doubtless you are a fallen
one." On another and similar occasion, being asked the same question, he
replied, "call me Leland." "Ah! " replied the minister, "there are many who come
along, wishing to be called by that name. I have been tricked in that way
several times." But after looking steadily at him a few moments, his doubts
seemed to yield to the conviction that he was indeed no other than he pretended,
and he exclaimed, "Is it possible that the Almighty has placed such a soul as
Leland’s in such an insignificant body!" Should this expression convey the idea
that he was small of stature, the impression will be incorrect. His height was
not far from six feet, though as he advanced in years, his form became more
stooping, and his stature, consequently, somewhat less. In flesh, he was rather
thin and spare. Of his personal appearance, generally, the accompanying portrait
will furnish a more correct and definite idea than any language can convey.

Perhaps these sketches cannot be more appropriately closed, than by the
following brief extracts from the concluding part of the funeral sermon: "Great
and good man, he is gone! The tender and effectionate father, the kind husband -
the wise counsellor - emphatically the peace-maker - the social, warmhearted
friend - the sage - patriot - the lover of sound doctrine - the eloquent and
unusually successful minister of Christ, is no more! Is no more? He still lives,
we doubt not, where his intellect has found congenial spirits, and a wider range
in the upper empire of Jehovah. He lives below in the affections of thousands,
and ’his works do follow him.’ " "To live live like him, is to mourn over the
sins of earth, and hold up God’s everlasting truth to a dying world. To die like
him, is to stand on the confines of earth, looking off into eternity, and depart
with the ’prospect of heaven clear.’ To rest, at last, like him, is, we doubt
not, to rest forever in the Paradise of God."

10. In consequence of this misfortune, her speech was so much impaired, that
through life it was difficult for persons not well acquainted with her, to
understand her.

11. He has been heard to express the same opinion on other occasions, drawing
his conclusions from the fact, that persons, in being made partakers of the
grace of life, are brought to view themselves utterly lost without that grace -
a conviction which they cannot feel, while they imagine themselves in no danger
of receiving the "wages of sin, which is death."

12. This discourse is already before the public, which circumstance, together
with our limited space, will sufficiently account for the omission of any
further extracts.

13. See quotation from the speech of a Presbyterian, Vol. - , page - .

14. Drafted by Elder Leland.

15. It may be proper to mention, in this place, that while a member of the
General Committee, he was appointed one of a committee to collect materials for
a history of the Baptists in Virginia; and had made considerable progress
towards it, when his removal caused him to relinquish the trust into other
hands.

16. For the sake of brevity, details are omitted, and only a sketch of the
important fasts given.

17. This was done at the July meeting, 1812.

18. Soon after this, Elder Leland removed to New Ashford. See autobiography for
circumstances. He continued to preach from time to time in Cheshire.

19. See minutes for that year.

20. Though only a small minority, they had at one time assumed to be the church,
and as such, had sent a letter and messengers to the Association, in addition to
that sent regularly by the church.

21. To those acquainted with the circumstances, any attempt at an explanation of
this allegory would be superfluous; to others, perhaps, impossible, as well as
unprofitable. It will be sufficient to remind the reader that a revival occurred
in 1823 - that the same year a Reformed Methodist Society was formed in
Cheshire, and early in 1824, the Third Baptist Church was constituted. Among the
ministers represented by three horses, no one, it is presumed, can fail to
recognize the features of "Old Dray."

22. Reminiscences of Rev. Samuel Haynes.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 4: 004 THE HISTORY OF JACK NIPS
========================================================================

THE HISTORY OF JACK NIPS.

I CANNOT say that my father was a Hittite, and my mother an Amorite, but my
father was a Presbyterian, and my mother a high-flying, separate new-light. I
was as far from being a new-light myself, as men’s hearts are from their mouths,
or as old darkness is from new light; but when my school-fellows got mad at me,
they would call me a new-light, and if I asked them what a new-light was, they
would be as confused in their answers as if they did not know B from a bull’s
foot. Sometimes, when I was reading, they would laugh at me for my new-light
tone; once, in particular, as I was reciting a lesson, to a Latin master, he
told me "not to preach like a new-light, but to speak like a scholar." This put
me upon a search into the nature of tones, and I was soon convinced that a holy
tone did not make a holy man, for some who had the tone, would be as
hypocritical as Lucifer himself; but the same persons who laughed at me for my
tone, had a disagreeable tone of lying, swearing, and sneering at all good sense
and religion, yet there was no harm in that tone, because it was polite.

Like other boys, I wished to be in fashion, and as the Presbyterians were the
most fashionable, I applied myself to the study of their books, but was not a
little puzzled to reconcile their writings with my boyish thoughts. I could not,
for my gizzard, understand their orthography, until I was more than sixteen.
They would spell thus: c-i-r, cir, c-u-m, cum, c-i, ci, s-e-d, baptism. This, I
say, puzzled me greatly: and if I asked any body how they reconciled it, they
would tell me that "great, learned, and good men said it was right, and it would
be presumption in me to call it in question." I further observed that sometimes
those authors would put the cart before the horse; as for instance, where it
said, "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," they would have it,
"he that is baptized and believeth, shall be saved." Surely, said I, this is a
Presbyterian tone; for I did not then know that there was a Papist, a Russian,
or an Episcopalian in the world.

Another thing also confounded my youthful thoughts. Men and women would bring
their children to the minister to be baptized, if but one of them was a
believer, and it was supposed that the faith of one parent was sufficient to
initiate the child; but my thoughts would be running thus:

"is the soul of that child made by God, and infused into the body while in the
womb, or it is begotten by the parents? If it is made and infused by God, then
the children of wicked parents bring as good souls into the world as the
children of good parents do. But if souls are begotten in ordinary generation,
then regenerate men will beget regenerate souls, and wicked men will beget
wicked souls; and if Adam was regenerate before he begat any of his children, by
succession down to this day, we are all regenerate." But as this was to me
uncertain, I was casting my eyes and thoughts on my neighbors. Uncle Benson had
married aunt Nancy, by whom he had a son whose name was Peter. Uncle was a
believer, but aunt was not. Here I had a great query in my mind, to find from
which parent the soul proceeded. Aristotle informed me, that the child, in
animalcula, came originally from the mother. Surely, then, said I to myself,
cousin Peter has no right to baptism, for his mother is an infidel. But the
European philosophers said that the animalcula that formed the foetus, came from
the father. If so, said I, again, then Peter is a Christian. But here I was
perplexed again: if Peter came into the world a Christian, how can he be made a
Christian by water? Can a priest and water make him what he was before he was
born? Uncle Sam said, Peter came into the world a Christian, and therefore had a
right to baptism; but uncle Ned insisted upon it, that it was his baptism that
made him a Christian, and confirmed his sentiment by observing, that the name
given him in baptism, was his Christian name; that is, a name given him when he
was made a Christian; but others declared that the child came half from each
parent; then, said I, Peter ought to have but half his face sprinkled, for half
of it came from his heathen mother.

While I was thus as full of thought as Don Quixote was of projects, I went to
meeting: and how was I surprised to see a man and his wife stand in the broad
aisle, owning the baptismal covenant, as they called it. I had read of baptism
being a command - a fulfilling of righteousness - the answer of a good
conscience; but never heard it called a covenant before. What wind next? said I
within myself. But here I soon found that neither the man nor his wife were
believers; that they had never given themselves to God, and yet were offering
their child to him. This made me think of uncle Tim, who would never give any of
his own interest to any body, but when he was at another man’s house, he would
be as liberal as a prince, in giving to every one that came in. If these people,
said I, loved their child as well as they do themselves, they’d never trust it
where they durst not trust themselves. But after the priest had read what he had
written for them, and they had consented by a bow and courtesy, he declared that
they had a right to all the privileges of the church except the Lord’s supper.
The thought that arose in my mind was this: they may have a right to the
privileges of that church, but have they a right to all, or any, of the
privileges of Christ’s church? If, from the innocency of the children - the
confession of the parents, or the faith of one or both of them, they have a
right to baptism, why not to the eucharist? Here I remembered to have read an
account of Cyprian, the African bishop, who, in the middle of the third century,
first introduced infant baptism, and, to be consistent with himself, introduced
infant communion at the same time. I could not but observe what force and
violence were used on the occasion. The little candidate, who never proposed
himself, nor, indeed, had sense enough to know anything that was going on, was
taken by force, and, notwithstanding all his struggles and screams, had the name
of the Trinity called over him, and was, somehow or other, shut up in the pales
of the church. Is this Christian liberty? thought I, more than a hundred times.

About this time, my father, schoolmaster, and minister, took much pains to teach
me the catechism, where it is observed that baptism is not to be administered to
any who are out of the visible church, till they profess their faith in Christ,
and obedience to his revealed will. What, in the world of wonders, thought I, do
these people mean? The man and his wife, now in the broad aisle, do not profess
to be believers, and yet they claim baptism for their child, contrary to that
oracular catechism, composed by so many D. D.’s, and M. A.’s. Here my zeal broke
over all bounds, and turning to old neighbor Turnpie, said I, "do these people
hold to the West-minister catechism?" "Yes," said he, "but, they are constantly
gaining more light, and, therefore, altering their modes; but still they are the
same people." This made me think of the Irishman’s knife which he kept for
antiquity’s sake, which had been his grandfather’s, his father’s, and his own;
and, although it had worn out two or three blades, and three or four handles,
yet it was the very knife that his grandfather first bought.

After pausing awhile, I remembered that the article concluded thus: "but the
infants of those who are enemies of the visible church, are to be baptized." You
lie, reverend sirs, said I. What! first tell us that baptism is not to be
administered to any out of the church, and then tell us it is, and think boys
and men too will believe your contradictions? Here I should have proceeded, but
a man in the seats not only began to knock his black staff, but really came and
took me by the hand. "What now? " said I. He replied, "I am a tything-man to
keep order." Here a thousand thoughts rushed into my mind, some of which were as
follows: did Jesus, or his apostles, ever appoint tything-men to keep boys or
men in order? Did they ever give orders to civil rulers to make laws to force
people to go to meeting once a month, or pay a fine? Did they ever institute
black staves and stocks to prevent disorder in religious worship? Have those
people New Testament authority to establish creeds for others, and go contrary
to them, themselves, and punish others if they cannot receive their glaring
inconsistencies and absurdities? Some say that the laws of men are the sinews of
the gospel: but are they not rather the sinner’s gospel? Is not every kind of
cruelty and oppression executed under the pretext of civil law? Have not the
majority in every part of the world christened all their madness and self-will
by the names of civil law and good order? These things are so, said I, in my
heart, but durst not speak, for the tything-man held me by the hand.

After meeting was over, and I had escaped from the black staff, I returned home,
resolving to read for myself.

Carefully reading the New Testament, I found that the word baptize, with its
various declensions, occurred about one hundred times; but in none of these
places did it countenance baby baptism, and as I had made some proficiency in
Greek, I searched the Greek Testament and lexicon, where I found that baptism
came from the word baptizo, and that the word sprinkle, came from the Greek
runtizo, so that sprinkling could not be baptizing. The Greek baptizo, in a few
places, is translated wash; but as bodies, cups, and platters cannot be washed
well, by sprinkling a few drops of water upon them, I concluded that all who
undertook to baptize, by sprinkling, were religious sluts.

About this time, my father was often telling me that he designed me for the
gown; that I was of a weakly constitution, not able to get a living out of the
ground, and if I could furnish my mind with letter and theological knowledge, I
might be inducted into a parish where I might receive a good benefice. But here
my foolish heart kept running thus: my father intends me for a minister, but
does God? Those who are sent by men to preach, must look to men for their pay;
but those that are sent by God, must depend on him.

If I have but a weakly constitution, why should a runt, of a family, be imposed
on a parish to eat more than he can work? If a benefice tempts me to preach, I
shall preach for filthy lucre, and not out of love to God and souls. If I learn
to preach by rule, I shall fall upon the plan of others, of long prayers and
short sermons, to save the trouble of writing much. And when I have my sermons
all penned down, I shall have to pray, not for God’s assistance, but for good
eyesight.

Upon the whole, I concluded that the religion I had been acquainted with, was
little more than a state trick of court intrigue, and was therefore resolved to
study politics. By this time, I had gained my twenty second year; and being
fired with ambition to know what other men did, I first purchased a book
containing the several constitutions of government adopted in the different
states. Now, thought I, I shall be a wise man. I had such profound reverence for
the men who framed these constitutions, that I concluded that it would be
presumption, and almost blasphemy, to call in question a single word: but,
attending to their strictures, I found there were not two of them agreed. What,
said I, do great men differ? boys, women, and little souls do; but can learned,
wise patriots disagree so much in judgment? If so, they cannot all be right, but
they may all be wrong, and therefore, Jack Nips for himself. What encouraged me
to search and judge for myself, was this: when I was a small boy, I fancied that
I stood in the middle of the world, and that the earth extended no further than
my eye-sight explored: but people told me that I was wrong in my judgment; but
after a few years study, I found I was half right. That the earth exceeded my
eye-sight, I soon found by experience; herein I was wrong. But that I am always
on the centre spot of the surface of the globe, is an undeniable truth. And as
mature experience convinced me that my boyish thoughts were some of them right,
I concluded it might be so with my study in politics. The above is the only
portion of this piece that could be obtained; as every effort to find an
unmutulated copy of it has proved unsuccessful.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 5: 005 THE BIBLE BAPTIST
========================================================================

THE BIBLE BAPTIST. 23.

Discordant sentiments agree To make the sons of Adam free.

EXTRACT FROM THE PREFACE.

TRUTH needs no apology, and error deserves none. Prefatory lies have often
atoned for ignorance and ill-will in the Eastern and European worlds; but let
the sons of America be free. It is more essential to learn how to believe, than
to learn what to believe. The doctrine and spirit of the following remarks, are
left for the reader to judge of for himself. Truth is in the least danger of
being lost, when free examination is allowed.

BIBLE BAPTIST.

Christian writers generally agree to reproach the Jews, for treating the Rabbies
with as much respect as they did the Prophets; giving as great credit to their
traditions as they did to the sacred volume. But many Christian writers are
guilty of the same absurdity. It is not more insignificant for Jews to quote the
Talmud or the Targum, to prove a Mosaic rite, than it is for Christians to
depend on Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen, and the other fathers of the church, for
a gospel ordinance. In the following remarks, no attempts will be made to mend
our translation of the Bible, and equal credit will not be given to any other
writings. The word baptism, is not to be found in the Old Testament; and if it
were a thousand times, would be no precept for a New Testament sacrament. Nor is
there but one place in the New Testament, 24 where the word refers to a
transaction recorded in the Old Testament: 1 Corinthians 10:2, "and were all
baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea, " referring to Exodus 14:19.
"When Israel passed through the sea, the waters were a wall to them on the right
hand and on the left," see Exodus 14:22. The cloud returned and stood behind
them, covering them over in an arched form, 1 Corinthians 10:1. Now as the
waters were a wall to them on the right and left, and the cloud over them, they
were covered or buried in the cloud or in the sea; which is what Paul, in the
above quoted text, calls baptism.

Some have feigned that the cloud at this time sprinkled down a shower of rain
upon the Israelites, and a very vain fancy it is, for it is certain they all
passed over dry-shod, which they could not have done had there been a shower of
rain; Exodus 14:21; Exodus 14:29. Others have quoted this passage to prove
household baptism; but it would be more natural to apply it to national baptism;
for all the nation of Israel, and a mixed multitude besides, were there baptized
to Moses: but if this is a proof for household or national baptism, in gospel
times, it must be an equal proof for the baptism of quadrupeds. It is certain
that their flocks and herds, even very much cattle went with them, not a hoof
was left behind, and were all baptized: Exodus 10:26 - Exodus 12:38. If this
wondrous miracle is a precedent for New Testament baptism, it requires us all to
have our cattle baptized as well as our children. The New Testament is
introduced with the history of a famous Baptist preacher and his order of
baptizing. John, the forerunner of Jesus, is called a Baptist fifteen times in
the four Evangelists. Is it ignorance or ill will, that so often reproaches the
Baptists with novelty? Is it not certain that the first preacher spoken of in
the New Testament was a Baptist? Why should they be called a new sect, when they
can name their founders antecedent to the founders of any other society? Did not
Jesus submit to John’s baptism, to fulfil all righteousness? Was not Jesus,
therefore, a Baptist? These things are so. Baptism is no strange word in the New
Testament. The noun, with its relative verb and participle, occurs one hundred
times; which may be found in the following places: Matthew 3:6-7; Matthew 3:11;
Matthew 3:13-14; Matthew 3:16. - Matthew 20:22-23. - Matthew 21:25.- Matthew
28:19. Mr 1:4-5,8-10. - Mr 10:38-39. - Mr 11:30. - Mr 16:16. Luke 3:3; Luke 3:7;
Luke 3:12; Luke 3:16; Luke 3:21. - Luke 7:29-30. - Luke 12:50. - Luke 20:4. John
1:25-26; John 1:28; John 1:31; John 1:33.- John 3:22-23; John 3:26; John 4:1-2.
Acts 1:5; Acts 1:22. - Acts 2:38; Acts 2:41. - Acts 8:12-13; Acts 8:16; Acts
8:39; Acts 8:38. 47-48. - Acts 11:16. - Acts 13:24 - Acts 16:15; Acts 16:33. -
Acts 18:8; Acts 18:25. - Acts 19:3-5. - Acts 22:16. Romans 6:3-4. 1 Corinthians
1:13-17. - 1 Corinthians 10:2. 1 Corinthians 12:13. - 1 Corinthians 15:29.
Galatians 3:27. Ephesians 4:5. Colossians 2:12. Hebrews 6:2. 1 Peter 3:21. As
John the Baptist was the first who baptized with water by divine authority, it
appears necessary to make a few strictures on his baptism. The place of his
preaching was the wilderness of Judea, Matthew 3:1. His doctrine was repentance
for sin, faith in the Messiah among them, and good works. See Matthew 3:2;
Matthew 3:11-12. John 1:26; John 1:51. Luke 3:7; Luke 3:15. The places where he
baptized, were the rivers Jordan and Enon, where there was much water: Matthew
3:6; Matthew 3:16 - John 3:23. What he required of his subjects was confession
of sins, and good fruits, Matthew 3:7; Matthew 3:10. Mr 1:5., and he would not
admit the multitude of the Pharisees and Saducees to his baptism, without
confession and reformation, although they were the children of Abraham: Matthew
3:7; Matthew 3:10. Luke 3:7-8. What words soever John used when he baptized,
whether the same that the apostles were taught to use at the ascension of our
Lord, or a set of, words telling his subjects to believe in him who should come
after him, or any other words, is to me unknown; but he certainly received his
commission from heaven, and Jesus, the head of the church, submitted to his
baptism.

Whoever carefully considers the texts quoted under the above head, together with
corresponding texts respecting the ministry of John, will find that John
baptized none but those who are old enough and good enough to make confession of
sin, which babies cannot do; that parental virtue was not a sufficient
recommendation, without "fruits meet for repentance," and that he baptized in
the river Jordan and the waters of Enon. Not a word about infant sprinkling in
the whole history of John, nor anything that looks like it. In John 3:22, and
John 4:1, it looks as if Jesus himself baptized; which he did in the same manner
that Solomon built the temple; that is, it was done by his orders, as John 4:2,
explains it. "Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples." As Jesus
never baptized any with water, consequently the children brought to him were not
brought for baptism. The passages referred to are Matthew 19:13; Matthew 19:16.
Mr 10:13,17. Luke 18:15; Luke 18:18. These children were brought to Jesus, that
he should put his hands upon them and pray; and the disciples forbade them. Had
it been a usual thing for them to be brought to Jesus, for baptism or any thing
else, it is not likely that the disciples would have forbidden them. Parents are
generally too negligent about bringing their offspring to Jesus; but these, like
the mother of James and John, seemed anxious for the good of their infants, and
brought them to Jesus that he might bless them, which in great mercy he did, and
said "Of such is the kingdom of heaven." From this, it is certain that some, if
not all children are meet for the kingdom of God; and indeed, whoever is thus
blessed by Jesus, whether young or old, is graciously prepared for that holy
place. There is no account that he ever did this but once, and not the least
hint that he ever enjoined it upon his disciples; and with what propriety could
he enjoin a work noon them, which none but God could do; that is, bless
children. From the passage under consideration, I have heard the following
argument drawn, viz., "that if Jesus received children, ministers should; and
that if he declared them meet for heaven, they have a right to all the
ordinances of the church below." If this argument has any weight in it, it
equally pleads for the Lord’s supper; and truly, if a child has a right to
baptism, he has the same claim to the communion. As the face of the child can
bear a few drops of water, while in the arms of the preacher or father, so the
mouth of the child can receive a crumb of bread and a drop of wine while in the
arms of the nurse or mother. But what man in his senses will quote these
passages to prove infant sprinkling, when there is not a syllable in them about
water sprinkling or dipping? If there is, let it be named, and I will take
conviction.

Infant sprinkling can be no proof of obedience in a child, who is ignorant of
the meaning, and passive in the action. If any virtue, therefore, attend it, it
must be either in the parents, gossips, or priest. A virtue in the parents it is
not, unless they can prove from scripture that God has commanded it. This proof
I have not yet seen, and am inclined to believe I never shall, while the Bible
remains as it is. A virtue in the gossips it cannot be, without religious lying
is a virtue. They promise, before God and the congregation, to renounce the
world, the flesh, and the devil, for the child, and keep God’s holy law as long
as life lasts; which an angel could not do, and which they take no pains to do.
This, they promise, not only for the children of their neighbors, but for many
that they never see afterwards; and priest, clerk, parents and gossips, all
thank God that he has blessed the water to the mystical washing away of sin.

How inconsistently men talk! First, they say that children come into the world
innocent, free from sin, fit for heaven; and next inform us that water, in
baptism, washes away sin. If they are clear of guilt and corruption, how can
water wash them away? If they are unclean, what can cleanse them but the blood
of the Lamb? In one breath, we are informed that none have a right to baptism
until they repent, believe, and are in the visible church; in the next, we are
told that baptism is an initiating ordinance. While men speak so inconsistently,
who can believe them? Can we think that they believe their own testimonies? A
virtue in the priest it is not, because he has no New Testament commission for
it; and what is not virtuous must be vicious, and everything vicious should be
abandoned.

After the resurrection of our Lord, just as he was going to heaven, to leave his
apostles, he renewed their commission, made some enlargements and additions
thereto, and more fully described their work; which Matthew 28:19, expresses
thus: "Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Mr 16:15; 16, has it - "Go
ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that
believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not, shall be
damned." Matthew seems to speak most on the work of the preacher, and Mark on
the character of the disciple. This enlargement of the commission authorized
them to go and preach among the Gentiles, as well as the scattered Jews.
Wherever they went, they were to preach, and those who were taught and believed,
were to be baptized; and those who were taught, believed, and were baptized, had
the promise of salvation.

Those who practise infant sprinkling, often have recourse to this commission of
the apostles, as a foundation for their practice. It is altogether likely that
the apostles understood their own commission, and acted accordingly. The surest
way, therefore, to get a true’ understanding of the nature of the commission, is
carefully to consider their conduct. Let Peter take the lead. In Acts 11:14;
Acts 11:30, Peter lifted up his voice, and preached a very pointed sermon; and
when the people heard his doctrine,

"they were pricked in their hearts, and said to Peter and to the rest of the
apostles, men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, repent
and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission
of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost; for the promise is
unto you and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the
Lord our God shall call. Then they who gladly received his word, were baptized;
and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they
continued steadfast in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of
bread, and in prayers." - Acts 11:30; Acts 11:30. From this passage, we find
that Peter preached according to his orders; the people heard, which was their
duty; the Holy Ghost applied the truth to their hearts. Filled with godly sorrow
for sin, they cried out, "what shall we do?" which is the language of grace in
its first operation; Peter had an answer ready, and said, "repent," (this little
word is always a prerequisite to baptism,) "and be baptized, every one of you. "
He does not say, be baptized if you feel the weight of it upon you, but enjoins
it upon every one of them, that they might receive remission of sins; and, to
encourage them in their godly sorrow for their sins, in general, and crucifying
the Lord, in particular, he adds:

"For the promise (of the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Ghost) is to
you, (fathers,) and unto your children, and to all that are afar off, (both
scattered Jews and Gentiles,) even as many as the Lord our God shall call." The
promise here does not intend baptism, which is never viewed in the light of a
promise, but always as a command. Here, observe, none were baptized, but such as
asked what they should do? who did repent, gladly receive the word, continue
steadfast in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in breaking of bread, and in
prayers; all of which things infants can not do. The objection raised here, that
three thousand could not be baptized by immersion in one day, equally militates
against sprinkling, which takes as long a time. The twelve apostles, and seventy
disciples, could soon do it. Three thousand, divided among eighty-two, would be
about thirty-six or thirty-seven for each, who could easily be baptized in less
time than an hour. It is no novelty in Virginia, for a Baptist minister to
baptize more than thirty-seven in a small part of a day. The next account of
Peter’s baptizing, is in Acts 10:1-48, Cornelius was warned of God by a holy
angel, and Peter was called by a vision to go to Cornelius. When he came to his
house, and preached to him and his neighbors, the Holy Ghost fell on all those
who heard. "Then answered Peter, can any man forbid water, that these should not
be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded
them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." No account that he went to
baptizing before they were converted, but as soon as they received the Holy
Ghost, he commanded them, in the name of the Lord, to be baptized. And these
were persons who heard Peter, spake with tongues, and magnified God.

What Peter thought baptism figured out, appears from his 1 Peter 3:21. "The like
figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us, (not the putting away the
filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God,) by the
resurrection of Jesus Christ." Here observe, that baptism does not remove the
filth of the flesh, but figures out the way in which we are saved: viz., by the
death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. When we are plunged beneath the wave, we
figure out the death and burial of Jesus; and when we rise from beneath the
wave, we figure out the resurrection of the Saviour; in doing which, we have a
good conscience. From the history of Peter, then, we have every reason to
believe that he understood his commission in such a manner as did not entitle
him to baptize any but penitent believers. The next baptizer to be taken notice
of, is Philip. Whether this was Philip of Bethsaida, one of the twelve, or
Philip the deacon, who was an evangelist, or another man of the same name, is
not certain; but Philip went down to Samaria, and preached Christ unto them.
Acts 8:5. "And when they believed Philip, preaching concerning the kingdom of
God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women." See
Acts 8:12. They were not baptized until they believed, and yet were baptized
before they received the Holy Ghost in its great effusion; which proves that
faith should be antecedent to baptism, and that the receiving of the Holy Ghost
in this sort, is something distinct from that grace which makes men saints. In
this same chapter, from Acts 8:26, to the end, we have another account of
baptism by Philip. A certain eunuch of Ethiopia had been up to Jerusalem, to
worship the God of Israel; and, as he was returning home-ward in his chariot,
was reading Isaiah 53:1-12; from which it appears that he was a Jewish
proselyte, and, no doubt to me, a real saint, who had not yet been taught a
risen Saviour. Philip was commanded by the Spirit to go and join himself to the
chariot, which he did, and began at the same scripture which the eunuch was
reading, and preached unto him Jesus. And as they came to a certain water, the
eunuch said, "See, here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptized?"

How the eunuch came to the knowledge of his duty, in this ordinance, is not
certain. Whether he had learned at Jerusalem, or some other place, that such was
the practice of the Christians; or had some impressions of the Spirit upon him,
teaching him his duty; or whether Philip taught it to him, I cannot say; but he
certainly requested baptism of Philip. "And Philip said unto him, if thou
believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he said, I believe that Jesus
Christ is the Son of God. And they went down both into the water, both Philip
and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water,"
&c. What can be plainer? Philip preached Jesus; the eunuch believed in him; they
came to a certain water; they went down both into it, both the administrator and
the subject; baptism was administered; and then they came up out of the water.
The next baptizer in course, is Ananias. When Saul was struck to the earth by
the power of God, and led blind to Damascus, the Lord sent Ananias unto him, who
went and laid his hands on him, and he received his sight. Then said Ananias
unto him, why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins,
calling on the name of the Lord. And he arose, and was baptized. Acts 9:1; Acts
9:19 - Acts 22:16.

Paul, the chief apostle of the Gentiles, comes next before us. The first place
where he baptized any, that we have an account of, was in Macedonia. (Acts
16:14.) He was called by a vision to go to Macedonia; and when he came to that
part of it called Philippi,

"Upon the Sabbath day went out of the city by a river’s side, where prayer was
wont to be made; and he sat down, and spake unto the women who resorted thither;
and a certain woman, named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira,
who worshipped God, heard him, whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended
unto the things that were spoken of Paul. And when she was baptized, and her
household, she besought Paul, and his companions, saying: If ye have judged me
to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house." This woman came from Thyatira
to Philippi, trading in purple: she was a female merchant, and, perhaps, a
manufacturer, who first made her purple, and then sold it. She employed either
her own children or journeymen to assist her in her trade. She was a worshipper
of God, heard the gospel, had her heart opened, attended to the things spoken by
Paul, and was judged to be faithful to the Lord, and, therefore, a proper
subject for baptism. The character of her household is not given in this place;
but, in the last verse of the chapter, they are called brethren, and were
comforted by Paul; which could with no propriety be said of children or
unbelievers. In the 33d verse of the same chapter (Acts 16:33), an account is
given of the baptism of a certain man, and his household. The jailer being
alarmed by the earthquake, and the open doors of the prison, drew out his sword,
and would have killed himself, supposing that the prisoners had made their
escape; rather, therefore, than be tried, condemned, and executed for his
neglect, he would have been his own judge, jury, and executioner.

"Which Paul perceiving, cried out: do thyself no harm, for we are all here. Then
he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before
Paul and Silas, and brought them out, and said, sirs, what must I do to be
saved? And they said: believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved,
and thy house. And he took them, the same hour of the night, and washed their
stripes, and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. And when he had brought
them into his house, he sat meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God,
with all his house."

Here note, the word all is mentioned three times. The jailer and all his
household heard the word of the Lord; he and all his house believed and rejoiced
in God; he and all his house were baptized. Let his house-hold be young or old,
they all heard, believed, rejoiced in God, and were baptized. Now it is well
known that infants can neither hear, (so as to understand,) believe, nor rejoice
in God, and, therefore, are not fit subjects for baptism,. Next, observe, the
jailer brought them out of prison into his house; and as he brought them again
into the house to eat, after he was baptized, it is altogether likely that they
were baptized out of any house. The next instance of Paul’s baptizing, is, Acts
18:8 : "And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with
all his house; and many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed, and were
baptized." Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanas, were baptized by
Paul: 1 Corinthians 1:14; 1 Corinthians 1:16. The rest of them, to complete the
many, very likely, were baptized by Silas and Timotheus, who were Paul’s
companions at Corinth, 1 Corinthians 1:5. Paul was a wise master-builder, among
the Corinthians, who laid the foundation, and left Silas and Timotheus to build
thereon: 1 Corinthians 3:10. It is not certain that the household of Crispus
were baptized, but it is certain that they all believed, and very likely that
they, with the other Corinthians, that heard and believed, were baptized. The
character of Stephanas and his household is given, 1 Corinthians 16:15, where
they are said to be the first fruits of Achaia, and they addicted themselves to
the ministry of the saints, which is a work too masculine for infants. The
family and neighbors of Cornelius, were baptized, even those who heard and
received the Holy Ghost, and magnified God. The household of Lydia, were
baptized, who are called brethren, and were comforted by Paul. The household of
the jailer, were baptized; such as heard, believed, and rejoiced in God. The
household of Stephanas were baptized, who were the first fruits of Achaia, and
ministered to the saints. And, if the household of Crispus were baptized, they
believed in God, as well as Crispus himself.

Now, if there is any account of any one household beside, that were baptized
upon the faith of their father, or promises of their gossips, I should be glad
to see it. I confess I have not yet found it in the New Testament.

Some have quoted 1 Corinthians 7:14, to prove the right of household baptism -
"For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife
is sanctified by the husband; else were your children unclean, but now are they
holy." If this sanctity, or holiness, is truly gracious, we are all in a safe
state. Noah, the father of the new world, was a strong believer, if his wife was
not; before he married her, she was sanctified on the wedding day; their
children, consequently, were holy, Ham among the rest; and so, by succession,
down to this day, all are sanctified; which is a doctrine that good Pedobaptists
do not believe, any more than we do. The word, therefore, must have a qualified
signification, and if we attend to the context, we shall easily find their
quality. Read the first part of the chapter. So many of the Corinthian church
were connected with unbelievers, (who were idolaters,) in marriage, that they
wrote a letter to Paul, to know whether they had not better part believers and
unbelievers, that were joined together in wedlock; which Paul did not consent
to. The text under consideration, is a part of his answer to their letter, and
which, according to our common dialect reads thus: "For the unbelieving husband
is legally bound to his wife, and the unbelieving wife is legally bound to her
husband; else were your children bastards, but now are they a lawful offspring."
This text has no more relation to baptism, than the first verse of Genesis. But
one place more remains to be considered concerning Paul’s baptizing: Acts,
19:1,8. These twelve men believed, and were baptized unto John’s baptism, I
suppose by apostles, who had not been taught a risen Saviour, nor received the
Holy Ghost in its great effusion. Whether Paul baptized them again, or only
explained John’s baptism to them, is not so certain. When John taught his
disciples, he charged them to believe in one who stood among them, and when they
heard it, they were baptized in the name of Jesus. But if it is true, that
John’s baptism is done away, and that the baptism instituted by Jesus, and
practiced by the apostles, is radically different from that of John, and so
these twelve men were baptized again by Paul, it is no proof at all for the
baptism of infants or unbelievers. If these men were baptized by Paul, they
believed first, as the text is plain; and although they had been baptized by
John, or more likely by apostles, (one of John’s order,) they were not baptized
until they brought forth the fruits of repentance. The opinion of Paul
concerning baptism, may be seen in Romans 6:3-4 - 1 Corinthians 12:13;
Colossians 2:12, where baptism is called a burial; that it represents the death
of Christ, and a putting on of Christ. Now, I appeal to common reason, whether
believers, baptism, by immersion, upon confession of sin, and an annunciation of
a life of obedience to Christ, or infant sprinkling, comes nearest to the sense
of these expressions.

I have proved, and can prove, that persons were forbidden baptism on the claim
of parental holiness, because they did not bring the fruits of repentance with
them; that others were not suffered, until they gave satisfaction of faith in
Christ; that when they were baptized, they went down into the water; that they
were baptized before they came out of the water; that baptism is a burial of the
body; and that, after baptism, they came up out of the water. And, now, if any
man can prove from scripture, that infants were ever baptized upon the faith of
their parents or promises of their gossips, in private houses, or
meeting-houses, by sprinkling water in the face, I will own that they have an
equal authority with us for what they do: otherwise, we shall triumph and say,
that we act according to the scripture, and they according to human tradition.

Some have run into a gross error respecting the baptism of the Holy Ghost;
thinking that nothing more is meant thereby than regeneration. The phrase occurs
six times in the New Testament, and is implied in other places, but always
intends something extraordinary. Zachariah and Elizabeth were filled with the
Holy Ghost, and prophesied, but not in such a manner as to be called a baptism,
and to speak with tongues. The disciples never received this blessing, while
Jesus was with them on earth; he always spoke of it as something to come; and
after his resurrection, he told his disciples plainly, that they should be
baptized with the Holy Ghost and fire in a few days; which was fulfilled, first
at the day of Penticost, and afterwards at particular times, in a wonderful
manner. Some were not baptized until they had thus received the Holy Ghost, and
others were before; but though many were baptized before they were thus
overwhelmed with the spirit, yet none were until they had repentance and faith,
or at least made profession of them.

It is said by some, that baptism, by immersion, before a large congregation,
especially of the female sex, is very indecent. This objection may have weight
with those who are too delicate to obey God rather than man; but will have no
effect with those who simply regard the Bible. Circumcision was performed, not
only on children, but on old Abraham, and upon more than six hundred thousand
men at Gilgal; and the reader may judge for himself, which of the two is more
indecent. If circumcision, therefore, was an institution of heaven, no man can
object to baptism upon the principle of modesty.

Others observe, that, although the scripture says that Jesus was baptized by
John in Jordan, and that Philip, and the eunuch, went down into the water, and
came up out of the water; that nothing more is meant than that they went down to
the water. Although this objection is void of good sense, yet I wish to make a
few remarks upon it. If the observation be true, it is not complied with by any
but the Baptists; other societies never go nigh the water to baptize. I have
never known of an instance of a man, whose faith, in this sense, carried him to
the water-side, but it also led him into the watery tomb. The law of nature, is
one criterion to explain scripture by. When it is said that Jesus went up into
the mountain, nature says, that he went into, or among the trees, or whatever
grew upon the mountain; for into the earth he could not go, without miraculous
power, which we have no reason to think he exercised at that time: that he went
further than the foot of the mountain, is certain, for he went up. Where it is
said that Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, by the law of nature,
the argument turns. A man can no more walk upon the water without sinking, than
he can walk into the earth. This objection is no good criticism, it is mean
pedantry: a desperate subterfuge, to shelter in, for want of plain truth. Can
any man believe it, who is not blinded by tradition, prejudice, or systematical
mists? If he can, he will then believe, that when the hogs ran down into the
sea, and were choked, they only ran to the sea-side, and were choked in the
sand. A like observation is made on Mr 16:16. "He that believeth and is
baptized, shall be saved." The argument is formed thus: that the auxiliary, is,
and the participle, baptized, determine the sentence in the past tense. Why not
then written, "He that believeth, and has been baptized, shall be saved?"

It is not certain that the Jews ever baptized their children; and if they did,
it was one of their vain traditions, for they had no divine command to do so;
and I wish to know who had been in the Gentile world to baptize before the
apostles went thither? Matthew records the same commission: "Go teach all
nations, baptizing them," &c.; and I am inclined to believe that it would puzzle
the greatest scholar in Virginia, to prove that the verb, teach, and participle,
baptizing, place the sentence in the past time.

I confess I am presumptuous enough to say that, let other Christians have ever
so many promises made to them, yet the promise in Mr 16:16, is made to none but
Baptists; and the same is true of Acts 2:38. But the most serious and weighty
objection against believers’ baptism, that I have seen or heard of, is this:
"That many great reformers, and very successful preachers, in past ages, have
believed in, and practised infant sprinkling; and if this was an error, would
not God have convinced them of it, when he was with them, in so great a degree?"
As this objection appears judicious, I shall endeavor to give it a candid
answer.

If our inquiries extend as far back as the first ages of Christianity,
immediately after the close of inspiration, we shall find ourselves upon
disputed ground. Some say that infants were never sprinkled, upon the faith of
their parents, until the third century; others say they were, in the first; and,
if we consider the carelessness of transcribers, and the partiality of
translators, it will not be wondered at. My argument is, that if they were
sprinkled the first day after John finished his Revelations, they had no order
from Jesus, or his apostles, to do so; and, therefore, it was no way valid or
exemplary. The mystery of iniquity began to work, and the man of sin to show his
power, before the apostles were dead; and, by little and little, prevailed over
all Christendom, and sunk the church into the greatest labyrinth of darkness, as
all Protestants confess, which lasted a number of centuries. But in these last
ages of the world, God has raised up men of renown, to reform his people, who
have been successful in their work; and these have, for the most part, believed
in, and practised infant sprinkling.

If we consider the principles of the great reformers, from Luther to the present
day, we shall find no entire uniformity in sentiments; which proves them
fallible, uninspired men. A number of the real, or supposed errors of one
reformation, have been always opposed in the next. That Luther, Calvin,
Zuinglius, Knox, and the English reformers, did much for God, we do not deny;
but what enlightened American would make any of them his complete pattern? If
God never blessed a man, while holding some error, he could never have blessed
but one of them, for no two of them agreed in all things. If the men of one
reformation improve upon the doctrine and forms of a prior reformation, we
cannot think it a piece of arrogance to say that, in point of baptism, all the
Pedobaptist reformers were in an error. The feast of tabernacles was instituted
in the days of Moses. Leviticus 23:38-43. Deuteronomy 16:13. At this feast, the
children of Israel were to dwell in booths; but from the days of Joshua, the son
of Nun, to the days of Nehemiah, this rite was never observed, (Ne 8:13-18,)
which was more than a thousand years; in which time, all the good kings of
Israel, and many prophets of high rank, lived. It is, then, not sophistry, but
honest reasoning, to say, that if there had not been a Baptist in the world,
since John the Divine, it would be no sufficient objection against believers’
baptism by immersion now.

I have human testimony to prove that a number of the reformers were Baptists,
and, particularly, John Wickliff, the great reformer in England, called, by way
of eminence, the Morning Star; but if there never had been one, from the days of
Constantine to the present day, the Scripture is full of proof, that all were of
that order, in the days of Christ and the apostles; at least, no account is
given of any other way of baptizing, save only by immersion, upon profession of
repentance and faith. The argument, to prove infant sprinkling from
circumcision, I have said nothing about. Consequences upon consequences, drawn
from false premises, are used so much in the argument, that it appears foolish
to an accurate mind, and inconclusive to the vulgar. If its advocates can
produce a single text, where the last is a substitute for the first, it will be
worth regarding; otherwise, infant sprinkling may as well be proved from the
Hebrew servant’s ear, that was bored through with an awl.

23. Published in Virginia before the year 1790; the precise year is not known.

24. No notice is taken of Hebrews 6:2, because, it is doubtful whether the word
refers to the Levitical customs of washings, or to the practice of Christians.
The same Greek word is found elsewhere, but differently translated in our
version.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 6: 006 THE VIRGINIA CHRONICLE
========================================================================

THE VIRGINIA CHRONICLE.

PREFACE.

I have neither his Lordship, his Grace, nor his Highness, to dedicate this
little Chronicle unto, for patronage; but, like its author, it must stand upon
its own merits, and like him, it has many imperfections. The piece will in no
wise answer its title, save only in giving an account of the different religious
sects in the state: and, even in this particular, the account is general,
without descending to minute circumstances. To make the pamphlet small, where I
have quoted the words of others, or taken passages out of histories, I have
given the authors no credit. If I have bourne too hard upon the Episcopalians,
it is because they only have been established by law, and I am no great admirer
of legal religion. And even in this point, I hope the note, under the twelfth
head, will sufficiently palliate. In the description of the Baptist principles,
I have sometimes used the plural pronoun, we, us, etc., but if I have
inadvertently misrepresented the general opinion, and only written my own, I I
should be glad to be corrected. A particular narration how the Baptist religion
broke out and spread, and by what means, and marvellous ways God wrought, is
likely to be offered to the world, in a History now preparing by the General
Committee. Although I have presumed to appear in public, yet I will by no means
recall a former observation:

Some books are written in ambition, Others to change a low condition;

Some are th’ effect of pride and spite, And some, perhaps, are written right;
But should the gospel clearly shine, How many books, now call’d divine, Would be
committed to the flames, And authors lose their mighty names. THE VIRGINIA
CHRONICLE 25.

Truth is as essential to history as the soul is to the body. - FREDERICK. In
omnibus rebus magis offendit nimium quam parum. A DESCRIPTION OF VIRGINIA. THIS
state, from the Virgin Queen, (Elizabeth,) is called VIRGINIA. Bounded on the
north, by Maryland, Pennsylvania, etc.; on the west, by the Ohio and the
Mississippi; on the south, by Carolina, and on the east, by the Atlantic. From
east to west, the state is about seven hundred and fifty-eight miles; but from
north to south, it is very unequal, being much wider at the west than at the
east. According to the best calculation of the boundary lines, it includes one
hundred and twenty-one thousand, five hundred and twenty five square miles, or,
seventy-seven million, seven hundred and seventy-six thousand acres. The state
is divided by several ridges of mountains: the Blue Ridge, the North Mountain,
and the Alleghany, are the most notable. Though some mountains are of a greater
altitude from their bases in the two first ridges mentioned, yet the Alleghany
is the ridge-pole of the state. All the waters, east of that mountain, fall into
the Atlantic; and all west of it, fall into the Mississippi, and empty
themselves into the Gulf of Mexico. The state, at present, is divided into
ninety counties, each of which, is entitled to send two delegates to the General
Assembly. There are also, in the state, about one hundred parishes. In England,
there are nine thousand three hundred and forty-eight parishes; in Scotland,
nine hundred and thirty-eight; in Ireland, fifteen hundred and eighty-six; in
all, eleven thousand eight hundred and seventy-two. In some counties, there are
not more than one parish; in others, there are as many as four; in rare
instances, parishes include parts of two counties. Those counties that have been
established since the revolution, have no parishes in them. Under the regal
government, parish-officers provided for the poor, as well as the preachers; but
now, the poor are otherwise provided for, and preachers are not supported by
legal force; and was it not for the preservation of parish property, viz.,
glebes, churches, etc., there would be no need of parish bounds in the state.

NUMBER OF INHABITANTS. IN the year, 1584, Queen Elizabeth, by her letters
patent, licensed Sir Walter Raleigh, to search for remote heathen lands, not
inhabited by Christian people, and sent out two ships, which visited Wococon
Island, in North-Carolina; and the next year he sent one hundred and seven men,
who settled Roanoke Island.

And, in the year, 1586, he sent fifty men more, and in 1587, one hundred and
fifty more, with a governor and twelve assistants, who landed at Hatteras. Sir
Walter being attainted at home, could take no more care of his new colonists;
and what became of them, whether they were devoured by hunger, or wild beasts -
destroyed by savages, or incorporated among them, no mortal man can tell.

But, in 1607, King James executed a new grant of Virginia, to Sir Thomas Gates,
and others, which was superseded, 1609, to the Earl of Salisbury, and others.
The first settlement they made, was at Jamestown, few in number, and surrounded
almost by savage nations; but, by the blessing of God, the little one is become
a strong nation. Mr. Jefferson says, that in 1782, there were in this state,
five hundred and sixty-seven thousand six hundred and fourteen inhabitants, of
every age, sex, and condition. Of which, two hundred and ninety-six thousand
eight hundred and fifty-two, were free, and two hundred and seventy thousand
seven hundred and sixty-two, were slaves; which makes the proportion of slaves
to the free, nearly as ten to eleven. Mr. Randolph, in 1788, stated the round
numbers, thus: three hundred and fifty-two thousand whites, and two hundred and
thirty-six thousand blacks; in all, five hundred and eighty-eight thousand.
According to Mr. Randolph’s statement, from 1782, to 1788, the whites had
increased above fifty-five thousand, but the blacks had decreased about
thirty-four thousand. These gentlemen had both official accounts, being both
governors of Virginia, but the returns from the counties are imperfect, and from
some counties, no returns at all are made to the Executive. According to Mr.
Randolph’s account, the proportion of blacks to the whites, is nearly as two is
to three. To do honor to both these great characters, and to make allowance for
population, and emigration in the west part of the state, since 1788, I conclude
that the number of six hundred thousand inhabitants, is not far from truth. And
to form a compromise between their proportions, ten to eleven, and two to three,
we may suppose that the number of blacks, compared to that of whites, is like
six to seven. By this rule, there are in Virginia, three hundred and
twenty-three thousand and seventy-seven whites, and two hundred and seventy-six
thousand nine hundred and twenty-three blacks. It has been observed, that the
number of acres in Virginia, is seventy-seven million seven hundred and
seventy-six thousand, which, equally divided among the inhabitants, would be
more than one hundred and eleven acres for each soul; which is above thirty
times as much as the nation of Israel had, when they took possession of the
promised land, according to Richard Tyron, Esq. OF THE QUAKERS. THE first
settlers in this state, were emigrants from England, of the English church, just
at a point of time when the Episcopalians were flushed with complete victory
over all other religious persuasions; and having power in their hands, they soon
discovered a degree of intolerance towards others. The oppressed Quakers, flying
from persecution in England, cast their eyes on these colonies, as asylums of
civil and religious liberty, but found them free for none but the reigning
sects. Several acts of the Virginia Assembly, of 1659, 1662, 1693, made it penal
in parents, to refuse to baptize their children; prohibited the unlawful
assembling of Quakers, and made it penal for any master of a vessel to bring a
Quaker into the colony; ordered those already here, and those who should come
thereafter, to be imprisoned till they should abjure the country; provided a
milder punishment for their first and second return, but death for the third;
forbid all persons from suffering Quaker meetings in, or near their houses,
entertaining them individually, or disposing of books that supported their
tenets. It is a satirical saying, that every sect will oppress, when they have
the power in possession, and the saying is too serious as well as satirical.
When we read of the sufferings of the Quakers, or any other society, we can
hardly believe that those oppressed innocents, would ever retaliate, if it was
in their power; much less, that they would ever oppress those who had not
oppressed them; but stubborn fact declares the contrary. I have pretty good
authority, that the Penn Quakers, in Pennsylvania, imprisoned and fined the
Keithian Quakers, in 1692, on account of some religious disputes. What
contributes greatly towards this kind of oppression, is the erroneous scheme of
receiving all the natural offspring into the pales of the church: by this
method, in general, a great majority of the church will be ignorant of the new
birth, and consequently of the nature of the gospel; and therefore, of course,
appeal to the civil law, for protection, which naturally brings on oppression
upon all nonconformists.

Notwithstanding the laws of Virginia were so severe against the Quakers, yet
there is no account that any of them were put to death; and a remnant of them
have continued in Virginia, down to this day, holding the same principles, and
pursuing the same manners, of their brethren in the northern states, and those
in Europe. OF THE SLAVES. THE horrid work of bartering spirituous liquor for
human souls, plundering the African coast, and kidnapping the people, brought
the poor slaves into this state; and, notwithstanding their usage is much better
here than in the West Indies, yet human nature, unbiased by education, shudders
at the sight. They populate as fast as the whites do, and are rather more
healthy, The first republican assembly ever holden in Virginia, passed an act,
utterly prohibiting the importation of any of them into the state. In some
things, they are viewed as human creatures, and in others, only as property;
their true state then, is that of human property. The laws of Virginia, protect
their lives and limbs, but do not protect their skin and flesh. The marriage of
slaves, is a subject, not known in our code of laws. What promises soever they
make, their masters may and do part them at pleasure. If their marriages are as
sacred as the marriages of freemen, the slaves are guilty of adultery, when they
part voluntarily, and the masters are guilty of a sin as great, when they part
them involuntarily; and yet, while they are property, it is not in the power of
the masters to prevent their being forced apart, in numberless instances. The
marriage of a Hebrew servant, with a Canaanitish slave, could be dispensed with,
at the servant’s option, without sin. From this, we should imagine, that there
was little or no validity in the marriage of two slaves; but, if it is
maintained that their marriages are equally binding with the marriages of the
free-born, the inevitable parting of married slaves, holds forth the idea of
slavery in a still more aggravated point of view.

Liberty of conscience, in matters of religion, is the right of slaves, beyond
contradiction; and yet, many masters and overseers will whip and torture the
poor creatures for going to meeting, even at night, when the labor of the day is
over. No longer ago than November, 1788, Mr. - made a motion in the assembly,
for leave to bring in a bill, not only to prevent the assembling of slaves
together, but to fine the masters for allowing it; but, to his great
mortification, it was rejected with contempt. No change is yet discernible among
the negroes in Virginia, in point of color; but the children of the third and
fourth generations retain as much of the jet, as their ancestors did, who were
imported from Africa. The difference of climate, therefore, cannot be the cause
of the difference of colors; and, as they live upon the same kind of food that
the whites do, their diet cannot be the cause of a diversity of color, hair or
shape.

Letters were not much used, if any at all, before the days of Moses;
consequently, 2,500 years elapsed without registers, which answers for our
ignorance of the cause of the many colors, different shapes, and diversity of
hues among the sons of grandfather Adam, and father Noah; and also apologizes
for our uncertainty, how the many islands and continents were peopled, at first,
with those animals that the ark unladed upon the mountains of Ararat. From the
blacks, in Virginia, there have been few Albinos born. These Albinos proceed
from black parents, but are in color like the tawny plastering of a wall,
without any seams in their flesh, or much Cornelian. Their hair, in length and
curl, is like that of blacks, but of a white color; their shape like blacks.
Their eyes are sharp and tremulous, and cannot endure the light of the sun as
well as others, but see better in the night. Some of their children are black,
and others are Albino. I have seen a few of them, and heard of others.

Romulus, the first king of Rome, placed the patricians in the senate, and
divided the plebians into tribes, but as for the slaves, they were not
considered at all, which is true of the slaves in Virginia, as far as it
respects incorporation, but not in every respect. Among us, they are tried
before magistrates and courts, and their evidences are as valid, one against
another, as the testimonies of the free-born are; but the concurring testimony
of a thousand blacks against a white man, is but a cypher in law. If a slave is
ever so much abused by his master, or overseer, with unmerciful tasks, barbarous
chastisement, etc., if his life and limbs are secure, nothing is done to the
abuser. The slave has none to apply to for redress. In our federal government,
the slaves are treated with some more respect than they are in the state
government. Although they have no vote in the choice of representatives to
Congress, yet, according to the census established in the federal constitution,
five of them number equal to three whites, which amounts to this, that a slave
is possessed of three-fifths of a man, and two-fifths of a brute. The state of
slaves is truly pitiable, and that of the master, in some things, more so.
Slaves, drudge and toil for others, and but seldom please them. Men seldom
please themselves, and others are almost sure to displease. When the mind is out
of humor, it always seeks an object to accuse with the cause of its trouble: so
Adam blamed Eve, and Eve the devil. Overseers commonly scold at slaves, let them
do ill or well, from the generally received opinion, that negroes will not bear
good usage; the slave grows heartless, and sinks in despair, and, knowing that
he labors for another, has nothing to stimulate him. The master finds that,
without force, nothing will be done; and, therefore, without rage and lightning
in his eyes, and a lash in his hand, can make him happy, he is sure to be
miserable. If a hard hand and a meek heart, are preferable to a soft hand and a
turbulent, fretted, disappointed heart, the master would be better without them
than with them. The whole scene of slavery is pregnant with enormous evils. On
the master’s side, pride, haughtiness, domination, cruelty, deceit and
indolence; and on the side of the slave, ignorance, servility, fraud, perfidy
and despair. If these, and many other evils, attend it, why not liberate them at
once? Would to Heaven this were done! The sweets of rural and social life will
never be well enjoyed, until it is the case. But the voice of reason, (or
perhaps the voice of covetousness,) says, it is not the work of a day; time is
necessary to accomplish the important work: a political evil requires political
measures to reform. Insurmountable difficulties arise to prevent their freedom.
Can government free them? The laws have declared them property; as such, men
have bought and enjoyed them. Is it not unconstitutional for government to take
away the property of individuals? Can government ransom them? Their number
Isaiah 276,923; if they should be valued at £30 in average, the sum would be
£8,307,690, infinitely beyond what the commonwealth could pay to the holders of
slaves, for their ransom, unless they should be made to ransom themselves in
discount; which would cast an intolerable burthen upon those who, through
conscience or poverty, have none of them in possession.

Some men have almost all their estates in slaves, while the estates of others
are in lands; should the legislature, therefore, force one part of the community
to give up their property, and leave the other part in full possession of all,
would they not be justly accused of injustice?

Others, there are, who owe great sums of money; they were credited upon the
value of their slaves; should their slaves be now emancipated by law, the
creditors would lose their just dues. The custom of the country is such, that,
without slaves, a man’s children stand but a poor chance to marry in reputation.
As futile as this may appear to a foreigner, I am well convinced, that now it is
one of the great difficulties that prevent liberation of slaves among the common
sort. To this I would add, that bad custom has so far prevailed, that it is
looked upon rather mean for a free man to be employed in drudgery. Were they
freed from their masters, without being eligible to any post of honor and
profit, it would only be another name for slavery; and, if they were eligible,
it is not easy to say what governors, legislatures, and judges we should have.
If they were walking at liberty, in every respect, I know not what past injuries
might prompt them to do. And how much mixing of colors in marriage, and how many
forcible debauches there might be, no mortal man can foretell. 26. But one thing
is pretty certain, that fancy can hardly point out, how they could serve the
whites worse than the whites now serve them. Something must be done! May Heaven
point out that something, and may the people be obedient. If they are not
brought out of bondage, in mercy, with the consent of their masters, I think
that they will be, by judgment, against their consent.

It is the peculiarity of God, to bring light out of darkness, good out of evil,
order out of confusion, and make the wrath of man praise him. The poor slaves,
under all their hardships, discover as great inclination for religion as the
freeborn do. When they engage in the service of God, they spare no pains. It is
nothing strange for them to walk twenty miles on Sunday morning to meeting, and
back again at night. They are remarkable for learning a tune soon, and have very
melodious voices.

They cannot read, and therefore, are more exposed to delusion than the whites
are; but many of them give clear, rational accounts of a work of grace in their
hearts, and evidence the same by their lives. When religion is lively, they are
remarkably fond of meeting together, to sing, pray, and exhort, and sometimes
preach, and seem to be unwearied in the exercises. They seem, in general, to put
more confidence in their own color, than they do in the whites. When they
attempt to preach, they seldom fail of being very zealous; their language is
broken, but they understand each other, and the whites may gain their ideas. A
few of them have undertaken to administer baptism, but it generally ends in
confusion. They commonly are more noisy, in time of preaching, than the whites,
and are more subject to bodily exercise, and if they meet with any encouragement
in these things, they often grow extravagant. THE UNIFORMITY OF RELIGION FOR ONE
HUNDRED AND THIRTY YEARS.

UNDER the regal government, the Episcopal form of worship was established by law
in Virginia. The ministers of that order, solemnly affirmed, that they gave
their unfeigned assent and consent to the thirty-nine articles, and book of
common prayer, and declared that they were inwardly moved, by the Holy-Ghost, to
enter upon the work of the ministry; this they avowed at their ordination, and
being consecrated by a spiritual lord in England, they were proper subjects to
fill the vacant, or new created parishes in Virginia. If it could be supposed,
that they were avaricious salary-hunters, they surely had a tempting bait before
them; like the people of old, who said, "put me, I pray thee, into the priest’s
office, that I may have bread to eat. " But, as it is not my wish to inculcate
slander, or raise a mean jealousy in the minds of any, I shall attend to matter
of fact. When an incumbent was inducted into a parish, he was entitled to a
wealthy glebe, having all necessary houses built upon it, at the expense of the
parish, which he held during good behaviour. His fixed salary was sixteen
thousand pounds of tobacco, which was stated at 16s and 8d per hundred, which
made the sum of £133 6s 8d, Virginia currency. He was also entitled to 20s, for
every marriage that he solemnized in the mode of a license, and 5s for every one
by publication. He had a further perquisite of 40s for every funeral sermon that
he preached. His parishioners, were under no legal bonds to have a funeral
sermon preached for their deceased friends, but custom led all persons of
reputation, to request it. Whether it was owing to their superabundant virtue,
or the indolence of the people, or any other cause, it seldom so happened that
they were dismissed from their parishes, after they were once inducted into
them. The king of Britain was the head of that church; every child that was
baptized was a member of it, and no discipline was executed among them but the
civil law. The Quakers were few and peaceable, and, as there were none to oppose
Episcopacy, it may be said, that they enjoyed the full possession of the state,
until about 1740, without having any to call in question their doctrine and
forms of worship. OF THE PRESBYTERIANS. THAT part of Virginia, between the Blue
Ridge and the Alleghany, is peopled in part by emigrants from Pennsylvania, of
Irish extraction, and Presbyterian profession, who, before the middle of this
century, set up their form of worship; but, being in the then frontiers of the
state, were not troubled by government; but the rise and treatment of the
Presbyterians, below the Blue-Ridge, was as follows: A number of persons in the
county of Hanover, grew very uneasy in the state they were in; could not find
that satisfaction, under the preaching of Episcopal ministers, which they
desired, and had no opportunity of hearing any others; but, in the year 1743, a
young gentleman from Scotland, got a book of Mr. Whitfield’s sermons, and one
Mr. Samuel Morris read it, and received great benefit therefrom. He next invited
his neighbours to come and hear the book read, and as the truth had great effect
upon them, Mr. Morris was invited to meet the people at various places, and read
to them, which was much owned and blessed of God; but, for absenting from the
church, they were cited to appear before the court, to assign their reasons, and
declare what denomination they were of. As they were not acquainted with any
dissenters but the Quakers; and as they had heard and read of Luther, the
Reformer, they declared themselves, Lutherans. About this time, Mr. William
Robinson, from a northern Presbytery, travelled through the back parts of
Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina. On his return, he founded
a Presbyterian congregation in the county of Lunenburg, Virginia, and preached,
with great success, in Amelia. The people in Hanover, hearing of him, sent a
messenger, desiring him to come into their Macedonia, and help them.
Accordingly, on July 6th, 1743, he came and preached among them four days, with
remarkable success, and directed them to pray and sing, at their meetings, as
well as read. After him, came Mr. Roan, from the Presbytery of Newcastle, who
was instrumental in spreading the work further around; but, for speaking a
little freely of the degeneracy of the Episcopal clergy in Virginia, he was
accused of speaking blasphemy. A vile wretch, (like Jezebel’s witnesses,)
deposed that he blasphemed God and the clergy, whereupon an indictment was drawn
up; but he was returning to the northward, when the trial came on, no witnesses
appeared against him, so that the indictment fell through. The people in
Hanover, then sent to the Synod of New York, in 1745; the Synod drew an address
to Sir William Gooch, governor of Virginia, and sent it by the Rev. Messrs.
Tennant and Finley. The governor received them very politely, and gave them
license to preach. After they left Virginia, Mr. Morris was several times
presented to the court, and fined, for neglecting the church. Soon after, came
Messrs. William Tennant, and Samuel Blair, and after them, Mr. Whitfield, and
preached among them four or five days. In the spring of the year, 1747, came Mr.
Samuel Davies, in a time of great need. A proclamation was set up at their
meeting-house, obliging all the magistrates to suppress all itinerant preachers;
but, Mr. Davies went to the governor and obtained a license to preach at four
meeting-houses. He moved into Virginia, in 1748, and preached there eleven
years; he had seven meeting-houses, three of them were in Hanover, and four in
the counties of Henrico, Caroline, Goochland, and Louisa. In 1759, he removed
from Virginia to New Jersey, to be President over Nassau Hall College, at
Princeton; but the great and good man, did not live long there, for he departed
this life, February, 176 1.

About the time of the revival, in Hanover, there was a great awakening in
Augusta, under the ministry of Messrs. Dean and Byram, and something of a like
work in Frederick. The Presbyterians are pretty numerous in Virginia; they have
several academies in the state, and one college in Prince Edward, presided over
by Mr. Smith, under whose ministry there has been a sweet revival of religion of
late. Their doctrine and discipline, are too well known to be repeated. They
were all obliged to pay the Episcopal clergymen, as much as if they had been
Episcopalians, until the late Revolution; and, if their preachers solemnized the
rites of matrimony, in the mode of license, the parish preachers claimed and
recovered the fees, as though they had solemnized the rites themselves. The
Presbyterians indulge, perhaps, in too much mirth at their houses, yet, it may
be said in truth, that they have the best art of training up children, in good
manners, of any society in the state. OF THE METHODISTS. THE Methodists took
their rise in England, fifty or sixty years ago; but what concerns us at
present, is to consider their rise and spread in America, and particularly in
Virginia, which was as follows:

About 1764, Philip Embury, a local preacher, from Ireland, came to New York, and
formed a society, of his own countrymen, and others. About the same time, Robert
Strawbridge, another local preacher, from Ireland, settled in Frederick county,
in Maryland, and formed a few societies. In 1769, Richard Boardman, and Joseph
Pilmoor, came to New York, who were the first regular Methodist preachers on the
continent. In 1771, Francis Asbury, and Richard Wright, came over, and many
classes were formed, and many ministers were raised up among them. From their
first rise in America, until 1784, they called themselves the members of the
church of England, and went to the Episcopal ministers for baptism and the
eucharist.

They never spread much in Virginia, till about 1775. Since that time, they have
spread so much, that they have a sprinkling all over the state, and, in some
counties, are numerous. In 1784, Rev. Thomas Coke came over from England, having
authority from Mr. John Wesley, (the first founder of the society,) to organize
the Methodists into a distinct church. Pursuant thereto, Mr. Francis Asbury was
ordained superintendant, and a number of elders and deacons were consecrated for
inferior services. Their number, on the continent, is above forty-three
thousand, and they have been the most fortunate, in increasing their number of
preachers, of any society in Virginia. They deny the doctrine of predestination,
according to the Calvanistic explanation; hold that Christ died for all Adam’s
progeny; believe that, after men are converted and sanctified, they may fall
away, and be finally damned; their doctrine, in fine, is Arminian, their
magazine bears the name. Their ministers are very constant preachers, and they
exceed all societies in the state, in spreading their books and written tenets
among the people. They generally baptize by sprinkling, but their rules allow of
pouring or immersion. 27. OF THE TUNKERS

THERE are a few Tunkers and Mennonists in Virginia, and, as it is the design of
this chronicle to treat of all the religious sects in the state, I shall give an
account of their first rise and peculiarities. First of the Tunkers. The Germans
sound the letter t like d, for which reason they are called Dunkers, which name
signifies Sops or Dippers. They first arose in Schwardznau, in the year 1708.
Seven religious neighbors, chiefly Presbyterians, consorted together, to read
the Bible, and edify each other in the way that they had been brought up, having
never heard that there was a Baptist in the world. However, being convinced of
believers’ baptism, and congregational government, they desired Alexander Mack
to baptize them, which he objected to, considering himself unbaptized; upon
which they cast lots for an administrator.28. Upon whom the lot fell, has been
cautiously concealed; but baptized they were, in the river Eder, by
Schwardzenau, and then formed themselves into a church, choosing Alexander Mack
for their minister. As God prospered their labors, and made them increase, both
in members and preachers, so Satan raised persecution against them. Some fled to
Holland, and some to Creyfelt; and the mother church voluntarily removed to
Frizland, and thence to America. In 1719, and in 1729, those of Holland and
Creyfelt followed them. In Pennsylvania, Maryland, etc., there is a considerable
number of them; and a few from those states have found their way into Virginia.
They hold that Christ not only died for all Adam’s race, but that he will
finally restore all to glory. They practise trine-immersion in baptism; leading
the candidate into the water, he kneels down, and the minister dips him, face
downward, first in the name of the Father, then in the name of the Son, and then
in the name of the Holy Ghost; which being done, while he continues on his
knees, the minister imposes hands upon his head, prays, and then leads them out.
They also practise washing of feet, anointing the sick with oil, and the holy
kiss. They will neither swear, fight, nor keep slaves. They make little or no
use of the civil law, and take no use for money. As Christians, they live
mortified, self-denying lives; and, as citizens, they are patterns of peace;
well deserving their common title - harmless Tunkers. OF THE MENNONISTS. THE
Mennonists derive their name from Menno Simon. He was born in the year 1505 -
got into orders in 1528 - continued a famous preacher and disputer till 1531. He
then began to question the validity of many things in the church of Rome, and
among the rest, infant baptism; but neither the doctors of his order, nor those
of the Protestant faith, gave him the satisfaction he wished for. He finally
embraced believers’ baptism, and continued preaching and planting churches in
the low countries for thirty years, and died in peace, January 31, 1561. Menno
was dipped himself, and dipped others, and so did his successors, except when
they were in prison, or were hindered from going to the water, and then pouring
was practised. What they used in Europe, only of necessity, is become the only
mode practised by them in America. They hold a profession of faith a
prerequisite to baptism, which, in Virginia, is made by learning to answer a
number of questions. The candidate being received, kneels down before the
minister, and water is poured on his head; after which, follow imposition of
hands and prayer. They believe the doctrine of universal provision, but not the
doctrine of universal restitution; they are equally conscientious of swearing
and bearing arms, with the Quakers and Tunkers. The only Virginia Baptist church
that I know of in the state, that refuse to bear arms, or take an oath before a
magistrate, is one in Shenandoah; the chiefest of whom, are the natural
descendants of the Mennonists. In worship and discipline, they are like other
Baptists in the state; but some peculiarities of the Mennonists, keep them from
uniting. The Tunkers and Mennonists seem to be more consistent with themselves
than the Quakers, in disusing the law as well as arms. Perhaps the reason is,
because the two first have been small, persecuted societies, and have learned to
bear affliction patiently, and have but little to do with mankind; but should
they undertake to settle a colony themselves, as the Quakers did Pennsylvania,
it is probable that they would see the necessity of civil law. Civil government
is certainly a curse to mankind; but it is a necessary curse, in this fallen
state, to prevent greater evils. It is yet a question, whether the good Quakers
have a sufficient reason for using the law, and not appealing to arms. If an
internal foe arises, and kills a man, they execute the law, and hang the
murderer; but if external foes invade, and kill and burn all before them, no
means must be used to bring them to punishment. Is it bad reasoning to say, that
when innocency is injured, it appeals first to law for redress; but if it finds
no redress at law, it finally appeals to arms? The law of a state, is the
compact of citizens in the state, and the law of nations in confederation, is
the compact of bodies of men; and why the violators of one should be punished,
and the breakers of the other pass with impunity, is not so easily answered. If
all nations were true to their engagements, there would be no war in the world;
so, if all the citizens in a state, lived agreeable to the laws of it, there
would be no punishment. If there was no sin in the world, there would be no laws
needed. The more virtuous people are, the more liberal their laws should be; but
the more vicious the people are, the more severe the laws must be, to restrain
their unruly passions. Where rulers are more virtuous than the people, the more
independent and important the rulers are, the better for the people; but where
the people are more virtuous than the magistrates, magistrates should be
dependant on, and responsible to the people. As it is generally seen that the
people are more virtuous than those in power; consequently, a republican,
responsible government is best. Great salaries given to officers, are as
dangerous to the good of the community, as no salaries are. Great salaries
stimulate avaricious men, to make use of undue means to acquire those offices,
while men of real merit feel a disgust to prey so much upon the industrious.
Incompetent salaries, disable men of small forturnes from filling those offices
their real merit entitles them to, and consequently fix government in the hands
of the rich, who generally feel more for themselves, than they do for the poor.
To fix salaries high enough, and not too high, is the work of the wise; and to
give power enough to men to do good, and yet have it so counterpoised, that they
can do no harm, is a line so difficult to be drawn, that it has never yet been
done. OF THE BAPTISTS. THE Baptists took their rise in Virginia, before the
Methodists; but, as I purpose to treat more largely on the doctrine and forms of
the Baptists, than I have done on other societies, I have reserved them for the
last.

There were a few Baptists in Virginia, before the year, 1760, but they did not
spread, so as to be taken notice of by the people, much less by the rulers, till
after that date. About the year, 1764, they prevailed so much, that, in the year
following, they formed an Association, called, "the Ketocton Regular Baptist
Association." 29. From 1764, to 1774, the Baptists spread over the greatest part
of the state that was peopled. Several ministers, of that order came from
Pennsylvania and the Jerseys, and settled in the northern parts of the state,
and others were raised up in the southern parts, who travelled about, and
preached like the old Baptist, John, "repent, for the kingdom of Heaven is at
hand," and great numbers of the people went out unto them, and were baptized,
confessing their sins. Many of the young converts caught the spirit of their
teachers, and zealously engaged in the work. In a course of time, the fires from
the northern preachers, and those in the south, met, like the two seas, in St.
Paul’s shipwreck, in Orange county, 1767. Two or three ministers, from each
side, assembled in conference, but did not so happily unite, as candor desired.
A division took place. The northern members called themselves, "Regular
Baptists," and the southern members called themselves, "Separate Baptists;" and,
if some alienation of affection did not attend this division, in some instances,
it was because they were free from those temptations that have always mingled
with religious divisions, and if there was not a little zeal discovered to
proselyte, as well as convert the people, I have been wrongly informed. The
Regulars, adhered to a confession of faith, first published in London, 1689, and
afterwards adopted by the Baptist Association of Philadelphia, in 1742; but the
Separates had none but the Bible. Just upon the spot of ground where the
division took place, the members knew something of the cause; but those who
lived at a distance, were ignorant of the reason, and whenever they met, they
loved each other as brethren, and much deplored that there should be any
distinction, or shyness among them. The Separates, who also formed an
association, increased much the fastest, both in ministers and members, and
occupied, by far, the greatest territory. The Regulars were orthodox Calvanists,
and the work under them was solemn and rational; but the Separates were the most
zealous, and the work among them was very noisy. The people would cry out, "fall
down," and, for a time, lose the use of their limbs; which exercise made the
bystanders marvel; some thought they were deceitful, others, that they were
bewitched, and many being convinced of all, would report that God was with them
of a truth. THE PERSECUTION OF THE BAPTISTS.

SOON after the Baptist ministers began to preach in Virginia, the novelty of
their doctrine, the rarity of mechanics and planters preaching such strange
things,30. and the wonderful effect that their preaching had on the people,
called out multitudes to hear them - some out of curiosity, some in sincerity,
and some in ill will. Their doctrine, influence and popularity, made them many
enemies; especially among those who value themselves most for religion in the
Episcopal mode. The usual alarm of the Church and State being in danger, was
echoed through the colony; nor were the Episcopal clergymen so modest, but what
they joined the alarm; like the silversmiths of old, crying "our craft is in
danger of being set at naught." Magistrates began to issue their warrants, and
sheriffs had their orders to take up the disturbers of the peace. The county of
Spottsylvania took the lead, and others soon followed their example. Preaching,
teaching, or exhorting, was what disturbed the peace. A like work disturbed the
peace of Satan, when he cried out, "let us alone." Sometimes, when the preachers
were brought before the courts, they escaped the prison by giving bonds and
security, that they would not preach in the county in the term of one year; but
most of them preferred the dungeon to such bonds. Not only ministers were
imprisoned, but others, for only praying in their families, with a neighbor or
two. The act of toleration, passed in the first of William and Mary’s reign,
afforded the suffering brethren some relief. By applying to the general court,
and subscribing to all the thirty-nine articles, saving the thirty-fourth,
thirty-fifth, and thirty-sixth, together with one clause in the twentieth, and
part of the twenty-seventh, they obtained license to preach at certain
stipulated places; 31. but, if they preached at any other places, they were
exposed to be prosecuted.

Some of the prisoners would give bonds not to preach, and as soon as they were
freed, would immediately preach as before. This was done, when they had reason
to believe that the court would never bring suit upon the bonds. I have never
heard of but one such suit in the state, and that one was dismissed. The
ministers would go singing from the court-house to the prison, where they had,
sometimes, the liberty of the bounds, and at other times they had not. They used
to preach to the people through the grates: to prevent which, some ill-disposed
men would be at the expense of erecting a high wall around the prison; others,
would employ half drunken strolls to beat a drum around the prison to prevent
the people from hearing. Sometimes, matches and pepper-pods were burnt at the
prison-door, and many such afflictions the dear disciples went through. About
thirty of the preachers were honored with a dungeon, and a few others beside.
Some of them were imprisoned as often as four times, besides all the mobs and
perils they went through. The dragon roared with hideous peals, but was not red
- the Beast appeared formidable, but was not scarlet colored. Virginia soil has
never been stained with vital blood for conscience sake. Heaven has restrained
the wrath of man, and brought auspicious days at last. We now sit under our
vines and fig-trees, and there is none to make us afraid. THE REASONS OF THEIR
DISSENT. BUT why this schism? says an inquisitor. If the people were disposed to
be more devotional than they had been before, why not be devout in the church in
which they had been raised, without rending themselves off, and procuring so
much evil unto themselves? This question may be answered in part, by asking a
similar one. Why did the Episcopal church rend off from the church of Rome, in
the Reformation? Why not continue in that church, and worship in her mode? What
necessity for that schism, which occasioned so much war and persecution? If we
are to credit Frederick, in his "Memoirs of the House of Brandenburg," the cause
of the Reformation was, in England, the love of a woman - in Germany, the love
of gain - in France, the love of novelty, or a song. But can the church of
England offer no other reason for her heretical schism, but the love of a woman?
Undoubtedly she can: she has done it, and we approve of her reason; but after
all, she is not so pure in her worship, but what we have many reasons for
dissenting from her. Some of which are as follows:

1. No national church, can, in its organization, be the Gospel Church. A
national church takes in the whole nation, and no more; whereas, the Gospel
Church, takes in no nation, but those who fear God, and work righteousness in
every nation. The notion of a Christian commonwealth, should be exploded
forever, without there was a commonwealth of real Christians. Not only so, but
if all the souls in a government, were saints of God, should they be formed into
a society by law, that society could not be a Gospel Church, but a creature of
state.

2. The church of England, in Virginia, has no discipline but the civil law. The
crimes of their delinquent members are tried in a court-house, before the judges
of the police, their censures are laid on at the whipping-post, and their
excommunications are administered at the gallows. In England, if a man cast
contempt upon the spiritual court, the bishop delegates a grave priest, who,
with his chancellor, excommunicate him. The man thus excommunicated, is by law,
disabled from being a plaintiff or witness in any suit. But for heresy, incest
or adultery, the bishop himself pronounces the exclusion. The outcast, is not
only denied the company of Christians, in spiritual duties, but also, in
temporal concerns. He not only is disabled from being plaintiff or witness in
any suit, (and so deprived of the protection of the law,) but if he continues
forty-days an excommunicant, a writ comes against him, and he is cast into
prison, without bail, and there continues until he has paid the last mite. Mrs.

Trask was judged a heretick, because she believed in the Jewish Sabbath, and for
that, she was imprisoned sixteen years, until she died; but a Gospel Church has
nothing to do with corporeal punishments. If a member commits sin, the church is
to exclude him, which is as far as church power extends. If the crime is
cognizable by law, the culprit must bear what the law inflicts. In the church of
England, ecclesiastical and civil matters are so blended together, that I know
not who can be blamed for dissenting from her.

3. The manner of initiating members into the church of England, is arbitrary and
tyrannical. The subject, (for a candidate I cannot call him,) is taken by force,
brought to the priest, baptized, and declared a member of the church. The little
Christian shows all the aversion he is capable of, by cries and struggles, but
all to no purpose; ingrafted he is; and, when the child grows up, if he differs
in judgment from his father and king, he is called a dissenter, because he is
honest, and will not say that he believes what he does not believe; and, as
such, in England, can fill no post of honor or profit. Here, let it be observed,
that religion is a matter entirely between God and individuals. No man has a
right to force another to join a church; nor do the legitimate powers of civil
government extend so far as to disable, incapacitate, proscribe, or in any way
distress, in person, property, liberty or life, any man who cannot believe and
practice in the common road. A church of Christ, according to the Gospel, is a
congregation of faithful persons, called out of the world by divine grace, who
mutually agree to live together, and execute gospel discipline among them; which
government, is not national, parochial, or presbyterial, but congregational.

4. The church of England has a human head. Henry VIII. cast off the Pope’s yoke,
and was declared head of the church, 1533; which title, all the kings of England
have borne since; but the Gospel Church, acknowledges no head but King Jesus: He
is lawgiver, king, and judge - is a jealous God, and will not give his glory
unto another.

5. The preachers of that order, in Virginia, for the most part, not only plead
for theatrical amusements, and what they call civil mirth, but their preaching
is dry and barren, containing little else but morality. The great doctrines of
universal depravity, redemption by the blood of Christ, rengeneration, faith,
repentance and self-denial, are but seldom preached by them, and, when they
meddle with them, it is in such a superficial manner, as if they were nothing
but things of course.

6. Their manner of visiting the sick, absolving sins, administering the Lord’s
supper to newly married couples, burying the dead, sprinkling children with
their gossips, promises, cross, etc., are no ways satisfactory, and, as they
were handed to us through the force of law, we reject them in toto. These are
some of the reasons we have for dissenting from the Episcopalians in Virginia,
and though they may not be sufficient to justify our conduct, in the opinion of
others, yet they have weight with us. 32.

THREE GREAT PRINCIPLES.

THERE are three grand, leading principles, which divide the Christian world: I
say leading principles - for each of them is subdivided into a number of
peculiarities; these three, I shall call fate, free-will, and restitution.

1st. Fate. Those who believe this doctrine, say, that God eternally ordained
whatsoever comes to pass: that if the minutest action should be done that God
did not appoint, it would not only prove a world of chance, but create an
uneasiness in the Divine mind; that providence and grace are stewards, to see
that all God’s decrees are fulfilled. Sometimes a distinction is made between
God’s absolute and permissive decrees; that God absolutely decreed the good, and
permissively decreed the evil. Other times it is stated thus: that upon the
principle of God’s knowing all things, every thing comes to pass of necessity.
With this sentiment, most commonly, is connected the doctrine of particular
redemption: that Jesus Christ undertook for a certain number of Adam’s progeny,
and for them alone he died; that those for whom he died, shall be called, by
irresistible grace, to the knowledge of the Truth and be saved; that if one of
these, whom he chose and redeemed, should miss of Heaven, his will would be
frustrated, and his blood lost. And as this, at first view, seems to excuse the
non-elect for not believing in the Mediator, it is sometimes said that Jesus
died virtually for all, but intentionally for a few. Others, who disdain such
pitiful shifts, say, that the want of the faith of God’s elect, is no sin; that
justice cannot require a man to have a more divine life than Adam possesed in
Eden; that if we, as rational creatures, do not believe as much as Adam could
have believed in innocency, when revealed to us, that we are guilty of the sin
of unbelief; but that the law cannot require us to believe in a Mediator, and
therefore, the want of that faith is not a sin. Those who adhere to this
principle, are called, Fatalists, Predestinarians, Calvanists, Supralapsarians,
etc.

2d. Free-Will. Those who adopt this principle, affirm that God eternally decreed
to establish the freedom of the human will. That if men are necessary agents,
the very idea of virtue and vice is destroyed; that the more angels and men are
exalted in their creation, in the state of free agency, the greater was the
probability of their falling; that sin could never have entered into the world,
upon any other footing; that if man does what he cannot avoid, it is no
rebellion in the creature; that God never offers violence to the human will, in
the process of grace; that Christ has fulfilled the law, which all were under-
bore the curse for all - spilt his blood for all - makes known his grace to all
- gives to each a talent - bids all improve - and finally, that if men are
damned, it will not be for the want of a Saviour; but for refusing to obey him,
damned for unbelief, and that those who are damned will have their torment
augmented for refusing an offered Saviour. Some, who adhere to this doctrine,
believe that when men are once born again, that they can never perish, and
others believe, that there is no state so secure, in this world, but what men
may fall from it into eternal damnation. The advocates for the above sentiment,
are called Arminians, Free-willers, Universal Provisionists, etc.

3d. Restitution. Those who espouse this sentiment, declare that God eternally
designed to save all men; that he made them to enjoy him for ever, and that he
will not be frustrated - that Christ died for all, and will not lose his blood -
that if more souls are lost than saved, Satan will have the greatest triumph,
and sin have a more boundless reign than grace - that if even one soul should be
miserable, world without end, the sting of death and the victory of the grave
would never be destroyed - that Jesus will reign till all his foes, even the
last enemy, shall be rooted up - that he will reconcile all things unto himself,
and make all things new - that every creature in heaven, in earth, and under the
earth, shall join in the celestial doxology. But those who hold this doctrine
are equally perplexed and divided, with those who believe the two
before-mentioned principles.

Some of them extend the doctrine to fallen angels, others confine it to the
human race - some believe there will be no punishment after death, others
conclude that torment will be infflicted in Hades, upon rebellious souls, even
until the resurrection of the body; and others think that they will not all be
restored, till the expiration of several periodical eternities. Those who avow
this doctrine, are called Universalists, Hell-Redemptioners, &c.

Whether it is a blessing or a curse to mankind, it is a certain truth, that the
theoretic principles of men, have but little effect upon their lives. I know men
of all the before-written doctrines that equally seem to strive to glorify God,
in the way which they conceive will do it the most effectually. It is no novelty
in the world, for men of different sentiments, to stigmatize the doctrines of
each other, with being pregnant with dangerous consequences; but it is not the
doctrine or system that a man believes, that makes him either a good or bad man,
but the SPIRIT he is governed by. It is a saying among lovers, that "love will
triumph over reason," and it is as true, that the disposition of the heart will
prevail over the system of the head. The third principle, mentioned above, has
few, if any, vouchers among the Baptists in Virginia; but the two first spoken
of, divide counties, churches and families, which, about the year 1775, raised a
great dispute in Virginia, and finally split the Separate Baptists, which
division continued several years; but, after both parties had contested till
their courage grew cool, they ceased their hostilities, grounded their arms, and
formed a compromise upon the middle ground, of "think and let think;" and ceded
to each other its territory and liberty.

I am acquainted with men of all these principles, who are equally assured they
are right. No doubt they are right in their own conceits, and they may be all
right in their aims; but I am assured they are not all right in their systems;
and far enough from being right, when they bitterly condemn each other. OF
MARRIAGE.

IT is a question, not easily answered, whether marriage was appointed by the
Divine Parent, merely for the propagation of the human species, or for the
education of children. Whether one or the other, or both were reasons of the
institution, it certainly was appointed by God, honored by Jesus, and declared
to be honorable unto all by St. Paul. What lies before me at present, is to
consider the mode of marriage, in Virginia, before the late revolution, and the
alterations that have since taken place.

Under the regal government, the rites of matrimony were solemnized two ways. The
first, and most reputable way, was this: From the clerk’s office, in the county
where the bride lived, a license was issued to the bridegroom, which cost twenty
shillings, which was a perquisite of the governor; and fifty pounds of tobacco
for the fee of the clerk, which raised the price to a guinea. This license was
delivered to the clergyman on the wedding day, for his security; and for
solemnizing the rites, he was entitled to twenty shillings. This way of getting
wives, was too expensive for the poor, and, therefore, another mode was
prescribed by law, as an alternative. The clergyman published the banns of
marriage on three holy days, for which he was entitled to eighteen pence, and
for joining such couples together he was entitled to five shillings. The
Presbyterian ministers sometimes solemnized the rites; but if it was by a
license, the parish preacher claimed and recovered his fee, as though he had
solemnized the rites himself. After the declaration of independence, in 1780, an
act passed the general assembly to authorise as many as four ministers in each
county, of each denomination, to solemnize the rites; but the act was so partial
that some would not qualify, others took what indulgence the act gave, and still
petitioned for equal liberty. The Episcopal clergymen were allowed to join
people together in any part of the state, while others were circumscribed by
county bounds. In 1784, this partiality was removed, and all ministers were set
on a level. By presenting credentials of their ordination, and a recommendation
of their good character in the society where they are members, and also giving
bond and security to the court of the county where they reside, they receive
testimonials, signed by the senior magistrate, to join together any persons who
legally apply in any part of the state. Publication is now abolished. From the
county in which the bride resides, a license is issued out of the clerk’s
office, which costs the groom fifteen pence; this license is given to the
preacher, for his security; and for joining them to-?ether, he is entitled to
five shillings. The preacher is under bonds to ertify the clerk, from whom the
license came, of the solemnization; and the clerk, for registering the
certificate, is entitled to fifteen pence more: so that it costs but seven
shillings and six pence to get a wife in these days. THE DECLENSION AMONG THE
BAPTISTS. A REVIEW of head eleven, informs us what persecution the Baptist
preachers were subject to, which continued in some counties until the
revolution. Upon the declaration of independence, and the establishment of a
republican form of government, it is not to be wondered at that the Baptists so
heartily and uniformly engaged in the cause of the country against the king. The
change suited their political principles, promised religious liberty, and a
freedom from ministerial tax; nor have they been disappointed in their
expectations. In 1776, the salaries of the Episcopal clergymen were suspended,
which was so confirmed in 1779, that no legal force has ever been used since to
support any preachers in the state. But as they gained this piece of freedom, so
the cares of war, the spirit of trade, and moving to the western waters, seemed
to bring on a general declension. The ways of Zion mourned. They obtained their
hearts’ desire, (freedom,) but had leanness in their souls. Some of the old
watch-men stumbled and fell, iniquity did abound, and the love of many waxed
cold. But the declension was not so total, but what God showed himself gracious
in some places; his blessings, like small showers in the drought of summer, were
scattered abroad. Delegates from the churches assembled in association once or
twice in each year; but so much of the time was taken up in considering what
means had best be used to obtain and preserve equal liberty with other
societies, that many of the churches were discouraged in sending delegates. Many
of the ministers removed from their churches, to Kentucky, and left their
scattered flocks, like a cottage in the vineyard, like a lodge in a garden of
cucumbers. In this point of view was the Baptist Society in Virginia, at the
close of the war, and the return of auspicious peace.

October, 1783, was the last General Association the Separate Baptists ever had.
They divided into four or five districts; but to maintain a friendly
correspondence, and be helpers to each other, in a political way, they
established a General Committee, to be composed of delegates sent from each
distinct Association, to meet annually. Not more than four delegates from one
Association are entitled to seats. This committee give their opinion on all
queries sent to them from any of the Associations, originate all petitions to be
laid before the legislature of the state, and consider the good of the whole
society. It may be here noted, that the General Committee, as well as the
Associations, exercise no lordship over the churches - all they attempt is
advice, which is generally received by the churches in a cordial manner. Should
they attempt any thing more, without legal authority, they would appear
ridiculous; and with legal authority, they would grow tyrannical. Of this
Committee, the regular Baptist Association became a member. In 1784, the
Episcopal society was legally incorporated, and such exertions were made for a
general assessment, to oblige all the citizens in the state to pay some
preacher, that a bill for that purpose passed two readings; but the final
determination of the bill was postponed until November, 1785; when the time
came, the Presbyterians, Baptists, Quakers, Methodists,33. Deists, and covetous,
made such an effort against the bill, that it fell through. In 1786, the act,
incorporating the Episcopal society was repealed; but in 1788, their trustees
were legalized to manage the property, which is the state of things at this
time.

Several attempts were made, at different times, to unite the Regular and
Separate Associations together, but all proved in vain, until August, 1787, when
they united upon the principle of receiving the confession of faith, before
mentioned, as containing the great essential doctrines of the gospel, yet, not
in so strict a sense, that all are obliged to believe everything therein
contained. 34. At the same time, it was agreed, that the appellations, Regular
and Separate, should be buried in oblivion, and that in future they should be
called "the United Baptist Churches of Christ in Virginia." THE GREAT WORK. THE
first part of the last head gives an account of the declension of religion among
the Baptists, which continued until 1785. In the summer of that year, the
glorious work of God broke out, on the banks of James River, and from thence has
spread almost over the state. In treating of this great revival, I shall not
write as a divine, a philosopher, or an opposer, but solely as an historian. In
the greatest part of the meetings, when religion is low among the people, there
is no unusual appearance among them; a grave countenance, a solemn sigh, or a
silent tear, is as much as is seen or heard, and sometimes a great degree of
inattention and carelessness: but in times of reviving it is quite otherwise, in
most places. It is nothing strange, to see a great part of the congregation fall
prostrate upon the floor or ground; many of whom, entirely loose the use of
their limbs for a season. Sometimes numbers of them are crying out at once, some
of them, in great distress, using such language as this:

"God, be merciful to me a sinner - Lord, save me or I must perish - what shall I
do to be saved?" etc. Others breaking out in such rapturous expressions as
these: "Bless the Lord, O my soul! O, sweet Jesus, how I love thee! - Let
everything that hath breath praise the Lord! - O, sinners! come, taste and see
how good the Lord is! " etc.

I have seen such exercise, and heard such melody for several hours together. At
Associations, and great meetings, I have seen numbers of ministers and
exhorters, improving their gifts at the same time. Such a heavenly confusion
among the preachers, and such a celestial discord among the people, destroy all
articulation, so that the understanding is not edified; but the awful echo,
sounding in the ears, and the objects in great distress, and great raptures,
before the eyes, raise great emotion in the heart. Some of the ministers rather
oppose this work, others call it a little in question, and some fan it with all
their might. Whether it be celestial or terrestial, or a complication of both,
it is observed by the candid that more souls get first awakened at such
meetings, than at any meetings whatever, who afterwards give clear, rational
accounts of a divine change of heart. This exercise is not confined to the newly
convicted, and newly converted, but persons who have been professors a number of
years, at such lively meetings, not only jump up, strike their hands together,
and shout aloud, but will embrace one another, and fall to the floor. I have
never known the rules of decency broken so far as for persons of different
sexes, thus to embrace and fall at meetings. It is not to be understood that
this exercise is seen in all parts of the state, at times when God is working on
the minds of the people. No, under the preaching of the same man, in different
neighborhoods and counties, the same work, in substance, has different exterior
effects. At such times of revival, it is wonderful to hear the sweet singing
among the people, when they make melody in their hearts and voices to the Lord.
In the last great ingathering, in some places, singing was more blessed among
the people than the preaching was. What Mr. Jonathan Edwards thought might be
expedient in some future day, has been true in Virginia. Bands go singing to
meeting, and singing home. At meeting, as soon as preaching is over, it is
common to sing a number of spiritual songs; sometimes several songs are sounding
at the same time, in different parts of the congregation. I have travelled
through neighborhoods and counties at times of refreshing, and the spiritual
songs in the fields, in the shops and houses, have made the heavens ring with
melody over my head; but, as soon as the work is over, there is no more of it
heard. Dr. Watts is the general standard for the Baptists in Virginia; but they
are not confined to him; any spiritual composition answers their purpose. A
number of hymns originate in Virginia, although there is no established poet in
the state. Some Virginia songs have more divinity in them, than poetry or
grammar; and some that I have heard have but little of either.

Candidates generally make confession of their faith before the whole assembly
present; but, sometimes there are so many to offer, that the church divides into
several bodies, each of which acts for the whole, and receives by the right hand
of fellowship. At times appointed for baptism, the people generally go singing
to the water-side, in grand procession: I have heard many souls declare they
first were convicted, or first found pardon going to, at, or coming from the
water. If those who practice infant baptism can say as much, it is no wonder
they are so fond of it. Forty, fifty, and sixty have often been baptized in a
day, at one place, in Virginia, and sometimes as many as seventy-five. There are
some ministers now living in Virginia, who have baptized more than two thousand
persons. It is said that St. Austin baptized ten thousand in the dead of winter,
in the river Swale, in England, in the year 595. I have seen ice cut more than a
foot thick, and people baptized in the water, and yet I have never heard of any
person taking cold, or any kind of sickness, in so doing. And strange it is that
Mr. Wesley should recommend cold bathing for such a vast number of disorders,
and yet be so backward to administer it for the best purpose, viz., to fulfil
righteousness. THE NUMBER OF BAPTISTS.

THERE are in Virginia, at this time, about one hundred and fifty ordained
preachers of the Baptist denomination, and a number besides who exercise a
public gift; but in the late great additions that have been made to the
churches, there are but few who have engaged in the work of the ministry.
Whether it is because the old preachers stand in the way, or whether it is
because the people do not pray the Lord of the harvest to thrust out laborers,
or whether it is not rather a judgment of God upon the people, for neglecting
those who are already in the work, not communicating to them in all good things,
35. I cannot say; but so it is, that but few appear to be advancing, to supply
the places of the old ones, upon their decease.

There are also about two hundred and two churches. The exact number of members I
cannot ascertain. Between Potomac and James rivers, are nine thousand; and as
there is about the same number of preachers and churches, between James river
and North Carolina, together with some good account, I judge there are as many
as nine thousand south of James river. Upon the western waters, in Kentucky,
there are thirty-one churches, divided into three Assaciations. In one of them,
there were one thousand members, May, 1789. In another, there is about the same
number; but, lest I should swell my numbers too high, I will add the little
Association, at the falls of Ohio, containing five churches, to make the round
number of two thousand in Kentucky; and, as there are a few Baptists between the
Alleghany and Kentucky, I conclude the sum of twenty thousand is a moderate
estimate. These churches are classed into eleven Associations, nine of which
correspond in the General Committee. For the ease of the eye, they are stated in
the following table:- 1 General Committee

11 Associations

202 Churches 150 Ministers, 36.

20,000 Members The number of communicants compose but a small part of those who
commonly attend Baptist worship. It will not appear extravagant, to those who
are generally acquainted in the state, to say that, taking one part of the state
with another, there are more people who attend the Baptist worship, than any
kind of worship in the state. OF DRESS.

UPON the first rise of the Baptists in Virginia, they were very strict in their
dress. Men cut off their hair, like Cromwell’s round-headed chaplains, and women
cast away all their superfluities; so that they were distinguished from others,
merely by their decoration. Where all were of one mind, no evil ensued; but
where some did not choose to dock and strip, and churches made it a matter of
discipline, it made great confusion for no standard could be found in the Bible,
to measure their garments by. No doubt, dressing, as well as eating and
drinking, can be carried to excess; but it appears to be a matter between God
and individuals; for, whenever churches take it up, the last evil is worse than
the first. This principle prevailed until the war broke out, at which time the
Baptist mode took the lead. Those who went into the army, cut off their hair,
and those who stayed at home, were obliged to dress in home-spun. Since the
return of peace, and the opening of the ports, the uniformity between the
Baptists and others, in point of clothing, still exists; notwithstanding the
great work of conversion there has been in the state, but very little is said
about rending garments; those who behave well, wear what they please, and meet
with no reproof. THE EXCESS OF CIVIL POWER EXPLODED. THE principle, that civil
rulers have nothing to do with religion in their official capacities, is as much
interwoven in the Baptist plan, as Phydias’s name was in the shield. The
legitimate powers of government extend only to punish men for working ill to
their neighbors, and no way affect the rights of conscience. The nation of
Israel received their civil and religious laws from Jehovah, which were binding
on them, and no other; and with the extirpation of that nation, were abolished.
For a Christian commonwealth to be established upon the same claim, is very
presumptuous, without they have the same charter from Heaven. Because the nation
of Israel had a divine grant of the land of Canaan, and orders to enslave the
heathen, some suppose Christians have an equal right to take away the land of
the Indians, and make slaves of the negroes. Wretched religion, that pleads for
cruelty and injustice. In this point of view, the Pope offered England to the
king of Spain, provided he would conquer it; after England became Protestant,
and in the same view of things, on May 4, 1493, the year after America was
discovered, he proposed to give away the heathen lands to his Christian
subjects. If Christian nations, were nations of Christians, these things would
not be so. The very tendency of religious establishments by human law, is to
make some hypocrites, and the rest fools; they are calculated to destroy those
very virtues that religion is designed to build up; to encourage fraud and
violence over the earth. It is error alone, that stands in need of government to
support it; truth can and will do better without: so ignorance calls in anger in
a debate, good sense scorns it. Religion, in its purest ages, made its way in
the world, not only without the aid of the law, but against all the laws of
haughty monarchs, and all the maxims of the schools. The pretended friendship of
legal protection, and learned assistance, proves often in the end like the
friendship of Joab to Amasa.

Government should protect every man in thinking and speaking freely, and see
that one does not abuse another. The liberty I contend for, is more than
toleration. The very idea of toleration, is despicable; it supposes that some
have a pre-eminence above the rest, to grant indulgence; whereas, all should be
equally free, Jews, Turks, Pagans and Christians. Test oaths, and established
creeds, should be avoided as the worst of evils. A general assessment., (forcing
all to pay some preacher,) amounts to an establishment; if government says I
must pay somebody, it must next describe that somebody, his doctrine and place
of abode. That moment a minister is so fixed as to receive a stipend by legal
force, that moment he ceases to be a gospel ambassador, and becomes a minister
of state. This emolument is a temptation too great for avaricious men to
withstand. This doctrine turns the gospel into merchandise, and sinks religion
upon a level with other things. As it is not the province of civil government to
establish forms of religion, and force a maintenance for the preachers, so it
does not belong to that power to establish fixed holy days for divine worship.
That the Jewish seventh-day Sabbath was of divine appointment, is
unquestionable; but that the Christian first-day Sabbath is of equal injunction,
is more doubtful. If Jesus appointed the day to be observed, he did it as the
head of the church, and not as the king of nations; or if the apostles enjoined
it, they did it in the capacity of Christian teachers, and not as human
legislators. As the appointment of such days is no part of human legislation, so
the breach of the Sabbath (so called) is no part of civil jurisdiction. I am not
an enemy to holy days, (the duties of religion cannot well be performed without
fixed times,) but these times should be fixed by the mutual agreement of
religious societies, according to the word of God, and not by civil authority. I
see no clause in the federal constitution, or the constitution of Virginia, to
empower either the federal or Virginia legislature to make any Sabbathical laws.

Under this head, I shall also take notice of one thing, which appears to me
unconstitutional, inconsistent with religious liberty, and unnecessary in
itself; I mean the paying of the chaplains of the civil and military departments
out of the public treasury. The king of Great Britain has annually forty-eight
chaplains in ordinary, besides a number extraordinary; his army also abounds
with chaplains. This, I confess, is consistent with the British form of
government, where religion is a principle, and the church a creature of the
state; but why should these plans of proud, covetous priests, ever be adopted in
America? If legislatures choose to have a chaplain, for Heaven’s sake, let them
pay him by contributions, and not out of the public chest. In some of the
states, a part of each day, during the session of assembly, is taken up in
attending prayers; and they may well afford it, for they are paid for the time;
but whether they would pray as long, if they were not under pay, is a question;
and whether the chaplain would pray as long for them, if the puplic chest was
like Osiron’s purse, is another. For chaplains to go into the army, is about as
good economy as it was for Israel to carry the ark of God to battle: instead of
reclaiming the people, they generally are corrupted themselves, as the ark fell
into the hands of the Philistines. 37. The words of David are applicable here:
"Carry back the ark into the city." But what I aim chiefly at, is paying of them
by law. The very language of the proceeding is this: "If you will pay me well
for preaching and praying, I will do them, otherwise I will not. " Such golden
sermons and silver prayers are of no great value.

WASHING OF FEET AND DRY CHRISTENING

WASHING of feet is practised by some of the Baptists, disused by others, and
rejected by the third class, which breaks no friendship among them, each one
acting according to his persuasion. Baptism and the Lord’s supper, are neither
of them used for the good of the body; but the first is significant, and the
last commemorative. The question is, whether washing of feet is to be performed
for the good of the body, or as a sacred rite? If for the good of the body, it
should be done when, and only when, the feet are sore and filthy; but if as a
sacred rite, people should do as they now do, viz., wash their feet clean before
they meet together for the purpose of washing feet. A person being taken upon
surprise at a washing feet meeting, made this confession: "If I had known that
you would have washed feet tonight, I would have washed mine clean before I came
from home."

Some of the preachers practice what is satirically called dry christening, and
others do not. The thing referred to is this: when a woman is safely delivered
in child-bearing, and raised to health enough to go to meeting, she brings her
child to the minister, who either takes it in his arms, or puts his hands upon
it, and thanks God for his mercy, and invokes a blessing on the child; at which
time the child is named. The Baptists believe that those who preach the gospel
should live of it: that a preacher is as much entitled to a reward for his
labor, as the reaper in the field is to his hire. It is a gross innovation from
truth, to view the wages of a minister in the light of alms. That religion that
opens the heart, unties the purse-strings. When souls are caught in the net of
the gospel (like the fish that Peter caught) they have a piece of money in their
mouths. If people will not give the preacher his due, they and their money must
perish together.

Finally, the Baptists hold it their duty to obey magistrates, to be subject to
the law of the land, to pay their taxes, and pray for all in authority. They are
not scrupulous of taking an oath of God upon them to testify the truth before a
magistrate or court; but reject profane swearing. Their religion also allows
them to bear arms in defence of their life, liberty and property, and also to be
friendly to those who differ with them in judgment, believing a cynick to be as
bad as a sycophant. THE VIRGINIA BAPTISTS COMPARED WITH THE GERMAN. FROM this
account of the Virginia Baptists, they appear to be a very different sect from
the German Anabaptists. The grand error of those rioters, was founding both
dominion and property in grace; which is the error of the church of Rome, and
the church of England unto this day; and, indeed, the error of all established
churches that incapacitate a man from holding his office and property, without
he will submit to a religious test. The confusion in Germany was not of the
religious kind, but the struggles of the people to get clear of the oppression
of the princes. Their leader taught them, that if they would acknowledge their
mission, they should be free from taxes, rents, and subjection; the prospect of
which, drew multitudes of them, until, like the followers of Theudas and Judas,
they were all dispersed. If the German fanatics were really Baptists, yet it is
as cruel to impute their errors, by wholesale, to the Virginia Baptists, as it
would be to impute all the cruelty of the church of Rome to those societies in
Virginia that practise infant baptism. I have two histories of the German
insurgents before me, one of which appears to be a scorpidium, written with the
head of an asp, dipped in gall, the other is more mild. If these histories may
be depended upon, neither Nicholas Stork nor Thomas Muncer, were Anabaptists;
Melchoir Hoffman and John Bechold, were. They were called Anabaptists, because
they repeated baptism; but they did not dip but sprinkle, so that the whole
uproar belongs to other societies, and not to the Baptists. A late author, Rev.
Mr. Pattilloe, in giving an account of the rise of other societies, says, "the
Baptists made their appearance in Germany, soon after the Reformation began."
Has the good Mr. Pattilloe got this by wrote, hearing of it so often? or has the
judicious pen of Mr. Smith helped him out in a dead lift? or can the gentleman
demonstrate his assertion and implication by real facts? Should I affirm that
the Presbyterians made their appearance in London, in the reign of James
1:1-27., on the fifth of November, 1605, in the gun-powder plot, it might
perhaps raise the bristles of his meek heart; and this I might affirm with as
much propriety, as he could affirm what he has. The names Papist and
Presbyterian, are as much alike as Baptist and Anabaptist, and their modes of
baptism far more uniform. I admire Mr. Pattilloe’s writing in general; I was a
subscriber for his book, and think my dollar well exchanged; but, let the Rev.
gentleman remember, that the Baptists can produce sacred proof for their
appearance in Judea, about fifteen hundred years before those tumults in
Germany, and if he can produce more antiquated proof of the Presbyterians, then
let him triumph; otherwise, be peaceable, as becomes him.

SOME REMARKS. A retrospective view of this Chronicle, informs us that the number
of religious sects in Virginia, is seven, viz., Episcopalians, Quakers,
Presbyterians, Methodists, Tunkers, Mennonists, and Baptists. There are a few
Jews, but they have no synagogue, nor is there any chapel for Papists. If men
had virtue enough, it would be pleasing to see all of one mind; but in these
lethargic days, if there is not a little difference among men, they sink into
stupidity. It is happy for Virginia, in a political point of view, that there
are several societies, nearly of a size; should one attempt to oppress another,
all the rest would unite to prevent it. And the same may be said of the United
States; more than twenty religious societies are in them, which render it almost
impossible for one order to oppress all the others. This is a greater security
for religious liberty than all that can be written on paper. If two or three of
the most popular societies in the Union should unite together, the other
societies would have cause to fear, from the consideration, that the many
generally oppress the few; but if things in future, emerge as they have
heretofore, we have more reason to believe, that the present societies will
split and subdivide, than we have to believe, that parties, now at variance,
will ever unite. O, Virginia! O, America! - a people favored of the Lord! - may
the goodness of God excite our obedience. There are yet remaining some vestiges
of religious oppression, but they are chiefly theoretical. It may be said, that
in substance, the different societies enjoy equal liberty of thinking, speaking,
and worshipping, and equal protection by law. Perhaps there is not a
constitutional evil in the states, that has a more plausible pretext, than the
proscription of gospel ministers; I say in the states, for most of them have
proscribed them from seats of legislation, &c. The federal government is free in
this point: to have one branch of the legislature composed of clergymen, as is
the case in some European powers, is not seemly - to have them entitled to seats
of legislation, on account of their ecclesiastical dignity, like the bishops in
England, is absurd. But to declare them ineligible, when their neighbors prefer
them to any others, is depriving them of the liberty of free citizens, and those
who prefer them, the freedom of choice.

If the office of a preacher were lucrative, there would be some propriety in his
ineligibility; but as the office is not lucrative, the proscription is cruel. To
make the best of it, it is but doing evil, that good may come: denying them the
liberty of citizens, lest they should degrade their sacred office. Things should
be so fixed in government, that there should be neither degrading checks, nor
alluring baits to the ministry; but as the proscription, mentioned above, is a
check, so there are some baits, in the states, to the sacred work. In some of
the states, the property of preachers is free from tax. In Virginia, their
persons are exempt from bearing arms. Though this is an indulgence that I feel,
yet it is not consistent with my theory of politics. It may be further observed,
that an exemption from bearing arms, is., but a legal indulgence, but the
ineligibility is constitutional proscription, and no legal reward is sufficient
for a constitutional prohibition. The first may be altered by the caprice of the
legislature, the last cannot be exchanged, without an appeal to the whole mass
of constituent power. THE RIGHTS AND BONDS OF CONSCIENCE. The Subject of
religious liberty, has been so canvassed for fourteen years, and has so far
prevailed, that in Virginia, a politician can no more be popular, without the
possession of it, than a preacher who denies the doctrine of the new birth; yet
many, who make this profession, behave in their families, as if they did not
believe what they profess. For a man to contend for religious liberty on the
court-house green, and deny his wife, children and servants, the liberty of
conscience at home, is a paradox not easily reconciled. If a head of a family
could answer for all his house in the day of judgment, there would be a degree
of justice in his controlling them in the mode of worship, and joining society;
but answer for them he cannot; each one must give an account of himself to God,
and none but cruel tyrants will prevent their wives, children or servants,
either directly or indirectly, from worshipping God according to the dictates of
their consciences, and joining the society they choose; for as religion does not
destroy either civil or domestic government, so neither of them extend their
rightful influence into the empire of conscience. The rights of conscience are
so sacred, that no mortal can justly circumscribe them, and yet the conscience
is so defiled by sin, as well as the other powers of the soul, that it may lead
men into error. The word conscience, signifies common science; a court of
judicature, erected by God in every human breast: and, as courts of justice
often give wrong judgment, for want of good information, so it happens with
conscience. The author of our religion said, "the time will come, when he that
killeth you, will think that he doeth God service." And Paul verily thought that
he ought to do many things against the Lord Jesus. So that conscience is not the
rule of life, but the word of God. Though conscience should be free from human
control, yet it should be in strict subordination to the law of God.

THOUGHTS ON SYSTEMS. THAT devil, who transforms himself into an angel of light,
is often preaching from these words; "contend earnestly for the faith once
delivered to the saints." Whenever men are self conceited enough to believe
themselves infallible in judgment, and take their own opinions for tests of
orthodoxy, they conclude they are doing God service, in vindicating his truth;
while they are only contending for their particular tenets. By this gross
mistake, the Christian world is filled with polemical divinity. I very much
question, whether there was ever more sophistry used among the old philosophers,
than there has been among divines. I never saw a defence of a religious system,
but what a great part of it was designed to explain away the apparent meaning of
plain texts of scripture. System writers generally adopt a few principles,
which, they say, are certain truths, and all reasoning against those principles
they strive to make sophistry, and all texts that seem to withstand their
scheme, they endeavor to explain away; sometimes by mending the translation of
the Bible. I have never yet known an instance of a man’s altering the
translation of a text that expressed his own sentiment, as it is translated.
When men are run hard to support their plan, they will appeal from scripture to
the reason of things; and when reason fails them, they will fly back again to
scripture; and when both disappear, they will have recourse to the unsearchable
ways of God. There is no doubt in my mind, that the God of order acts
consistently with himself; but it is a grand doubt, whether divine materials
ever did, or ever will, submit to human standards. And, I think it much safer
for a man to own his ignorance, and stand open to conviction, than to be too
positive in asserting things that he himself may doubt of in his cool retired
hours.

25. Published in Virginia, 1790.

26. If we were slaves in Africa, how should we reprobate such reasoning as would
rob us of our liberty. It is a question, whether men had not better lose all
their property, than deprive an individual of his birth-right blessing freedom.
If a political system is such, that common justice cannot be administered
without innovation, the sooner such a system is destroyed, the better for the
people.

27. Baptism, by some, is made everything; by some, anything; and, by others,
nothing. The Episcopalians make it everything; they say that the water is blest
to the mystical washing away of sin; that, by it, children are regenerated, and
engrafted into the body of Christ, which is everything we need. The Methodists
make it anything; either sprinkling, pouring or immersion. No matter how it is
done, if it is done. Can it be supposed, that Jesus, who was faithful in all his
house, in the character of a son, should be less definite in his orders than
Moses was, who was only a servant? See (says the Hebrew prophet) that thou
makest the tabernacle, in all things, according to the pattern shown to thee in
the Mount; and is the pattern of Jesus of no more use than to be made anything
of? That which is to be done but once in a man’s life, should be well done. Are
the words of St. Paul inapplicable here? "One baptism." The Quakers make it
nothing; but when they regard the word of God more, and the word of Barclay
less, they will then find baptism, not only to be a command, but the first
command, after repentance and faith.

If baptism is everything, Simon, the witch, is gone to heaven, and the thief
dropt from the cross to hell. If it is anything, we may say of it, as Mr. Wesley
does of praying time, "any time is no time." And if it is nothing, why is the
noun, with its verb and participle, recorded almost one hundred times in the New
Testament? If men can be perfect, or obedient in all things, without it, what
means this bleating of the Scriptures which I hear?

28.This mode was used in the ordination of Matthias to the apostleship; and,
like every other account in the New Testament, is a precedent without a second.
As no two instances of ordination are uniform, can it be a piece of
licentiousness to treat the subject, as to its mode, with a degree of
indifference? In Virginia, Episcopal, Presbyterial, and Congregational
ordinations are all contended for. Imposition and non-imposition of hands are
equally pleaded for; but, after all, a commission from Heaven, to preach and
baptize, is the great quintessence.

29. Ketocton, is the name of a water-course, in Loudoun county, that empties
into the Potomac. Most of the Baptist churches, now in Virginia, take their
names of distinction from the waters where they are.

30. To this day, there are not more than three or four Baptist ministers in
Virginia, who have received the diploma of M. A., which is additional proof that
the work has been of God, and not of man.

31. There are other parts of the thirty-nine articles, equally exceptionable
with those parts excepted. If a creed of faith, established by law, was ever so
short, and ever so true; if I believed the whole of it with all my heart- should
I subscribe to it before a magistrate, in order to get indulgence, preferment,
or even protection - I should be guilty of a species of idolatry, by
acknowledging a power, that the Head of the Church, Jesus Christ, has never
appointed. In this point of view, who can look over the Constitutions of
government adopted in most of the United States, without real sorrow? They
require a religious test, to qualify an officer of state. All the good such
tests do, is to keep from office the best of men; villains make no scruple of
any test. The Virginia Constitution is free from this stain. If a man merits the
confidence of his neighbours, in Virginia - let him worship one God, twenty
God’s, or no God - be he Jew, Turk, Pagan, or Infidel, he is eligible to any
office in the state.

32. What is here said of the church of England, respects them before the late
Revolution. Since the independence of the state, a great number of those who
still prefer Episcopacy, have the most noble ideas of religious liberty, and are
as far from wishing to oppress those who differ with them in judgment, as any
men in the state. Experience proves, that while each man believes what he
chooses, and practises as he pleases, although they differ widely in sentiment,
yet they love each other better, than they do when they are all obliged to
believe and worship in one way. The only way to live in peace and enjoy
ourselves as freemen, is to think and speak freely, worship as we please, and be
protected by law in our persons, property and liberty.

33. Before this, the Methodists petitioned for a continuation of the established
religion of the state; but being organized a distinct church, they vigorously
opposed the assessment; and at the same time petitioned the legislature for a
general liberation of the slaves Although the petition was rejected, as being
impracticable, yet it shows their resolution to bring to pass a noble work.

34. A union seemed so necessary and desirable, that those who were somewhat
scrupulous of a confession of faith, other than the Bible, were willing to
sacrifice their peculiarities, and those who were strenuous for the confession
of faith, agreed to a partial reception of it. "United we stand, divided we
fall," overcome, at that time, all objections; but had they united without any
confession of faith, as they did in Georgia, perhaps it would have been better.
In kingdoms and states, where a system of religion is established by law, with
the indulgence of toleration to non-conformists of restricted sentiments, it
becomes necessary for such non-conformists to publish a confession of their
faith, to convince the rulers that they do not exceed the bounds of toleration;
but in a government like that of Virginia, where all men believe and worship as
they please - where the only punishment inflicted on the enthusiastical, is pity
- what need of a confession of faith? Why this Virgin Mary between the souls of
men and the scriptures? Had a system of religion been essential to salvation, or
even to the happiness of the saints, would not Jesus, who was faithful in all
his house, have left us one? if he has, it is accessible to all. If he has not,
why should a man be called a heretick because he cannot believe what he cannot
believe, though he believes the Bible with all his heart? Confessions of faith
often check any further pursuit after truth, confine the mind into a particular
way of reasoning, and give rise to frequent separations. To plead for their
utility, because they have been common, is as good sense, as to plead for a
state establishment of religion, for the same reason; and both are as bad
reasoning, as to plead for sin, because it is everywhere. It is sometimes said
that hereticks are always averse to confessions of faith. I wish I could say as
much of tyrants. But after all, if a confession of faith, upon the whole, may be
advantageous, the greatest care should be taken not to sacradize, or make a
petty Bible of it.

35. Gospel preachers are generally like the ass seen by Agelastus, loaded with
figs, and feeding upon thistles.

36. In England, are two arch-bishops, and twenty-six bishops. In Ireland, are
four arch-bishops, and nineteen bishops. In Scotland, one general assembly,
thirteen provincial synods, and sixty-eight presbyteries.

37. A sheriff being sent to bring a Tartar to court, was a long time detained;
when solicited to make his return, he replied, "the Tartar will not come." Come
without him then, said the judge. "Yes sir, " said the sheriff; "but the Tartar
will not let me."


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 7: 007 THE FIRST RISE OF SIN
========================================================================

THE FIRST RISE OF SIN 38.

NEITHER FROM A HOLY NOR SINFUL CAUSE; UNAVOIDABLE WITH GOD, BUT AVOIDABLE WITH
CREATURES. EXHIBITED IN AN EXPOSITION OF THE FIRST THREE CHAPTERS OF GENESIS; IN
WHICH A NUMBER OF CONJECTURES, CALCULATIONS, AND MATHEMATICAL OBSERVATIONS ARE
MADE With novel error men engage; At novel truth they always rage. - MERLUCIOUS.

PREFACE.

LONGITUDE and perpetual motion have employed the prying thoughts of the
ingenious for a long time; great premiums are offered to the man who shall first
find them out. The apparent advantages of such discoveries would be great; but
whether the world will ever enjoy those advantages or not, is a matter of
present uncertainty. The first rise of sin has also been a subject of much
speculation. Orthodox divines, poets, and mystics have employed their pens to
investigate the point; but not being satisfied with the elucidation of any piece
that I have seen, I have presumed to offer the following tract to the public,
which will speak for itself.

Those who have read Dr. Gill on Genesis, will see that I have borrowed some
remarks of him; but, in some instances, I have dared to differ from that great
man.

If the conjectures are considered extravagant, or futile, the reader may
remember that he is at his full liberty to invent anything better. The whole of
it is offered to the world in modesty and diffidence, by the author. J. L. AN
EXPOSITION OF THE FIRST THREE CHAPTERS OF GENESIS, ETC. THE history of the
world, before the flood, includes only one hundred and seventy verses: from the
first of Genesis 7:11. It is very short, and, therefore, very sublime and
significant. The term of time, that this short history treats of, is no less
than sixteen hundred and fifty-five years, one month, and seventeen days. From
this history, we learn that there was one murderer, one man-slayer, one martyr,
one prophet, and one preacher, before the deluge; and that the imaginations of
men’s hearts were, in general, evil, and only evil, continually. No more than
twenty-seven personal names are given us in this account, viz.: Adam, the first
man, and Eve, his wife - Cain, and eleven of his posterity- Abel - Seth, and
eleven of his descendants; and yet, we are told by some, that there were eleven,
and some say, eighty thousand millions of people destroyed in the flood. No
doubt but what there was a large number, but this account seems extravagant,
beyond all reason; for this would be more than six souls to every acre of land
on the face of the globe; which, perhaps, is eighty times as many as have ever
been on the earth, living at one time, since the flood. 39. The name, God, is
used seventy-three times before the deluge, and the name, LORD, or Jehovah,
thirty-five. No direct promise is given of the Messiah, in the whole history,
but the conquering seed of the woman is made known in the denunciation of
Jehovah God to the serpent.

But, what lies before me at this time, is to confine my observations to the
first three chapters of Genesis, containing eighty verses.

CHAPTERS 1. AND 2. IN the first chapter, the phrase, and God said, is found ten
times. A short account of creation is given, which is more fully explained, in a
supplementary way, in the second; for which reason, both chapters are explained
together; introduced by the words, THE FIRST DAY. In the beginning. Not of
eternity, which had no beginning, but of time. If the history of Moses respects
the whole creation, this clause destroys the notion of the pre-existence of
angels, or the human soul of Christ; but if his history only treats of the solar
system, and there are other worlds, and systems of worlds in existence, let
their histories be produced, and they shall be regarded. Creation had, some
time, a beginning; and no sufficient reason has yet been offered, that it ever
had a beginning anterior to the Mosaic account. He who wrought in the beginning,
was God. The Elohim, here used, is a noun of plural number, and seems to express
a trinity of persons in the divine Essence: by this triune Creator were all
things created, visible and invisible. The word Elohim, is said, by some, to
signify all Power, to show that creation and formation were the effects of
omnipotence; that the world, both as to matter and form, was the creature of
God, and did not emerge by the fortuitous motion and conjunction of pre-existing
matter. Others say, the word represents a being, in whom all fulness centres.
This is true of the Creator; but as the same name is given to angels, and the
rulers of this world, who are not centres of all perfections, the first
signification seems best. The things that God made in the beginning, were, the
heavens and the earth. All created heavens are here intended, at least in
substance, though not as yet spread out like a garment, or tent. It is most
likely that the Heaven for angels was first finished, and then peopled by
angels; for it is certain that the heavens, earth, and seas, and all things in
them, were made in the six days; and as angels were present on the third day,
when the foundations of the earth were fixed, and sang for joy; where is a more
likely time to assign for their creation than the first day? The word heaven,
here used, signifies above, as the word earth does below, so that whatever is
above or below, in substance, was made on the first day. But when the earth was
first made, it was without form and void. Not without some form, which always
attends gross matter, but void of the form which it now has - which it had when
Moses wrote - which it had before the flood - and particularly which it had on
the third day, when it was new-moulded and decorated by God. Had man been then
formed, he could not have discerned what form it was in, for, darkness was upon
the face of the deep. The particles of the earth being as much heavier than
water as twenty exceeds twelve, of course, sunk the lowest, while the particles
of water rose uppermost, resembling a deep sea; and as no light had then been
made, (at least to appear,) darkness covered the whole mass; but it did not long
remain in that predicament, for, the spirit of God moved upon the face of the
waters. By the spirit of God, some understand the wind, which is volatile, like
spirit, which they suppose moved on the face of the waters; if so, then the air
was made on the first day. If this does not intend the wind, no account is given
of its creation in the Genessian history; and as fire cannot exist in a visible
manner without air, it looks as if the air must have been made before the light
appeared. But it is more generally believed, that the infinite spirit of God is
meant. The clauses before this, treat of the creation of all above and below,
and the dark situation all was in; and this clause speaks of the working of
God’s power, to produce things and creatures out of what was already created:
and, indeed, it appears most likely, that what the Hebrews call To-hu and Bo-hu,
and the Greeks call chaos, was made in the beginning of the first day, and that
out of this crude mass all things were formed. And when the spirit of God thus
moved, God said, let there be light, which was the first time that God spake. It
appears most probable, that God, the Son, was the speaker; from which it is
said, in the beginning was the Word - all things were made by him - in him was
light: and the first word was obeyed, for there was light; likely in the form of
a pillar of fire, which answered the use of a sun, until the fourth day, when
the sun was formed. And God saw the light that he had made, and it was good in
itself, and would be useful to men. The almighty Architect examined his work, to
see if it was well done, and pronounced it good. And God divided the light from
the darkness, by causing the light to move round the rough mass of matter, or,
more likely, the rough mass, to turn round the light. In either case, the shadow
of the dark ball made darkness, and the light shining upon it made it lucid, and
the division depended upon the diurnal motion, which has lasted to this day. And
God called the light day, and the darkness, he called night; which times are to
continue, alternately, as long as the earth remaineth. And the evening and the
morning were the first day. Darkness preceded the light, likely, about twelve
hours, which was succeeded by twelve hours light, which evening and morning made
the first day. Various philosophers say, that darkness was before light, and
many nations, such as the Romans, Athenians, Druids, etc., began their days in
the evening, as also, did the Jews their holy days. THE SECOND DAY. And God
said, let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters. This firmament is
called heaven; the visible heavens are intended, which were spread out like a
curtain, on the second day. The use of this expanse was to divide the waters
from the waters; from which, some have supposed that there are fountains of
water above, anti that these fountains of the great deep were broken up, in the
time of the flood, when the waters descended in awful cataracts; or, it may
signify nothing more than that the firmament was to divide the waters which were
in the seas, lakes, rivers, etc., from the waters which were in the clouds.
Obsequious to the Almighty fiat, it was so; and the evening and the morning were
the second day. That the second day’s work was well done, there is no doubt; but
there is no account that God inspected it and pronounced it good. THE THIRD DAY.
And God said, let the waters under the heavens be gathered together in one
place. Before this, they covered over the whole face of the earth, but now God
broke up, for the sea, the spacious channel, and ordered the waters to retire to
their destined habitation, and said, "hitherto shalt thou come, and no further,
and here shall thy proud waves be stayed." This was done that the Lord might
appear. At this time the pillars of the earth were fixed, which made "the
morning stars sing together, and all the sons of God shout for joy." And God
called the dry land earth, and the gathering together of the waters, called he
seas. The earth includes the two continents, and all the islands, but it is
highly probable that the face of it differed widely, at that time, from its
present position. There were seas before Moses wrote, and perhaps there were
before the flood, and most likely before the fall, for God called the waters,
seas. The seas at present have a communication with each other, but as they wash
different shores, and for that cause, bear different names, the plural is kept
up among us. The earth and seas, together, form the terraqueous globe, supposed
to be a spherioid, though generally treated of as a sphere. The ancients
conceived the earth and seas to be as flat as a trencher, and those who believed
in antipodes were called heretics. The earth seems to be governed by the law of
gravitation, subordinate to God; and though small, in comparison to some of the
globes, is yet great and wonderful in itself, to show forth the mighty works of
God. The diameter of the earth is computed at seven thousand six hundred and
thirty-six miles; the circumference twenty-four thousand miles; .the surficial
contents to be above twenty-eight millions of miles; which, if reduced to acres,
would be above eighteen thousand millions: but, if a third part of the face of
the globe is allowed to be sea, the acres of land would be more than twelve
thousand millions: which would make about twenty-one such empires as that of the
United States, 41. one hundred and seventy-five such states as Virginia, or four
thousand five hundred and fifty such as Connecticut. And, if ten acres of land
is sufficient for an individual, the earth will support more than a thousand
millions of souls.

It is difficult to tell what is in the globular centre of the terraqueous ball,
whether earth, water, rocks or mineral; and as difficult to put the point of a
needle on any part of its ambit, which is not the superficial centre; nature
having fixed it under such laws, that every part of it is central. The annual
motion of the earth determines the length of a year, which is about three
hundred and sixty-five days, and six hours: and the diurnal motion fixes the
length of a day, which is twenty-four hours. The surface of the earth is
unweariedly moving, in her diurnal course, about the equator, the distance of
one thousand miles an hour, and carries all her inhabitants with her: and as the
distance between the earth and sun is ninety millions of miles, the earth is
moving, with her inhabitants, in the direction of her annual circuit, about
sixty-four thousand miles an hour. Does this surprise you, and make you cry out,
impossible? If so, only consider, that if the earth stands still, according to
the vulgar notion, and the sun moves round it, the sun must fly at the speed of
above five hundred and sixty-five millions of miles each day; or, three hundred
and ninety-two thousand eight hundred and fifty-seven miles each minute, in his
diurnal course; which is about fifty-six thousand times as swift as a ball flies
from the mouth of a cannon. The earth is girt round with a girdle of
circumambient air, which closely adheres to her in all her motions. Should a
cannon be placed on the earth perpendicularly, and discharge a ball into the
air, if the ball should be gone two minutes before it returned, the cannon would
have removed, in that space of time, thirty-three miles, consequently the ball
would return that distance from the cannon’s mouth; but, as the air adheres to
the earth, the ball would return to the very point from whence it went. The
solid contents of the terraqueous globe, is above three hundred thousand
millions of miles, which, if reduced to inches, would be more than eight hundred
thousand trillions. An inch of common sand weighs about an ounce, Troy, but an
inch of water weighs only twelve penny-weights. Rocks and minerals weigh much
more than sand. If sand may be considered as a medium, the globe weighs as many
ounces (Troy) as there are inches in its contents. Fifty-one ounces, Troy, are
equal to fifty-six, avoirdupois; and fourteen pounds avordupois, are equal to
seventeen Troy. The earth, by this rule, weighs more than ninety-seven
quatillions of ounces, Avoirdupois, or, above three hundred trillions of tons.
And God said, let the earth bring forth grass, herbs, and fruitful trees,
yielding fruit after their kind, whose seed are in themselves, upon the earth.
The spirit of God, that brooded upon the terraqueous globe on the first day,
had, on the third day, not only separated the waters from the earth, but also
impregnated the earth to produce vegetables for beasts and fruit-trees for man:
and this provision was made before the creatures were formed to eat them. So,
likewise, it is in the new creation, all spiritual blessings are provided in the
New Covenant for men before they are new made to receive them. The grass, herbs,
and trees, had seed within themselves to produce their kind, which has continued
in order down to this day. After God had made the earth, he made it vegetate and
bring forth fruit; even so when men are created in Christ Jesus and put on the
new man, they work for God and bring forth the fruits of the Spirit. On this
third day, the Lord made to grow out of the ground every tree that is pleasant
to the sight, and good for food; the Tree of Life, also, in the midst of the
garden, and the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil, though not spoken of until
afterwards: from which we learn that creation furnished objects to please the
senses, as well as to support the rational creature with food. Likewise, in
religion, not only safety, but pleasure is found; the ways thereof are ways of
pleasantness, and all her paths are peace. And God saw all that he had done, on
the third day, and it was good; no evil had yet appeared: angels retained their
integrity, and filial subjection to their Maker. THE FOURTH DAY. And God said,
let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven. This firmament includes all
that space between the earth and third heavens; but that part of it called the
starry heavens, seems to be particularly intended. No new light was made on this
day; but that pillar of fight, made on the first day, was, on this day, formed
into the various luminaries, afterwards spoken of, to divide the day from the
night, to be for signs and seasons, for days and years. Day and night are
governed by the sun; while the sun shines on the face of the earth, it is day,
and when it goes down, it is night. The length of the day is equal to the
presence of the sun, and the length of the night equal to his absence. The moon,
in her fulness, arises upon the setting of the sun, and enlightens the earth
during his absence; and, therefore, is said, to rule the Night. When the moon
fails us in her nocturnal visits, the twinkling stars pay their officious aid,
and, by reason of their number, cast much light upon the inhabitants of the
earth.

These lights were to be for signs; not for deluded necromancers to prognosticate
by; no, those dull masses, ignorant of their own existence, can never foretel
things future, respecting men; but for signs of good and bad weather, for the
times of plowing, sowing and reaping. And seasons of summer and winter, spring
and fall. For days, by the diurnal motion, in twenty-four hours; and years, by
the annual circuit, in three hundred and sixty-five days and a few hours. The
greater light to rule the day; i.e., the sun, called by the ancients, Ur, which
word signifies both light and heat; and, it is evident, that the sun is the
fountain of heat as well as light. This stupendous orb may well be called great,
being about nine hundred thousand times the bigness of the earth; placed at the
distance of ninety millions of miles from the ball that we inhabit; yet capable
of darting a ray of light to us in the space of seven and a half minutes. This
amazing luminary is the centre of the solar system, and once in twenty-eight
years, all the worlds that play around it, come again to the same point and
condition. This sovereign of nature, rules the day with such resplendent lustre,
that no other orb is seen to shine in his presence: but instead of being an
object of religious adoration, is but a speck of Jehovah’s works, placed in the
heavens, to show forth the wisdom, power, and goodness of the Almighty. The
smaller light (the moon) to rule the night. The moon is called a light, but she
borrows all her bright ornaments of the sun. That the moon is an opaque body of
some kind of matter, is evident, otherwise she would not eclipse the sun when
she intervenes.

One entire day of the moon is almost equal to thirty of our natural days;
consequently, the moon’s night is nearly equal to fifteen of our days and
nights.

If the moon is inhabited, it is matter of conjecture, whether her inhabitants
sleep so long at a time, and work as long without sleeping: and how much the men
of the moon must eat for supper, upon this supposition, is matter of
speculation. The moon in bulk, is as follows: diameter, two thousand one hundred
and seventy-five miles; circumference, six thousand eight hundred and sixty-four
miles; ambit, above three and a half million, which, if reduced to acres, would
be more than two thousand millions. But, if one third part of the moon’s
surface, is allowed to be seas, it leaves upwards of one and a half thousand
millions of acres in land: and, if ten acres of land are sufficient to support
an individual, the moon will support above one hundred and fifty-eight millions
of souls. The size, complexion, dress, manners, language, laws, and religion of
those people, we are ignorant of, (although the moon is called our neighbor.)
Swedenburgh’s account gains but little credit among us; the air-balloons have
not yet answered the purpose of forming an acquaintance; what future experiments
may do, is uncertain,

He made the stars also. Some, who believe in the existence of worlds and systems
of worlds, prior to the solar system, suppose that this clause respects the
creation of those stars, which are worlds or centres of worlds, and, that though
by their inconceivable distance, 42. they appear to us but small points, like
the diamond on a lady’s ring, yet they are of themselves, globes of amazing
magnitude. They conclude, that the same hand that made the sun and moon, on the
fourth day, had made these stars long before. But it seems rather to respect
those stars, that were made at the same time that the sun and moon were.

Others restrain it to the planetary stars, viz., Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus,
Saturn, and Herschel. Some of these stars have their moons, rings, and
satellites playing around them, of which I cannot at this time be particular.

It is best, however, by these stars, to understand not only those already
mentioned, but likewise Arcturus and his sons, Pleiades, and the chambers of the
south, as well as all the constellations and stars in the heavens. And God saw
his work and it was good; free from evil, which had no being as yet, and the
evening and the morning were the fourth day. THE FIFTH DAY. On the fifth day,
God gave orders to the waters to bring forth living creatures. On the first day,
gross nature was made; on the third day, vegetable life sprung out of chaos, and
discovered itself in the grass, herbs and trees; and on the fifth day, animal
life was produced. Fish of every kind were created, from the largest kraken to
the smallest minnows; and fowls to fly in the open air, from the eagle to the
fly. These, it seems, were produced out of the water, and yet, if we cast our
eyes on Genesis 2:19, it is pretty plain that they were made out of the earth.
To reconcile both places together, and both to the nature of things, it is
supposable that they were both made out of the earth at the water’s side; or,
more likely, out of the mud, under the water. It is also probable, that the fish
were made in the fore part of the day, and fowls in the after part. There is a
considerable likeness between these two species of creatures: both steer their
courses by their tails; fins and scales to one, are as wings and feathers to the
other, and both are oviparous. After God had made them, he blessed them with the
power of procreation, and bid them be fruitful, and fill their destined
elements. This day’s work, also, was well done: God saw that it was good; and
the evening and the morning were the fifth day. And God said, let the earth
bring forth the living creature after his kind: i.e., let the living creatures
be made out of the earth, and live upon it; for, notwithstanding, the earth was
impregnated by the spirit of God, and warmed by the sun, yet these causes could
not create beasts without omnipotent power; and so it follows, God made beasts,
cattle, and creeping things after their kind: by which is meant, wild beasts,
tame cattle, serpents and reptiles; and God saw it was good.

Thus the earth was made for man to dwell upon, the heavens to cover over him as
a canopy, the sun to enlighten him by day, the moon and stars by night, herbs
and fruit-trees for his food, and every living thing for his service, before he
was formed. Moreover, a garden of pleasure was planted in the east part of the
land of Eden, with all kinds of useful and pleasant trees; and, to consummate
his earthly enjoyments, a river of water went out of Eden, and ran through the
garden, to water it, which spread out in four branches, as it left the garden,
and formed the four rivers, Pison, Gihon, Hiddekel, and Euphrates. The first of
these rivers is nowhere spoken of in scripture besides. The second is spoken of,
1 Kings 1:33; 2 Chronicles 32:30, or, more likely, another river of the same
name. The third ran through Persia, near Shushan, the palace, and the fourth ran
through Babylon.

Almost all parts of the world have contended for this garden, and seem to be at
as great loss about it as chronologers are about the time in which Job lived.
Whether it was in Ceylon, Armenia, the land of Judah, Mesopotamia, or in any
other place contended for, it certainly was a delightful spot, and seemed to
invite an occupant; but as beautiful as things appeared, it had not rained upon
the earth. But there went up a mist from the earth, being exhaled by the sun,
from the seas, rivers, etc., in very small particles, and forming a cloud,
sprinkled down water upon the whole face of the ground. And God said, let us
make man after our image and likeness, and let them have dominion over fish,
fowl, cattle and creeping things. These words were not spoken to beasts, that
could not understand; nor to angels, who were neither of the privy council, nor
co-workers with God in creation; but the phrase bespeaks a co-operation of
Father, Son and Holy Ghost in creating man: and man immediately was made in the
image of God: not in the image of his deity: that God who cannot lie, could not
make a being like himself, in that respect. Christ only bears the express image
of his Father’s person, as a natural son bears the image of his natural father;
but the first man that was made, bore the image of God as the wax bears the
image of the signet. He was also in the image of God, in this point of view: the
Father, Word, and Holy Ghost are one; so soul, spirit and body, make one man;
there is a trinity in man, as well as in God; moreover, he was made in the same
human shape and dispositon that Christ was to appear in, a true figure of him
who was to come; in these senses, he was made in the image of God, and was
lovely in the eyes of his Maker.

Male and female created he them. Both sexes were in one body. The man is not
without the woman, nor the woman without the man in the Lord.

It is the opinion of some of the mystic writers, that Adam had power to
propagate his own species before Eve was separated from him, having both the
masculine and feminine natures in him; but it can hardly be credited, that sin
has radically altered the shape of man; and how Adam could multiply with such a
shape, without he had the power of creating, is unaccountable; and that he had
power to create, no man pretends. It is best therefore to suppose that God made
both natures in one body, with an intention of separating them before they
procreated. Matter was first made, on the first day, afterwards it was
remoulded; then Adam was made out of it; and lastly the woman out of man; so
that women are the most refined from dross matter - removed the furthest from
clay of any of the lower creatures.

After God had made man, he put him into the garden to dress and keep it, and
immediately constituted him a subject of moral government, by enjoining a law
(not a covenant) on him, with a penalty annexed thereto. This indulgent father
and divine legislated, or gave him free liberty to eat of all the trees in the
garden, and regale himself with all the pleasures of paradise; but as there was
one noxious tree, 43. he would have him avoid it; and said,

"My son, you may eat of all the trees in the garden, save one, the fruit of
which will poison you to death; and lest my caution should be ineffectual, I
command you not to touch it; and to make my law forcible, I add the penalty of
death to the breaker of it, which shall be inflicted the very day that the law
is broken." This law therefore may be considered as a cautionary command, and it
appears most likely to me that there was a poisonous quality, a physical evil in
the tree, that would have mortalized Adam, if God had not prohibited it. This
prohibition was also a test of Adam’s obedience, to train him up in moral
subjection.

After God made Adam and placed him in the garden, he did not choose idleness for
him, but brought unto him all the beasts and fouls to name; and Adam gave names
to them all, by which they were afterwards called.

Some think that this is a great proof of Adam’s primeval wisdom, in giving names
to the creatures, the signification of which exactly agreed with the nature of
the creatures to whom they were applied: but it is not likely that the names
that Adam called them by, had been received into his dialect before, (for this
affair happened within a few hours after his formation,) and if not, I cannot
see how the signification of a name could exist before the name itself. But
among all the creatures that were brought before him to name, there was not
found a helpmeet for him, not one that he could converse with; none to help him
keep and dress the garden; nor any to help him procreate. This wonderous
creature, man, of whom so much is said, was made out of the dust of the earth,
in or near Eden; and after God had formed him in human shape, he breathed into
him the breath of life, and he became a living soul. Vegetative and animal lives
were made out of the earth, as distillers extract the spirit from grain, etc.;
and therefore when they die, their spirits return to the earth from whence they
came; but the soul of man was breathed out of the mouth of God, and therefore
when men die, their souls go to God from whence they came. At the time when God
quickened Adam’s dust with animal life, he infused the immortal soul into him.
Though Eve was in Adam, as has been said, yet it is not likely that the soul of
Eve was in Adam’s soul, much less in his rib. And the Lord God said, it is not
good that man should be alone, I will make an helpmeet for him. It may here be
observed that the name Lord or Jod-he, vahhe, used in this clause, and indeed
eleven times in the eleventh chapter, is expressive of the eternity of God.
Gross nature, animals, and the mortal lives of men had a beginning, and will
have an end; but there is one being who never had a beginning, and will never
have an end; and this being is Jehovah, here translated Lord. This eternal God
saw that it was not good for man so to dwell alone. This clause has led some to
believe that the defection had begun; but it designs nothing more than that God
saw that man could not propagate by himself alone, nor be as happy as he might
be with an associate. Moral evil is indefatigable here, because after this God
pronounced all things very good. The way in which the Lord God made Adam a
helpmeet, was as follows: He caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, which was
the first time that he ever slept: it was near the close of the sixth day, and
perhaps, Adam was weary with his day’s work in naming all the creatures, (as the
second Adam often was in travelling,) and his senses were all locked up for
rest. This was a deep sleep; common sleep would not have kept the senses dormant
enough to bear the operation that Adam went through; but this was so deep that
Adam felt no pain while his side was opened, a rib taken from thence, and the
flesh closed up again. This rib the Lord formed into a woman and brought her to
Adam.

Anatomists say, that men have twelve ribs on each side; if so, we should judge
that Adam had thirteen, at least on one side, and that the superfluous, unmated
rib, was taken out for the purpose of a woman. The part of Adam that was taken
to form a women, was neither from his head nor feet; to teach us that women
should not attempt to rule their husbands, nor be trodden under foot by them:
but the rib was from his side, under his arm, near his heart; to show that the
woman is to be by her husband, under the arm of his protection, near the heart
of his love.

It looks as if God carried off the rib to a little distance from Adam, while he
formed it into a woman; perhaps to the same place where Adam was formed; and
when God had formed this lovely creature, he brought her to Adam; who upon first
sight knew her, at least from whence she came, and said, "this is bone of my
bones, and flesh of my flesh." Her bones and flesh were taken from him, and this
he knew. Perhaps while he was asleep, he was taught it in a dream; or God might
reveal it to him by impulse; or we may suppose, that though Adam was in a deep
sleep when the ribs were taken from him, yet he awaked before it was formed into
a woman, and stood not far off to see God form it into a human shape; but let
him come by his knowledge one way or another, he knew from whence she came, and
called her name woman, because she came from man.

Even so, when souls are new made by divine grace, they are brought to the second
Adam, the Lord Jesus Christ; being drawn by the father, not against, but with
their wills; and when they come, Jesus knows them and calls them by a new name.
Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave unto his
wife, and they shall be one flesh.

If these words were spoken by Adam, at the time when he received Eve, they were
either prophetic of, or preceptives for his posterity; for they were not
applicable to Adam’s case, who had no father but God, and no mother but the
earth, neither of which was he to leave for his wife.

If they are considered as the words of Moses, they were not spoken at the time
when Eve was brought to Adam, but between two and three thousand years
afterwards, when the Hebrew historian wrote; and this he gives as a reason why
men should cleave to their wives and take care of them. But rather the words
were spoken by God himself, who, at the time of instituting marriage, gave
directions about it. In Matthew 19:4-5, where Jesus quotes this passage, he
informs us that he who made the male and female at the beginning, said for this
cause, etc. And God blessed them with the tokens of his favor and love, and with
the power of procreation, and said unto them, be faithful and multiply and
replenish the earth with your offspring, and subdue it, by tilling the ground,
sowing and reaping, and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the
foul of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the face of the
earth. As man was to be in subjection to God, so all the creatures below were to
be in subjection to man, who was appointed vicegerent of the world. To the
beasts, God gave every green herb, but to man he gave seed and fruit-trees.
There is no account that God gave the beasts, birds and fish to man, for the
purpose of eating, or that ever the antedeluvians did eat any of them before the
flood; but it is certain that this divine charter gave man the dominion of them
all, and very likely he and his children ate thereof, before the days of Noah.
In the day when they were made, they were both naked and were not ashamed. It is
supposable that the air was temperate, and therefore they needed no clothing;
and it is very doubtful whether the elements would ever have raged, and fomented
storms, if sin had never entered the world. However, if it was the design of God
to have them wear clothes in future, it is probable that he intended that they
should manufacture for themselves. As sin and guilt were strangers, so shame was
unknown. Since the fall, God calls upon men to be ashamed of their ways; and
grace teaches men to be ashamed of those things that do not profit; but that
which is a virtue in a guilty man, would be mean and insignificant in an
innocent being. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Upon the
close of each day before (the second excepted) the Lord pronounced all good; but
upon the close of all his creation work, de declares all to be very good.
Nothing sinful or disorderly had yet appeared; angels, man and beasts, all stood
in their p6oper order and obedience.

Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, all the hosts of them. THE SEVENTH
DAY. And on the seventh day God ended his work, or had ended his work, for all
things were made in six days; and he rested the seventh day from all his work
which he had made, not that he was fatigued with labor, as men are, but he
ceased from his work, as it is expressed Hebrews 4:10. And God blessed the
seventh day, and sanctified it. Although there is no account that ever man
regarded the seventh day of the week more than any other, until the giving of
manna in the wilderness, yet this is given as a reason, in the fourth
commandment, why the nation of Israel should rest on the seventh day of the
week.

If the decalogue (the ten commandments) is all of a moral nature, the injunction
is binding on all nations; and if all nations were under the bond of regarding
the seventh day in a holy manner, it is strange that St. Paul never had occasion
to reprove the Gentiles, for the breach of it, as the Jewish prophet had to
reprove their own nation; and besides, if the observance of the seventh day was
a moral obligation upon all nations, God either designed that the poles of the
earth should never be peopled, or the moral law required a natural
impossibility; for, at the poles, there is but one day and night in a year. Yea,
further; how is it possible for persons, under opposite horizons, being
antipodes to each other, to keep the same day? The most, therefore, that can be
said, (at least proved,) is that God rested on the seventh day; and that after
above two thousand four hundred years, he ordained that the nation of Israel
should keep the same day of the week, throughout their generations. If, in the
New Testament, Christians are commanded to keep the first day, by Christ or his
apostles, that divine appointment is sufficient; human legislatures have nothing
to do in ordaining fixed holy days, establishing creeds of faith, requiring
religious tests, certificates, or anything of the kind.

Having made some remarks on the six days’ work, and the seventh day’s rest, the
history of which includes the first and second chapters, I shall proceed to some
observations on the third, which treats of the entrance of sin into the human
world; but, as Satan seems to be a leading character in this chapter, it appears
necessary to say something about angels, and by what means they were turned from
celestial spirits to infernal devils. But before I enter upon the dark arena, I
shall premise a few things. First, on the nature of God, and secondly, on the
nature of his decrees. And who is sufficient for these things? Can man, by
searching, find out God, or the Almighty, unto perfection? Clouds and darkness
are round about him, yet righteousness and judgment are the habitation of his
throne. Verily, he is a God that hideth himself, and giveth not a full account
of any of his matters. Remember, O my soul, how vengeance fell on the
Bethshemites, for prying too curiously into the ark. "Man was not made to
question, but adore." Yet, with all submission to divine power and wisdom, let
me attempt to speak of my God, and the glory of his works.

First. The Almighty exists of necessity, and yet willingly: he is of that nature
that he cannot but exist, and yet that necessity does not destroy his infinite
freedom; for he is under no necessity, but that of innate law. Should I affirm
that all God’s works are works of necessity, it would convey this idea: that God
cannot do anything, more or less than what he now does; which, perhaps, would be
an idea unbecoming Omnipotence; and yet it may be safely affirmed, that many of
his works are necessarily done. If God is under no necessity to speak, yet, when
he speaks of choice, he is under necessity to speak truth, for he cannot lie. He
is under a necessity of showing forth the glory of his perfections in his works,
(when he works of choice,) for he cannot work beneath himself. And if creation
was a deed of choice, and not of necessity, yet judicial works are works of
necessity; God’s nature being such, that he is under the necessity of innate
law, to judge and punish for the glory of his perfections. If it should be
thought presumptuous to say, that God cannot punish sooner, otherwise, or more
severely than he does; if we consider that love and goodness counterpoise power
and justice, and that, sometimes, mercy rejoices against judgment, it will not
appear more presumptuous, perhaps, than true. The great question is, whether God
could have prevented sin or not? If the works of creation were works of
necessity, i.e., if the nature of God was such, that he could not but have made
the world when he did, and as he did, I conclude that it was not possible for
God to have prevented sin; but if creation was a work of will, and not of
necessity, then God could have prevented sin, by having not made the world, and
creatures in it, to sin. But more of this hereafter.

Second. Did God decree that angels and men should sin, or not? A decree is the
law of a court to accomplish same purpose. No such law was given to angels, to
Adam, or to his children. The decree, through the Bible, is that creatures
should not sin. But I do not wish to criticise on phrases. The general idea of a
decree, among Calvinistic writers, is the eternal design of God; the question
is, therefore, whether it was the eternal design of God that sin should have
birth, or not? If it was the design, decree, or secret will of God, that
creatures should sin, how can it be sin? for sin is a transgression of his will.
If God decreed sin, he decreed that which is opposed to his nature, contrary to
his law, and what he could not effect himself, nor make his creatures effect.
Some make a great difference between his secret and revealed will. Is not this
charging God with duplicity? That there is a difference between the law that God
works by, and the law given to his creatures, is granted. The rule of God’s
working, is either the law of his nature, or sovereign will; for there was no
anterior existent to impose a law on him; but the law of his creatures, is his
moral and absolute precepts; and simple obedience, without gainsaying, is
indispensable from all rational intelligences. But the question is, whether it
was the secret will of God, that sin should (in a direct or indirect manner)
enter in among his creatures, and at the same time forbid it? If so, it is no
wonder that all the philosophic divines are puzzled to reconcile the goodness of
God with the misery of his creatures. But why do men talk so? Have they learned
their theory from Scripture, or divine teaching? If from either, then it is
revealed to them, and, therefore, is no longer his secret will. It has been
observed, that the rule of God’s working, was either innate law or sovereign
will. That sin is agreeable to the law of his nature, I presume, no man
vindicates; and if it was his sovereign will that sin should emerge, it was then
unavoidable; either God or creatures must effect it: God could not, and,
therefore, it follows, that creatures unavoidably must. If sin then is sin - the
parent of sorrow - the cause of death and eternal misery, who can justify the
goodness of God upon, this principle? If sin is according to the secret,
sovereign will of God, it is to answer some noble purpose; for all God’s
appointed works will praise him; but what angel or man can point out any general
good effected by sin? If sin is the cause of general good, all creatures should
love it; and if creatures should love it, why are they called upon to repent of,
and hate it? The first character that God ever discovered himself in, to Adam,
(and likely to angels,) was that of a moral governor, and he treated him as a
subject of moral government: first as a legislator, in giving a law; and
afterwards as a judge, in punishing crimes. And as it was not possible for God
to sin, or make creatures sin, so, likewise, (considering him in the character
of a moral governor,) it was not possible for him to prevent it. Should a
legislator do anything more than make laws, forbidding crimes; should he make
places of confinement, and shut up all his subjects, to prevent their crimes,
what a kingdom of miserable subjects he would have; but if he makes them happy,
with the freedom of thinking, speaking, walking and working, and only gives them
a law of good behaviour, it is not possible for him to prevent their
transgression: the only means that he could make use of to prevent it, would
make them entirely miserable. So it was with God; he loved his creatures, and
sought to make them happy; and, as rational creatures cannot be happy without
the freedom of their will, this freedom was established in them by God; and, in
this point of view, it was not possible for God to have prevented their sin; as
the only means that would have secured them from sin, would have made them
completely miserable.

Here, then, we see God, all goodness, seeking the happiness of his creatures,
and the very essentials of rational happiness, by their inadvertence, proved
their overthrow.

If the question then is asked, whether sin was unavoidable, or avoidable? the
answer is, unavoidable with God, but avoidable with creatures. For creatures, in
their moral agency, had sufficient power to stand and obey, as well as freedom
to rebel. If, then, creation is acknowledged to be a good work, and that God had
a right to command the creatures that he made, the character of God is clear in
the apostacy of creatures; for his foreknowledge of their fall, had no influence
on their wills, nor in any way occasioned their sin, any more than the
foreknowledge of David made Judas sell his master. The new divinity, (so
called,) which declares God to be the efficient author of sin, and that sin,
eventually, is the cause of great good, represents Jehovah as a cruel being, and
cuts the nerves of repentance; for what idea must we form of a being, whose
nature was such, that he could not discover the full glory of it, without the
transgression of his creatures, which eventually brings on the damnation of many
of them? And, if the truth of God is to abound more by the lies of his
creatures, and the wrath of man is to work the righteousness of God, how can men
be convinced and judged as transgressors? Every honest heart, unbiased by
system, upon hearing "that God designed men to sin, and that sin will effect
great good," will confess, that the natural conclusion is, let men sin. That the
Divine Legislator has given many laws to fallen creatures, which were not from
the beginning, in which he, (in some sort,) accommodates himself to their
condition, requires no proof but just to cast our thoughts on all laws of civil
government, laws of war, and laws of putting away wives. These laws were not,
and could not be from the beginning. In the execution of these laws, he makes
use of one wicked man, or nation to punish another; and as the instruments act
voluntarily from a wicked heart, (although their wrath, in action, praises God,)
he punishes those instruments for what they do. Now, if from this consideration,
it can be proved that God is more glorified, and men, (upon a large scale,) more
happy than they would have been, if sin had never entered the world, then we may
say, that sin is the cause of great good: otherwise, the circumstance of
Joseph’s being sold by his brethren, and Jesus being hated and crucified by the
Jews will not prove it. But to descend to the enquiry respecting angels. It has
been observed, that no good reason has yet been given to prove that angels were
made before the first day; but if they were made ten thousand years before, the
difficulties are still the same in accounting for their first sin.

Beasts are all brutal, angels are all spirit; but men are part brute, and part
angel. It is a point of dispute in these days, whether materiality belongs to
all creatures or not; if so, then angels were made spiritual matter, but whether
they were made spiritual matter, or spirit, distinct from matter, it is
presumable that they were made beings that could neither pro-create nor die: and
yet it is certain that they were subject to moral mutability.

There is no way, in idea, possible to account for the entrace of sin among
rational creatures, but by considering their wills entirely at liberty; as the
contrary would destroy the very notion of vice and virtue, good and evil, right
and wrong. It must, therefore, be supposed that angels, as subjects of moral
government, were considered under a law, with the freedom of their wills, to
obey or rebel. But how it was possible for sinless creatures, without a tempter,
to choose to rebel, is a matter of great weight yet, as difficult as it appears
to us, it has certainly been the case with angels. The best way that I can
conceive of it, is as follows, and which is partly conjectural.

One reason why Jehovah was six days in forming the worlds and their inhabitants,
was, that angels might see what he could do; who stood by, as spectators, and
sang together, and shouted for joy; and it looks most likely that not one of
them had sinned before the third day, for they ALL sang for joy; which would not
have been the case, if any of them had commenced rebellion. And further, it is
probable that none of them had rebelled on the sixth day; for God, at the close
of that day pronounced all very good. It is a further conjecture, that sin had
not raised any commotion in the universe until after the seventh day; for, on
that day, God rested; seeing nothing out of order in all his works. But, soon
after this, (perhaps on the eighth day,) the rebellion broke out. The last of
creation-work, was man; at the sight of whom, angels were filled with wonder, to
see a body so noble, erect, and possessed with such endowments of mind; but
while angels were wondering, said God to angels, "my Son shall assume the
nature, and appear in the form, of that man, whom ye now behold; and I command
all of you to worship him as an incarnate God. " This was the first time that
Christ was brought into the world, by name; and when Jehovah brought his first
begotten into the world, he said, "let all the angels of God worship him. " This
appears to be the test of their obedience; and the trial was, whether they would
worship a being in a nature inferior to their own, merely because God commanded
them to. At this juncture, angels had full power to obey, and yet their wills
were free to rebel; for God treated them as subjects of moral government, and
exercised no coercion over them.

Angelic wisdom now began to reason. "What," said angels, "shall we worship a
nature inferior to our own; why not worship a beast as well? It will be idolatry
to worship a creature, and man is but a creature; our wisdom tells us,
therefore, that it is best not to obey." Here rebellion arose. The wisdom of
angels could not comprehend how divinity and humanity could be personally
united; and, therefore, to prevent idolatry, they transgressed a divine command.
Let our views be ever so good - let our reasoning be ever so fair - yet, if we
refuse to obey a plain command, because we do not understand every thing
contained in it, we are guilty of that crime which turned celestial angels into
infernal devils. To say that the first sin came from a sinful cause, is absurd;
and to suppose that it came from a holy cause, is contrary to the order of
nature. It is best, therefore, to conceive of it as arising from the limited
wisdom and inadvertent conduct of sinless creatures. Sin, then, is the creature
of beings, who are, themselves, the creatures of God. It is highly probable,
from the order of God’s works, that some angels were more noble and capacious
than others, and that one of the high rank, perhaps the highest that God made,
took the lead in the rebellion, and used his angelic oratory to persuade the
rest to follow him, who, to this day, has a kind of subordinate government over
others. When they are called devils, he is called their prince; and when he is
called the devil, they are called his angels. But let it be observed, that
angels acted personally for themselves; one was not a representative for
another; and, as they do not procreate, corruption of nature is not communicated
by generation.

If it should be objected,

"that if the first cause of sin was the limited wisdom of creatures, it
impeaches the goodness, or wisdom and power of God: for, if God was infinite in
goodness, and sought the happiness of his creatures, he would certainly have
made their wisdom so extensive that they could not have erred in judgment,
provided his wisdom and power could have effected it." The answer is, infinity
belongs alone to God. Had angels been endowed with ten thousand times as much
wisdom as they were, their wisdom would still have been limited to a point,
infinitely inferior to the immense circle of Jehovah, and their trial would
still have been the same. And will any man cooly say, that the great first cause
- the cause of all causes and things, (sin excepted,) - is wanting in goodness,
power, and wisdom, because he did not - could not, make things equal to himself.
The truth is, angels were endowed with wisdom, sufficient to make them as happy
as the angels now in heaven are; and with power to do as much as God required
them to do. And that creatures, as holy and wise as the angels, could be
inadvertent, needs no proof, but to think of their fall.

It was an essential of angelical existence, that they should have the power of
going through matter, and entering any material creature: and therefore, though
they lost their moral excellences by the fall, yet they were not deprived of
that power and wisdom, essential to their existence; had they been deprived of
these - their hell - their very existence would have been extinguished. That
Satan still retained these things after his fall, appears evident, by what
follows.

CHAPTER 3.

Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the Lord God
had made. The prince of devils, having been so successful among the angels, made
his attempt upon man. The serpent here intends either that reptile, called a
snake, or the devil in a real body of a snake, or else the devil in the form of
a snake. Various Jewish authors say that animals had the power of conversing,
before the fall, but this wants proof; without which, this seducer must have
been more than a snake, for he spake: and further, the Scripture seems to hold
forth that the seduction of our first parents was by the devil.

If this serpent was the devil in a snake, the question is whether the snake
acted voluntarily and understandingly, or involuntarily in ignorance? If he
understood what he was about, and formed a confederacy with the devil to go into
the malevolent enterprise, he then deserved the judgment and punishment he met
with; but if we acknowledge this, it proves too much, for by this rule the snake
was a sinner before Adam or Eve was. If the snake acted involuntarily, i.e., if
the devil assumed and used his body, merely as a machine, and the snake was
ignorant of the intrigue, of course he must be innocent of the crime: why then
should he be punished? To escape this difficulty, some have thought that the
devil, only in the form of a serpent, was the seducer: the name that some
serpents are called by, signifies seraph, and perhaps the devil might appear, at
this time, in the form of a fiery flying serpent or seraph, which form good
angels had appeared in before to Eve, and thereby transforming himself into an
angel of light, might deceive Eve the more readily: and yet some of the
denunciations to the tempter, seem to suit the snake better than the devil, and
look as if God meant to punish the devil as the agent, and the snake as the
instrument.

Supposing the snake guilty of no crime, yet he who made the earth, and all that
is in it, for the use of man, might subject the snake to what he did, for the
service of man, by putting enmity between them, that whenever men see a snake
they may be put in mind of the fall, and be humble for it. That God has ordered
the death of beasts for the service of man, is evident from the sacrifices. If
animal death was occasioned by the sin of man, surely the snake may suffer a
little for his good; and if it is true that beasts would have been slain for the
support of man, had man never sinned; that God made them purposely to lay down
their lives for men; who can impeach the goodness of God for putting the serpent
to a little disgrace for the profit of man, although he had been guilty of no
crime? It is best therefore to suppose this serpent was the devil, in a real
snake. This serpent was subtle. Serpents are famed for their wisdom and
subtlety, and, although the fox may be more crafty than serpents in general, yet
this serpent, being actuated by the devil, was more subtle than any beast of the
field that God had made. And he said unto the woman, who perhaps was a little
distance from her husband, or if they were both together, he first attempted
Eve, being the weaker part. The devil spake in the serpent, as the angel of the
Lord did in Balaam’s ass: the words he said, were, "yea, hath God said, ye shall
not eat of every tree in the garden." He begins with a yea to affirm it, yet
speaks afterwards by an interrogation, in which his subtlety appears. Some
suppose that the evil first arose when Eve wandered away from her husband in the
garden, without his knowledge of it; but it is not certain that she was alone
when the serpent accosted her, nor is it likely that the mutual love between
them would admit of their being far apart, without the labor in the garden
called for it: and if duty called for it, there could be no crime in it. Others
think that the disease began when Eve gave the serpent audience, but it does not
appear that she suspected him to have been a deceiver. If, as has been
conjectured, the devil appeared in the same form that good angels assumed
before, where was the imprudence of the woman in receiving him? And, even
supposing Eve to have known him to be a deceiver, yet she answered him well, in
these words, we may not eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden, freely.

God is so far from restraining us, that he has given us free liberty to eat of
all the trees but one, which is in the midst of the garden, which tree bears a
poisonous fruit, of which God has bid us beware; and lest his caution should be
disregarded, he has made it the test of our obedience, and threatened us with
something awful, which he calls death, if we eat thereof. Some imagine that Eve
was guilty of adding to, and taking from the words of God, in her reply to the
serpent. The words that she added, were, neither shall ye touch it: and instead
of saying, ye shall surely die, she said, lest ye die. But it may be observed,
that Eve had orders second handed; when they were delivered by God to Adam, it
is most probable that Eve was not formed, but Adam gave her information thereof,
and if he had not been particular in detail, it was his error and not the error
of Eve. But the words themselves convey no idea, (that I can see,) distinct from
the words spoken to Adam by God himself: and, if men or women are guilty of a
crime for not quoting words exactly, Peter, and Paul, and the Son of God, too,
were guilty. Then said the serpent to the woman, ye shall not surely die. These
words were in direct contradiction to the words of God; in them he gives God the
lie. From this, he is said to be a liar from the beginning. These words, no
doubt, shocked Eve to the heart, and I think the shock was fatal. The deception
here began. Eve called in question the immutability of God, and supposed that
this shining form had brought her some intelligence that God had revoked his
threatening. But if the contagion had not yet taken place, it did before the
serpent had done speaking; for when he had done, Eve was disarmed of all her
confidence, and answered the serpent no more. The serpent proceeded. For God
doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye
shall be as God’s, knowing good and evil. Here the devil speaks highly in
commendation of the knowledge of God, but not so of his goodness. He had before
insinuated that God withheld from them what might make them happier; and now he
represents God as doing it designedly: that as he knew the quality of that tree
to make them wise, he prohibited it to keep them in ignorance. It looks as if
the devil, before this, had told Adam and Eve (the latter at least) that they
were naked, and that it was very indecent; but, when they examined themselves,
they saw no cause of shame in their nakedness, which the devil imputed to their
ignorance, and told them that if they would eat of that tree, their eyes would
be opened to see their shame as plainly as the Gods (the angels) did, and would
know that what he had told them was true; or that they would be as Elohim, the
divine Creator, and know abundance. As Eve before suspected the immutability of
God, she now had her ears opened to hearken to anything, and credited what the
serpent said so far as to examine for herself. The deception had prevailed so
far, that her mind was blinded. For when the woman saw that the tree was good
for food, and pleasant to the eyes, her taste and sight took the lead of her
mind, and preponderated against the divine prohibition: which proves that her
senses were vitiated before she ate of the tree. And what mainly influenced her
to eat, was that the fruit of the tree was desirable to make one wise. And
surely, said Eve, God, who is so good, never wishes us to live in ignorance:
what we know of God already makes us admire him; how great then will be our
wonder and adoration, when our eyes are opened, and we are as God’s, knowing
good and evil. "Gold may be bought too dear." It is wisdom in creatures to live
ignorant of those things that cannot be known but by rebellion; but false
reasoning had so much weight on Eve, that she withstood the tempter no longer,
but took the fruit of the tree and did eat; in which action she broke the divine
command, and became culpable. And as soon as she had eaten, she used her voice
to persuade her husband to do likewise; who, it seems, was near at hand, if not
on the spot. St. Paul informs us, that the man was not deceived, but the woman
being deceived was in the transgression. In which words the supplement first
seems to be left out; for, without that supplement, the man was not in
transgression at all. His meaning, therefore, is that the woman was first
deceived and first in the transgression; for if Adam was not deceived by the
words of the serpent to Eve, (who might stand by as a spectator and hear all
that passed,) yet he was deceived by Eve. Some think that it was conjugal love
that made Adam eat; who, rather than lose his wife, would disobey his God; if
so, the excess of his conjugal love was his first depravity; so that the beauty
and charms of Eve deceived him. But it is most likely that Eve, by extolling the
sweetness of the fruit, and its excellent effects, deceived him. As Eve was
persuasive with her voice, so she was officious with her hands; for she gave’ to
her husband and he did eat. If Eve was not a part of Adam, as federal head, then
her transgression was only personal, for herself, and God could have killed her,
and’ made Adam another helpmeet; and, if this was the case, then our fall
depended upon Adam’s transgression alone, and what Eve did in no way effects us;
but I think that the whole man (Adam and Eve) was federal; and that when the
defection began in Eve, the female part, the total apostacy was not to be
prevented. And after they had transgressed, The eyes of them both were opened;
to see what good they had lost, and partly what evil they had incurred; to see
themselves stripped of their original righteousness. Innocence was now gone, and
guilt began to swell their breasts. And they knew that they were naked; by such
a knowledge as to be ashamed of it. At first, they were not clothed with hair,
feathers nor scales; their clothing was their moral virtue, and when that was
gone, they saw themselves more naked than the animals, more vile than the beasts
that perish. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons. Not
with needles, which were not then in existence, but either fastened them
together with thorns, or, what is more likely, wreathed them together, and bound
them around their waists, and let the longest leaves hang down before them, like
aprons, to hide their nakedness. The fig-leaves they chose because of their
large size. Equally foolish are men, who strive to make a clothing for their
naked souls, with their own works. What follows, is the appearance of the Lord
God in the garden - his arraigning Adam, Eve, and the serpent before his bar -
their trial and respective dooms. Rut before I enter upon these heads, I shall
inquire into the nature of the penalty, annexed to the law that was given to
Adam. The law was: "Thou shalt not eat of the tree." The penalty threatened, in
case of transgression, was: "Thou shalt surely die. " The time in, which the
penalty was to be inflicted, was: "The day that he should eat thereof."

It is most commonly believed that the death of the body - the death of the soul
- and the eternal death of both body and soul in hell are included in the
threatening, and that all these would have been inflicted on Adam, on the day of
his fall, if a mediator had not appeared; but these things require
investigation. By the death of the body, is understood the exit of the soul, the
extinction of the animal life, and a putrefaction and rottenness of the earthy
parts. This death, I believe, was contained in the threatening, under this
restriction, that all of it was not to be inflicted on the same day. The words
of the threatening are rendered, by some, dying thou shalt die; and seem to
convey this idea: that in the day that Adam should eat of the tree, he should be
mortalized - made subject to vanity, pain and sickness, which should never quit
him till he should be reduced to death; and in this light God seems to explain
it, when he says, In sorrow shalt thou eat all the days of thy life, until thou
return to dust. This was fulfilled on Adam, and is fulfilled on his progeny.
Whether the seeds of death were occasioned by the poisonous fruit, (which is
probable enough,) or planted by God in a judicial manner, they have certainly
raised a war in the elements that compose man, that will not cease their rage
till he expires- there is no discharge in this war. The objection to this
doctrine, is this: If the Death of the body was any part or all of the penalty
annexed to the law, and Jesus, the security of his people, suffered death for
them, with what propriety can justice punish them with death, when their
security has paid it? To this it may be replied, that Jesus died, not to free
men from it, but to follow death to his last retreat, in order to destroy death
and raise men therefrom. Further, though Jesus laid down his life, yet he did
not turn to dust, which seems to be the penalty annexed: this the real debtor
pays, and not the surety; and besides, it is not certain that Jesus ever
undertook to bear or palliate the penalty of that law; but it is most likely
that the whole of the annexed penalty was inflicted on Adam and his posterity,
and was no way mitigated by the Mediator. But more of this hereafter.

If by the death of the soul is meant alienation of affection and enmity against
God, it is not rational to conclude that this death was any part of the penalty;
for this reason: alienation and a carnal mind had taken possession of Adam and
Eve before they broke the test of their obedience; and if `spiritual apostacy
preceded the transgression, it could not be the penalty inflicted for the crime.
Nor would it sound very well to read the words of the Lord thus: "In the day
that thou eatest the fruit of the tree, I will make thee an alienate, carnal,
hardhearted enemy to thy Creator." Those who believe that spiritual apostacy was
any part of the penalty, and that Jesus, the surety of his people, endured the
penalty for them, would do well to ask themselves this question: Was Jesus ever
made an alienate, carnal, hardhearted enemy to God? If not, how could he have
borne the penalty, if spiritual death was included in the penalty? But if by the
death of the soul is understood simply its separation from God, the conclusion
is not so absurd, that it was part of the penalty. The souls of Adam and Eve
first wandered away from God, after Satan and sin, before they ate the
interdicted fruit; and, therefore, God, in a judicial way, withdrew himself, and
gave them up to the fury of Satan and sin as a just punishment. This Jesus
endured for his people; he was forsaken of God, and given up to Satan, sin and
sinners. That something more than natural death came by the fall, is certain;
and it is as certain that much sin was committed by Adam and Eve, exclusive of
eating of the tree; it seems most elegible, therefore, to suppose that morality
was the penalty, and that other evils arise, either as the attendants of sin, or
the natural consequences thereof, many of which are communicated by ordinary
generation.

It is pretty plain that many deaths spoken of in the Scripture, such as famine,
pestilence, captivity; and the deaths that St. Paul and others were often in, as
well as the death of Abel, Absalom, Haman, etc., were not contained in the
threatening of God to Adam; because Adam and ten thousand times ten thousand
besides never felt them: and yet it is certain that all the complicated miseries
of this life, death and damnation, come in at the door of sin, either as the
attendants or natural consequences of sin, or what are inflicted on men in a
judicial manner, for the breach of the laws of nature and revelation.

How is it possible that corporeal and eternal death were both contained in the
threatening? The first says, the body shall die and turn to dust, the last says,
that the body shall endure eternal pain. It cannot be well supposed, that God
told Adam, that if he should eat of the forbidden tree, his body should die, and
that he would send his son into the world to die and destroy death, and raise up
his body again to endure eternal pain: If so, then the whole plan of salvation
was made known to Adam, in the precept given, and the penalty annexed; which
would be strange divinity to imagine. The above observation therefore seems
best; to consider damnation as the effect of sin, in a final issue, and as not
being contained in the threatening.

Having made these observations, I pass on to the chain of history, which speaks
of the Judge of all the Earth coming into the garden, and arraigning the
criminals at his bar: which is introduced, thus: And they heard the voice of the
Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day. From which we learn that
sin did not destroy the sense of hearing. By the voice of God some understand
thunder, and suppose that sin having entered the world, set the elements at war
in peals of thunder: but rather God spake with his usual tone, which Adam and
Eve knew; and as he spake, he appeared to be walking among the trees of the
garden, and drawing towards them. This was in the cool of the day. Satan’s
temptations and man’s rebellion were both performed before on the same day; and
in the cool of the evening, when the sun was nigh down, and the cool breezes
began to blow, God came walking towards them. And Adam and his wife hid
themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden. As
they had lost the image of God they could not be happy in his presence, and (if
Adam spake the truth,) they were afraid of him, as well they might be, since
they had broken the law which an omnipotent God had given them. Guilty fear
appears to be the first evil that raged after the fall; and this still remains
in all Adam’s posterity, until they are reconciled by the blood of the Lamb, and
are made partakers of that love which casts out fear. This fear made them flee
from the presence of the Lord, which all men are prone to while unregenerate:
they go astray as soon as they are born, giving God the back and not the face.
Blindness of mind is seen in this procedure, that they should imagine that God
was local, like themselves, and that they could hide from him: But of this error
they were soon convinced, for the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him,
where art thou? I placed you in the garden, and appointed you your labor, but
where are you now? God knew where Adam was, but chose to make Adam confess what
he had done. And Adam said, I heard thy voice in the garden and I was afraid,
because I was naked, and I hid myself. The sins that appear in Adam’s answer,
were dissimulation and self-excuse. His dissimulation is seen in endeavoring to
conceal from God the real cause of his fear, which was his eating the forbidden
fruit; whereas Adam represents it to be his nakedness; in which he would excuse
himself, and charge God with the cause of it, in not making him with a covering.
And God said, who told thee that thou wast naked? Not I. When thou wast first
made naked, I never accused thee with it; your nakedness did not prevent your
access to me, nor cause me to reproach you; nor were you ashamed of it before:
who then has told you of it in a sneering manner? If any one, he must be an
enemy to me and my government, and a seducer to you; and therefore I ask you the
question, Hast thou eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou
shouldst not eat? And the man said, the woman whom thou gayest to be with me,
she gave me of the tree and I did eat. Here Adam makes use of nineteen words
instead of saying yes. Fifteen of them are used as an apology, and four as a
confession. Long apologies and short confessions have prevailed among men ever
since. What Adam said, was true; and yet it is spoken with such an air as to
cast blame on the woman, and finally upon God himself. He sought to screen
himself by the seduction of the woman, and finally intimates that if God had not
imposed that woman upon him, he should not have eaten. The Judge then proceeded
to examine the woman, and hear of her, whether she owned the charge of her
husband, and what defence she had to make; and said unto her, what is this that
thou hast done? If you acknowledge the accusation of your husband, what is this
great wickedness that thou art guilty of? The woman did not deny the charge of
Adam, but, like him, excused herself, by accusing her tempter, and said, the
serpent beguiled me and I did eat. As fond as she was, before this, of the
serpent, (as is supposed by many) being naked like herself; yet being beguiled
by him, and exposed to punishment, she would fain excuse herself and expose the
tempter. The serpent, who had received his doom before, was not interrogated at
this time by the Judge; but was proceeded against with some denunciations in
addition to his former punishment. In transgression, the Devil was first- next,
the woman - and last, the man. The inquest began first with the man- and then
the woman; no inquiry being made of the serpent. But judgment was denounced on
them according to the order of their crimes, - first, on the serpent; next, on
the woman; and last, on the man. The judge addressed the serpent as follows:-

Because thou hast done this, i.e. beguiled the woman, thou art cursed above all
cattle. Those that were tame, and to live among men, and above every beast of
the field, such as were or should be wild; living in the forests and mountains,
not to assist or be assisted by man.

Upon thy belly shalt thou go, without wings or legs, and dust shalt thou eat all
the days of thy life. As this respects the instrument (the snake) it strongly
indicates, that before this, the serpent was the favorite of Eve, among all the
cattle and beasts; but now it should be abhorred above them all: and also, that
before this action, the serpent used to fly, go on legs, or creep erect; but now
he should be degraded to creep his whole length on the ground, and lick the dust
as long as he lived. And as it respects the agent (the Devil) it sets forth the
abhorrence that he should meet with; being ever spoken of with contempt; that he
should never soar to heaven or walk with majesty on earth, but be despised by
all, and feed on the sordid lusts of men: and as he will live for ever, he never
will rise from this abject state. And I will put enmity between thee and the
woman. Before this there was great friendship and intimacy between the serpent
and woman; but now the friendship was broken, never to be restored again.
Serpents are ever fearful of men, and men are at constant variance with
serpents: women, in particular, cannot endure the sight of them. And with regard
to the Devil, though men are fond of his ways, yet they are always averse to his
name and character, and are prone to call every disagreeable thing that frets
and plagues them, by his name: and the Devil is the common enemy of men, and
cannot love them, even when they weary themselves to death in his vassalage. And
between thy seed and her seed. The whole serpentine race, and all the posterity
of Eve are at enmity, as has been observed; but by the seed of the Devil, we are
not to understand his angels, who joined him in the rebellion, but wicked men,
who are called the children of the wicked one; and are said to be of their
father, the Devil: particularly Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his
brother; and all of his character. By the seed of the woman, is meant, not only
the generation of the godly in every age of the world, between whom and the
ungodly, there is always an irreconciliation, but principally the Messiah, who
was a descendant of Eve, and the child of the Virgin Mary; who took not on him
the nature of angels, but the nature of man; that through death he might destroy
the Devil. At this seed the heathen rage, the kings of the earth set themselves
at war, and all the ungodly are at variance.

It shall bruise thy head. When men encounter a snake, they are never contented
till they have crushed his head; even after ever so many blows upon his back: so
it was with Jesus; after all the blows of doctrine and miracles that he gave
Satan, while he was living on earth, yet he never ceased till he bruised his
head on the cross; where he destroyed all the projects, disconcerted all the
schemes, and broke the power of the Devil, and took the wise in his own
craftiness; and will never cease till he has levelled his kingdom to the ground,
and brought down his horn to the dust. And thou shalt bruise his heel. As this
refers to the snake, by reason of his creeping on his belly, he can only strike
the heel, at most; the lower part of man; and as it concerns the Devil, he could
only bruise the heel of Christ; i.e. his human nature, which is inferior to his
God-head. This heel Satan bruised with his temptations, and raised his
instruments to bruise him to death on the cross. The Judge next proceeded
against the woman, and said unto her:-

I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and conception; or in thy conception; for it
is not to be understood that Eve was to conceive more children for her
transgression; but that her sorrows, in conception, should be greatly
multiplied. It is not likely that women would have had many if any sorrows in
bearing children, if sin had not entered the world; but now they bring forth
their children with multiplied sorrows. But, notwithstanding their sorrows are
so great in bearing and bringing forth children, yet, (said God)

Thy desire shall be to thy husband. That women in general have a desire to enjoy
husbands and conceive by them, is evident, from the discontent of those who have
no husbands; and those who have husbands and no children. But as the same word
is used in the affair of Cain and Abel, Genesis 4:7, it seems rather to respect
her subjection to her husband. Rulers address their subjects by command; but
subjects address their rulers by desire, in a supplicative manner; and as Eve
was first in the transgression, and a tempter to Adam, she, and all her sex are
reduced to the subjection of desiring their husbands instead of commanding them.
Indeed, by the order of Nature, the man being first made, the woman was to be in
some subordination; but by reason of the order of sin, the woman being first in
the transgression, this subjection is greatly increased; for so it follows,-

He shall rule over thee - In a lordly, cruel manner; which is the case of women
in general, and a great curse it is; and when they meet with it they should
remember that it is for their sin.

Next the man is called to the bar, and proceeded against as follows:-

Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife. This shows that Eve used
her voice to persuade Adam to eat. To hear the voice of a wife, as a counsellor,
is becoming a husband; but to be enticed by a wife to transgress a divine
command, is the first imprudence that Adam was charged with. It is no crime for
a man to be tempted, if he withstands the temptation; but the guilt of the
tempter will not expiate the crime, of the man who is overcome by the
temptation. And this was Adam’s case. See what follows: And thou hast eaten of
the tree of which I commanded thee, saying, thou shalt not eat of it: meaning
the tree of knowledge of good and evil, of which so much is said. It is not
likely that this tree bore the same name before Adam ate thereof, but took its
name from the crime of Adam: Adam and Eve knew good before the fall, but by
eating of that tree they were brought to the knowledge of evil.’ It is true,
that the tree is called by that name before the fall, but it is most likely it
was so called by anticipation - Moses giving it the same name that it was called
by after the fall. This tree stood in the midst of the garden, near the tree of
life; but the fruits of the two trees differed widely: the first bore fruit to
mortalize, the last to immortalize.

It is evident that Adam and Five apostatized before they ate of the tree, but
the prohibition of that tree being the test of their obedience, for the breach
of that, God gives out the doom: Cursed is the ground for thy sake.

Some suppose that, if sin had never entered the world, the earth would have
produced her increase spontaneously; but, in Genesis 2:5, it looks as if man at
first was made to till the ground; and yet it is clear that sin has brought a
great curse upon the earth. I conclude that a little labor for recreation would
have been sufficient, had not sin marred the face of the earth: but now, says
God, In sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life.

Adam lived nine hundred and thirty years; and so many years he ate the fruits of
the earth in sorrow, sweat, labor and pain; which grievous debt is entailed on
his offsprings. The profit of the earth is for all - the king himself is served
by the field - all live upon the fruits of the earth, and all eat thereof in
sorrow. Let men live where they choose, follow what calling they please, yet
sorrow attends them all the days of their lives.

Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee. The earth brings forth
herbage for beasts spontaneously, but men have to till the ground, labor in the
field, toil and sweat to kill the thorns and thistles, and noxious weeds in
general, to raise vegetables and bread for themselves; and this fatigue lasts
until they return to dust. For dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
Adam’s body was made out of the earth, his animal spirit distilled from it; and
when God recalled the soul that he breathed into him, the animal spirit was
extinguished, and his body turned to dust. The same fate follows all his
off-springs. In this manner God explains the threatening that he gave to Adam
before, and he is not a man that he should lie, but was as good as his word; and
it appears to me, that whatever was contained in these words, "In the day thou
eatest thereof thou shalt surely die, " was fully inflicted on Adam, and was not
mitigated by the Mediator; for God appeared as a judge to execute his law, and
never so much as mentioned a Mediator to Adam and Eve in the whole process. I am
also as well convinced that many evils befel Adam, and do befall us, that were
never contained in the threatening, as I have observed before. The seed of the
woman was spoken of to Satan, not as a saviour, but as a destroyer; to convince
him, and all his species, that though they refused to worship an incarnate God,
and had prevailed over Adam and Eve, yet he should proceed from the woman, and
wear a human form, and prove an over match for them all.

Adam and Eve, who stood by when God spake these words to the serpent, might yet
hope at least of temporal life, and perhaps of eternal life, through the seed;
but this no way diverted the threatening. And Adam called his wife’s name Eve;
which name signifies to live or she liveth. As she was not annihilated, as he
might expect, with himself, he gave her this name to perpetuate the action.
Adam, before this, had given names to all the beasts, and the name of woman to
his wife; but now, hearing that she was to bear a seed, and seeing her still
alive, gave her a new name - Eve.

Because she as the mother of all living: i.e., of human kind. These words were
added by Moses, which he offered as a reason why Adam gave his wife that name,
or spoken by Adam, knowing that she was the only woman in the world, and that
from her the whole human race would proceed. All nations upon the face of the
earth, though bearing different colors and shapes, and in a multitude of
conditions, must own Eve for their mother. And the Lord God made coats of skins
and clothed Adam and his wife. These skins were taken from beasts; but on what
account the beasts were slain, is uncertain. It is the opinion of some, that
before Adam fell the beasts came to him by instinct, and willingly offered their
lives to serve him; and that, if sin had never entered the world, man would have
lived upon animal food; and this opinion is supported, by observing that the
earth would soon have been overstocked with beasts and fowls if none of them had
died; and further, they remark that some beasts and fowls were made to slay
others, and live upon them; that the very shape of some of them indicates that
they were made to devour; that claws, long teeth and hooked bills, would have
been useless and troublesome to creatures designed to live alone upon
vegetables; and, finally, they cannot believe that the sin of man should bring
death upon beasts.

If these things can be maintained, it is not difficult to say where God found
these skins to clothe Adam and his wife with. Adam and Eve having killed these
beasts to eat their flesh, flayed off their skins, in some such way as savages
do, without knives, and laid them by as useless; but now God taught them that
their skins were as good for clothing as their flesh was for food. But these
things are questionable.

It is not certain that animal flesh was ever eaten by man till after the flood.
The fruits of the garden, the herbs, and every tree yielding seed, are all that
were given to Adam and Eve to eat, in their first charter; and after the fall,
they were to eat their bread by the sweat of their brows. And how beasts could
lay down their lives without pain, is inconceivable; and to suppose that they
would have come instinctively and laid down their lives, without pain, for man,
is strange. But one thing further is certain, that the sin of man occasions the
death of brutes; if not causally, in the first instance, yet it does eventually
- the cruelty and wantonness of man reduce the beasts to death. And it seems to
strike as directly against the goodness of God, to suppose that the species of
brutes should toil, groan and die, to satisfy the pride, lust and cruelty of
man, as it does to suppose that animals at first were made to be mortal, and die
to satisfy the hunger of man. But if beasts were not eaten before the fall, nor
even before the flood, it is supposable that these beasts were slain for
sacrifices, which ceremony was certainly in force in the days of Cain and Abel,
and likely was ordained soon after the fall, but not before the beasts had begun
to multiply; for if the first beasts had been slain, their species would have
been extinguished. From this early institution of sacrificing lambs, Christ is
called a Lamb, slain from the foundation of the world. How long it was after the
fall before God clothed Adam and his wife with skins, is unknown; but the first
clothing that he made for them was out of skins, from which, it is most likely,
the hair was not taken off: so the Tartars, Laplanders, and various nations
clothe themselves unto this day. As the fig leaves that Adam and Eve sewed
together to make themselves aprons of, were emblems of the vain ways, foolish
hopes, and self-righteousness of the ungodly; so these coats of skins were
figurative of the righteousness of Christ, that robe of righteousness and
garment of salvation, with which the Almighty adorns the souls of penitents. And
the Lord God said, behold the man is become like one of us, to know good and
evil. This phrase respects both Adam and Eve, though but one of them is
mentioned. If these words were seriously spoken, the sense is, that now Adam and
his wife had become like one of the divine persons in knowledge. Before the
fall, God knew good and evil, and good from evil; evil, not by possession, but
by understanding its nature and consequences; but Adam and Eve did not; they
knew good, by possession, but had no just idea of evil; but now being fallen
into evil, and convinced of its nature and effects, in that respect they became
as God. How applicable are the words of Solomon in this affair! He that
increases knowledge, increases sorrow." Or else the meaning is, that now, since
the Lord had graciously made known to them the Messiah, the seed of the woman,
and brought them to a sense of their sin, and also clothed them with skins,
(representing the righteousness of Christ,) that they were like the angels,
being in favor with God, and ready and willing to obey him; or rather that they
were like God himself, being created in Christ Jesus; having put on the new man,
created in righteousness and holiness, after the image of him who created him.
But it seems best to understand the words, as spoken ironically; reproving while
they seem to applaud. It was the vain hope and wish of Adam and Eve, that, by
eating the forbidden fruit, they should be as Gods; and here God retorts upon
them: "Now the man is become like one of us, is he? look and see his
wretchedness! see what his pride has reduced him to! His knowledge is increased,
it is true, but wherein is he the better? Innocence was far better: nor has his
misfortune humbled his heart entirely; aspiring thoughts yet dwell within him."
And now, lest he put forth his hand, and take of the tree of life and eat and
live forever. God first treated Adam as a free agent; he left him to his own
choice, to eat or not to eat of the tree of knowledge, using no other means to
keep him from eating, but a moral prohibition, as a test of his obedience; but
not so with the tree of life. That tree was guarded with cherubims and a fiery
sword. God, in the character of a legislator, never forces or prevents the human
will; but in the character of a judge, dealing with culprits, he subjects them
to afflictions contrary to their wills. As it is probable that the fruit of the
tree of knowledge was poisonous, and that it naturally reduced Adam to pain,
sickness and death; so also it is likely that the fruit of the tree of life was
of the nature to immortalize. And now, Adam having eaten of the first, by which
he incurred death, (both physically and judicially,) was prevented from staying
in the garden, lest he should take of the tree of life, and thereby immortalize
himself and so live forever. Some have thought, that if sin had never entered
into the world, yet men would have been subject to decay; to remedy which the
tree of life was planted, and bore fruit of that quality to remove or rather
prevent all weakness of the limbs, wrinkles in the face, and every thing of the
kind.

Another reason assigned as the cause, why this tree was called the tree of life,
is, that it was ever verdant, constantly circulating sap and bearing fruit all
the year; and this seems probable enough from Revelation 22:2, where reference
is had to this tree. And the Devil might have suggested to Adam, that there
could be no malignity in the prohibited tree, which grew so near the tree of
life, and if there was, they might easily take of the fruit of the tree of life,
which would be a sufficient antidote; but to prevent all such vain hopes in Adam
and Eve, and to convince them that they were not at liberty to follow the
machinations of Satan, The Lord God drove them out of the garden of Eden, to
till the ground from whence Adam was taken.

Before this, I conclude Adam had not begun to till the ground, but had lived
upon the spontaneous fruits of the garden, what time he had lived, which was not
long, as it seems. The garden was planted in the east part of Eden, and it looks
as if Adam was driven entirely out of the land of Eden; for the cherubic guard
was placed at the east of the garden, to keep Adam and Eve from returning to the
garden and eating of the tree of life. The Lord drove them out of the garden
(which they left with reluctance, as is probable) to till the ground from whence
Adam was taken, and raise their bread in sweat, labor and pain. The ground that
he was to till, was that out of which he was taken: from which it appears, that
Adam was made out of the ground east of Eden, and taken from thence by the Lord,
and placed in the garden of Eden; but as he was rebellious in the garden, he was
driven back to the place where he was made, to spend his days in sweat, sorrow
and pain, until he returned to dust. From Adam’s being taken from the spot where
he was made and placed in Eden’s garden, (if he had been obedient,) it is
probable that he would have been raised, in gradual stages, to the same
enjoyment that the glorified saints will eternally enjoy; but the life he
possessed in the garden, did not capacitate him to rise any higher than he then
was; nor had he any reason to believe that his best obedience would merit a
higher station: yet, I conclude, it is not extravagant to suppose, that God
would have exalted him to the same pinnacle of glory, that all the ransomed of
the Lord will hereafter inherit; for, as sin will never prevent the purposes of
God’s grace, so likewise, it is never the cause of human exaltation, before God.
Sin is the cause of pain and sickness, want and woe, horror and shame, hardness
and impenitence, anger and rage, strife and contention, war and bloodshed, death
and damnation. If sin had never entered the world, there would have been no
cause of Christ’s death; but sin was not the cause of the incarnation of Jesus
Christ, nor does it cause the communication of eternal life into the human
heart. No man will ever return to the state that Adam was in while in the
garden: those who are regenerated will rise much higher, and those who die in
rebellion will sink much lower.

Or, perhaps, the meaning of the clause, To till the ground out of which he was
taken, does not respect the particular spot where Adam was made and taken from;
but the ground in general, out of which element Adam was formed. And the Lord
God placed at the east of the garden of Eden cherubims, and a flaming sword
which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life. Frequent accounts,
in Scripture, are given, both of living and lifeless cherubims. About the ark
and mercy-seat, and on the walls of the holy place, in the temple, were lifeless
images, called cherubims. The living cherubims are called seraphims, living
creatures, four beasts, and cherubims. These creatures, in Scripture, generally
intend gospel ministers; but not always. Where it is said that Jehovah rode upon
a cherub and did fly, it is better to understand it of an angel, than of a human
minister. Perhaps the name may be given, with propriety, to any messenger of the
Lord, from the greatest angel to the smallest insect. In the text now under
consideration, they seem to intend angels, and not ministers of the gospel.
Angels were then in existence, but gospel ministers were not. These angelical
ministers were made a flame of fire: streams of fire proceeded from them,
resembling swords, like the beams of the sun, in every direction, to strike the
rebel through who should dare to approach the tree of life.

Some think this wonderful appearance was designed by God, to convince Adam, and
keep in his mind, that no life was ever after the fall to be had by the deeds of
the law. That the flaming sword of justice stands pointed against every soul
that seeks salvation by works of righteousness that he can do.

Others are of opinion, that as the tree of life was an emblem of Jesus Christ,
(who is often compared to the tree of life,) so these cherubims were
heiroglyphical of gospel ministers, who handle the word of God, which is quick
and powerful, sharper than a two-edged sword; which turns every way to detect
the hypocrite, alarm the profane, and point out to penitents the way of
salvation, by faith in the Redeemer. But it appears to me, that these cherubims
were not merely visionary appearances, but real subsistences, and therefore the
first sense given seems most probable.

How long these angels continued there, as guards to the tree, is uncertain. If
the tree of life died as soon as common trees do, (in about one hundred years,)
or if they guarded the tree until the flood, when men were removed from that
part of the world, they were happy in their post, doing the will of God. The
flood has so altered the face of the earth (together with earthquakes and other
causes) that no man can tell where the garden or any part of Eden lay; and what
became of the trees in the garden, particularly the tree of death and tree of
life; whether they were used for firewood or timber - whether they died with age
or are now living - or whether the first was transplanted in hell, and the last
in paradise, to me, is unknown.

APPENDIX. - MISCELLANEOUS. THE nature of God is just, and therefore his ways are
all equal; and as love and goodness proceed from him, consequently malevolence
and sin cannot; otherwise, his ways would be unequal.

Some suppose that it was necessary that sin should emerge among the creatures of
God, that the divine glory might be more effulgently displayed than otherwise it
could have been. But is the supposition well founded? what idea should we form
of a man who should charge his son not to run into the fire, and with one hand
brace him from it, and at the same time, with the other hand, secreted by a
screen, pull the forbidden child into the flame, that he might show his
compassion to his little favorite in pulling him out of the burning coals? Would
such compassion be amiable? But suppose the same man should serve ten sons in
the same manner, and pull but five of them out, and leave the rest therein
forever, that those five who were graciously delivered, and the five who were
unfortunately forsaken might see his justice, could God or man love such, a
character?

If goodness, love and justice, cannot be displayed, known and enjoyed, without a
previous knowledge and possession of evil, then Adam, in innocency, could not;
angels in heaven, and the God of angels, cannot either know, enjoy, or display
goodness, love and justice. That sin adds anything to the glory of the Divine
Essence, is inadmissible. If any beings, therefore, are profited by it, sinners
themselves are; and if infinite wisdom could contrive no way to add to
creatures, but a way that damns a great part of them, what shall we say of such
wisdom? Could not justice shine to men as transpicuous without their guilt as it
now can? Is it not as great justice to clear the innocent as it is to condemn
the guilty? These things are so.

What has goodness to say, if the justice of God could not so fully be made known
without the damnation of millions of millions? Is it possible for the best of
creatures, yea, for God himself, to love such sovereign justice?

How can the mouths of the damned be stopped by that justice which could not be
displayed without their exquisite torment? And how can the saints triumph in
that character which wantonly glories in the misery of their fellow creatures?
Had sin never entered the world, the justice of God could have appeared as
glorious as it now does, or ever will; and if creatures are to be raised to a
higher state of glory than they could have been without sin, all the praise of
this superabundant glory belongs to sin, and all creatures should love the death
of the wicked, which the Creator takes no pleasure in. The Lord God is
omnipotent: nothing (consistent with his nature) is too hard for him to effect;
but he acts upon a scale so exalted, from a principle so good, that he cannot do
those mean, dirty things that men can. If it should be thought a pesumptuous
impeachment of divine power to say that God could not have prevented sin in the
first instance," it certainly operates as much against his goodness, to say that
he could have prevented it. The omniscient Jehovah made creatures without their
own consent, and foresaw all the evils that ever they would fall into. Now, if
he could have prevented their sin by one of his fingers, and would not put that
finger forth, who can justify his goodness?

Eternal power is limited by nothing but the nature of the divine Esse, which is
so good and benevolent, that Omnipotence could not make creatures miserable by
destroying the liberty of their wills, which was the only way supposable to
prevent their crimes.

"But was it possible for the Almighty ever to discover the attribute of mercy to
his creatures, without their apostacy? Does not mercy always presuppose need or
misery? If so, then sin, on the creature’s part, has proved the way for the
discovery of that perfection which otherwise would ever have been dormant." This
remark has real weight, and merits a fair investigation. It is a principal hinge
for turning the disputes of the present day; and, therefore, is not to be
slightly canvassed. The word attribute, is as great a stranger in the Bible, as
the word moral; and what two words are more frequently used by divines, or more
variously understood.

If by an attribute is understood an essential property of Deity; that, without
which the Almighty would be imperfect; and further, if it is supposed that all
the attributes of Jehovah can have an ample circulation in the divine Essee,
without the existence of creatures, so that the infinite God is independantly
glorious: I conclude that mercy is not an attribute. For if mercy always
presupposes need or misery, how could it circulate in a being where no need or
misery was to be found?

Learned men say that the attributes of God are ever spoken of in the single
number, thus: love, power, holiness, &c., and will not admit of their plurals,
loves, powers, holinesses, &c. If this observation has any weight in it, then
mercy cannot be an attribute, for mercy is plural (mercies) in a variety of
places in the Bible. In the above view of things, if mercy is an attribute, God
was dependant on creatures to do that which was contrary to his nature and law -
that, which he could not do himself or tempt them to - to bring themselves into
a situation in which alone he could make a full discovery of himself unto them.
How dependant was God, in this point of view!

God is a spirit of light, life and love, and some think that his attributes are
naught but the manifestations of himself to his creatures, in his word and
works. The invisibility of the eternal power and godhead was made known in
creation, and is clearly seen by the things that are made. Wisdom, power and
goodness, were exhibited in creation, but grace and mercy were not. Here then
the question arises: viz., was not sin necessary? etc. Can any man suppose that
fury, wrath or vengeance, are essential properties of the God of love and
goodness? Are they not the displays of justice on criminals? Just so mercy is
the stream of love. God is love, and eternally loved his people; nor could all
their sins either heighten or destroy it. And love, the fountain, could and
would have raised them to the same enjoyment, that mercy, the stream, now will,
if they never had sinned.

If, therefore, creation was a work of necessity, for a display of the
perfections of God, yet sin was not; for no perfection of God is now made known
to creatures, but what could have been, made known as fully without sin: justice
could have shone as effulgent, and love appeared as strong as they now do. The
universe is as much worse for sin, as all the groans of the creation and all the
damnation of men and devils amount to, and in no instance, upon a general scale,
the better for it.

Those who go to heaven are raised entirely upon the scale of love and goodness,
but saved from hell upon the scale of justice.

Another question arises, which is this: "Do not the saints in heaven admire
redeeming love more than angels do, or more than they possibly could have done,
if they had not sinned and been redeemed?"

Redeeming love, by that name, would never have been known on earth or in heaven,
if creatures had not sinned; but from this it does not appear that creatures on
earth or in heaven are happier than they could otherwise have been. That saints
in heaven will be more exalted than angels, is what I believe; but this
exaltation arises from the likeness of nature, and not from the redemption from
sin; for Jesus Christ has done the human nature more honor than he has the
angelic, in that he put on the first and not the last. To solve the question,
let me ask any godly man, who understands the nature of grace in his heart,
whether (in times when his soul is most full of the love of God) he admires
redemption from hell or the enjoyment of God’s love the most? If I judge right
when souls enjoy most of God, they are the most swallowed up in admiring the
perfections of God, without poring so much upon what he has done for them. That
the act of redemption calls loudly upon all on earth and all in heaven to adore
the Redeemer is unquestionable; at the same time, if we trace things to their
origin, the principle that this act proceeds from, is to be principally adored;
and this principle could have been as well known and as fully enjoyed without
sin, as it now can.

ALL the works of God are the effects of divine power and goodness, love, and
justice in concert; and he always acts from motive in himself; and is noways
biased by the conduct of his creatures: yet the actions of men vary the
operation of his hand in numberless instances. A benevolent father loves his
child, and always acts from a principle of love towards him; but as the
behaviour of the child is sometimes filial and sometimes froward; the same
stimulus of love that moves the father at some times to give a plaudit and
bestow an encomium, at other times induces him to give a reproof and inflict a
punishment. The application is easy. To say that Jesus Christ did not die for
sinners, but for the glory of God, is just as good divinity, as it is to say,
that rain, and fruitful seasons, bread, and all the blessings of nature, are not
given to men for their good, but for the glory of God. That Jesus shed his blood
for the remission of sins, was wounded for transgressions, and bruised for
iniquity, died for sins, and laid down his life for his sheep, is abundantly
proven in scripture. The nature of God, and the nature of sin are such, that sin
must be punished somewhere, in some being; for it cannot be punished in itself:
the criminal or the surety must smart for it. If the surety pays the whole debt,
bears the full punishment, then the criminal is freed, upon the scale of law and
justice; and the creditor cannot demand the sum, nor the law its penalty from
both the debtor or criminal, and the surety. Now if the satisfaction of Christ
consists in suffering for sin, (which is the light in which the New Testament
holds it forth,) he either made universal satisfaction to God, for the sins of
all Adam’s race, or he did not. If the atonement is universal, how can any be
damned, upon the scale of justice? If the answer is, "because men will not
repent, believe, and return and submit to the deliverer." The next question is,
are the acts of impenitence, unbelief, inattention and obstinacy, sins or no
sins? If no sins, then men can be saved in them. If they are sins, then they
were atoned for, or they were not; if they were atoned for, how can men be
damned for them? If they were not atoned for, then the atonement was not
universal. If, therefore, the atonement is proved to be universal, it follows,
of course, that salvation is universal; but if the last is confuted, the first
inevitably falls.

It is a question, whether Jesus the son of Mary went to heaven upon the scale of
nature, obedience, God-head or grace. His nature was free from sin, but not
spiritual enough for heaven, till after his resurrection. His obedience was as
perfect as the law required; he magnified the law and made it honorable. The
searching eye of omniscience could see no imperfection in him; but his obedience
entitled him to no higher station than Adam was in before the fall. To suppose
that he overcame and rose to heaven merely by his own God-head, would destroy
the idea of his perfect human virtue, and represent the man of sorrow as having
no trials at all: for what proof of a giant’s skill would it be to conquer a
pigmy, or what danger would a hero be in, beset only by a child. It seems best
therefore to suppose that Jesus went to heaven by grace. That the babe that was
conceived in the virgin’s womb, was in the same predicament and texture of
innocent Adam, we have great reason to believe; but without the grace of God, it
is more likely that he would have fallen than that Adam should, as temptations
had increased a thousand fold. That John the Baptist was regenerate in his
mother’s womb, is pretty clear; and likely it is the case with many others. So
likewise the child Jesus, came into the world an innocent Adam and a regenerate
soul, and in that character was proof against all the temptations that befell
him, and perfectly obedient to the law; and after dying and suffering for sins,
not his own, he was raised with a spiritual body capable of entering heaven,
which was not the case of Adam’s body before the fall. If these things are
facts, then Jesus called God his father, as Christians do, being his son by
regeneration, (I mean in some places,) and I shall leave the reader to judge,
whether the words, "ye who have followed me in the regeneration of this life,"
are not applicable to the above sentiment.

It is the opinion of some, that depravity consists alone in the will, being the
reverse to all that is good. That when the blindness of the mind, and the
darkness of the understanding are spoken of, we are to form the idea, that the
will is so perverse, that men will not attend to the means of information, and
therefore the mind is left in ignorance. This observation is supported by great
men and great argument; nor am I disposed, at this time, to call it in question;
but one thing I shall contend for, viz. that moral agency and the violation of
the will, have nothing to do in the work of regeneration. The reception of
divine grace, or the new-birth, is not according to the will of man: it is not
of him that willeth but of God. To tell a congregation of people, that they may
all come to Christ as a mediator, and receive eternal life, if they will, is
incoherent divinity; Adam in innocncey had not that power. Paul, whose will was
present, could not do as he would; and all the saints in every part of the
world, when their wills are most swallowed up in the divine will, find the need
of spiritual strength to perform things that they would. That men are moral
agents, since the fall, is evident; otherwise they could not sin at all; but let
those, who believe that salvation turns upon man’s acceptance, remember that the
tree of life in the garden, was not to be eaten of at the will of man after the
fall: and those who suppose that the promised seed, (or rather the seed of the
woman, spoken of as a conqueror to the serpent,) restored fallen man to free
agency, consider that the guardian prohibition of this tree, was after the seed
of the woman was spoken of. When will man duly consider, that the most perfect
obedience of a moral subject entitles him to no higher station, than the state
where he is fixed?

If Christ had died for all, and there is a fulness of grace for all; how comes
it to pass that some are saved and not all? "because some will not come." Are
there not many who had this will not for a number of years, and afterwards
repented and went? "beyond all doubt." Was not their obstinacy of will atoned
for as well as the rest of their sins? "To be sure." Are the sins of obstinacy
in other sinners atoned for or not? If they are, how can they be damned for sins
already atoned for, upon the scale of justice? If they are not atoned for, how
can such find pardon? "But the sins of men are atoned for conditionally."

What are those conditions?

"The conditions are, that every one that will repent of his sins and believe in
Jesus Christ shall be saved; but every one that will not repent and believe,
shall die under the curse of the law, and have an aggarvated damnation for
refusing to submit to an offered Saviour." Can men comply with those conditions?
If one man can, so can all, except one is made better than another. If God has
made one man better than another, how can he require as much of one as of
another, in justice? If all men are in one predicament, then one can do what
another can; and if all men have power to repent and believe, how comes it to
pass that some do and others do not? "Because one uses the means and others do
not. " But why does one use the means and not another? "Because one will and
another will not. " But how comes one to have a will and not another? Does this
better will proceed from nature or from grace? If from either, God is the author
of it. 44.

If Jesus Christ was delivered up to death by an original statute, sin was
certainly included in the moral system; for on no other account did Jesus die,
but for the sins of his people. That he was delivered by the determinate counsel
of God, is evident; but that this delivery includes death, is very questionable.

There is no way supposable, that God could have raised human creatures to
heaven, but by delivering his Son to become incarnate; for the union of the two
natures in the Mediator, is the ground-work of the exaltation of human creatures
to the divine glory. The best mode of thinking is this: That God originally
determined to deliver his son to be incarnate; and secondarily, from a knowledge
of creatures’ sin, delivered him to death; the last being a consequence of the
first, depending on the moral agency of creatures, and not arising from an
original statute.

There is no kind of violence or cruelty under the sun, but what may bereconciled
to tyrannical sovereignty; but has the God of love and goodness a sovereign
right to do wrong? "It must be right because God has done it, " is not a sound
as harmonical as to say, "It is wrong, and therefore God is not the author of
it." The whole universe is composed of a multitude of units; if the human world
is therefore the better for sin, the advantage must be found among some or all
these units; but where is there a judicious individual in the universe, that can
say, he is better for sin? That wicked men are physically impelled to sin,
excited thereto by moral suasion; or called upon to rebel by the dispensations
of God’s mercies and judgments, is inadmissible. But that their corrupt natures
are in that predicament that they are under a natural necessity to sin until
they are changed by grace, is incontestible. Consequently if there is a single
action of spiritual good to be performed by them, prior to their receiving the
grace of God, it will forever remain undone. The truth is, that in the simple
work of regeneration, men neither assist nor resist. In the foregoing exposition
and appendix, there are a number of hints given, that the predicament of
innocent Adam, was different from that of a regenerate saint on earth, and of a
glorified saint in heaven; and as this distinction is called in question by
many, I shall say something more on the subject.

It is true, God may justly require more of his creatures now, than he required
of Adam in the garden. The obedience and faith of a creature, should always be
tantamount to the commands and revelation of the creator. If the creator,
therefore, commands his creatures any thing more than he commanded Adam, they
are under bonds to obey; and that creatures, since the fall, are commanded to
make themselves new hearts and cleanse themselves from all unrighteousness, be
unfeignedly sorry for their sins and love God with a pure heart fervently,
admits of no doubt. And further, if God has revealed more to his fallen
creatures than he revealed to Adam in the garden, they should believe more than
he did, with an unshaken faith. When Jesus was on earth, he gave as full proof
of his divinity and Messiahship, as the Almighty did of his God-head in
creation; and therefore people who saw, and those who have heard of him, are as
strongly bound to believe in him as the Almighty Saviour as they are to believe
in the God-head of the creator. But still the question is, whether grace does
not raise men to a higher state than they fell from - do more for them than the
law requires?

It cannot be supposed, that the law requires man to rise to a more exalted state
than Adam was in, when in Eden: now if it can be demonstrated that grace raises
men higher than Eden’s garden, then the hypothesis is maintained.

Adam was on earth: saints will be raised to heaven. Adam was to propagate:
saints will be like angels in respect of propagation. Adam was to dress the
garden and eat thereof: saints will be fed by God without their hand labor. The
presumption is strong that Adam was made to till the ground: saints will live
where there will be no ground to till. The point then is proved. As for the
predicament of Adam’s soul, before the fall, it is as difficult to describe, as
it is to describe where the garden of Eden was, for much the same reason. Sin
drove him from that garden, and extinguished that life in his soul, that neither
he, nor any of his progeny will ever regain. When wandering souls are brought
home to God, it is not to Eden’s garden, or to that life that Adam possessed in
innocency; but to a place more exalted, to a life more sublime. That Adam, while
innocent, took complacency in the divine character, cordially submitted to the
moral government of Jehovah, and cheerfully obeyed his God, is granted: anything
short of this, would have been hypocrisy at best. This exercise is still
enjoined on all men; for God has not lost his right to command, because men are
depraved and fallen. But after all, the life of Adam’s soul was mutable; it was
not eternal life, it was extinguished by sin, and ended in death; neither Adam
nor any of his children will ever enjoy the same life again: but those who are
changed by grace, are made partakers of an immutable, eternal life that can
never be extinguished.

Another idea also contended for, is this, viz., that the grace of God, in
regeneration, is bestowed in a sovereign manner: that God in giving that grace,
works not according to the laws of nature, and treats with men, not as moral
agents, but as recipient beings. The system of the Armenians merits regard, so
far as it respects moral government; in this point, they have the advantage of
those who suppose that sin, and all its consequences, emerge in consequence of
some grand decree in Deity; but when they intrude the moral system into the
channel of grace, and suppose that salvation depends upon the will and
acceptance of the creature, prior to his being born again, they make wretched
week. In vindication of the first mentioned part of their system, it may be
said, that if angels and men cannot act, but as they are acted upon; if spirits
have no kind of self motion, but are always used as pullies, weights and wheels
in a machine; and that they act voluntarily also, it not only represents Jehovah
as the original agent of their wicked actions, but the author of their corrupt
wills; by making use of motives behind the screen, to influence them to act.
Should a monarch put a knife into a child’s hand, and directing the child’s hand
with his own arm, thrust the blade into another and kill him, who would punish
the child and exculpate the monarch? and if the monarch made use of motives
visible or clandestine, to influence the child to act willingly, would the
violation of the child clear the character of the monarch? But in opposition to
the last mentioned part of their system, viz., that salvation depends upon moral
agency; let it be noticed, that if the grace of the gospel only re-Adams men,
there is a thousand times as great reason to believe that all men will be
damned, as there was to believe that Adam would fall. The sure standing or final
falling of a soul, rests either upon the unchangeableness of God, or the
unchangeableness of the creature; if on the unchangeableness of God, their
standing is sure; for God changes not; but if their standing rests on the
unchangeableness of the creature, their falling is not only possible, but
probable; not only probable, but certain. In this point of sight, every argument
that is brought to prove the possibility of falling away finally, operates with
a thousand times as much weight, to prove that falling away is certain. The
truth is, that holy, mutable creatures had power to do evil, and evil creatures
have natural power to do good; to do as much as the law requires, (so far as it
respects their future conduct,) for sin has not destroyed their natural powers;
but they have no more power than will, to perform spiritual services in a
gracious manner. This spring of soul, Adam had not; this spring, sin never
broke; this spring is effected in the work of grace; sin is not the cause of it,
nor shall sin prevent its being formed in the heart, nor shall sin ever entirely
break it. To close the appendix, I shall observe, that sin arose at first,
either from the agency of God, or the agency of creatures. If it arose from the
agency of God, there is either no evil in it, or an eternal root of evil was in
God, for nothing can arise in the agency of God, but what had root in himself;
and if God is such a being, and by his power, mixed with love and hate, good and
evil, he made creatures, and demands their admiration; then it must be given
him: but one thing is certain, if this be the case, viz., the more holy
creatures are, the less they love such a character, and when they are made like
him, they will not be free from roots of bitterness. Let the wire-drawer, or the
hair-splitter, who believes that sin was designed by God, and that it answers
valuable purposes, show the difference between cause and occasion, if he can;
and how he can maintain his point, without holding to two eternal opposite
causes, I know not.

38. This piece was never before published, but was written in, or prior to, the
year 1790. The appendix was probably written at a subsequent period, but when,
we have no means of ascertaining.

39. If, from the formation of Adam and Eve, to the flood, people doubled once in
forty-five years, there had been on earth more than one hundred and thirty-seven
thousand millions. And, if they have doubled as fast from Noah, to the present
time, there have been in the world nearly forty thousand quatrillions; which
would be more than one hundred thousand souls, for each square inch in the
terraqueous globe.

. The general computation is twenty-one thousand six hundred, but some make it
as great as twenty-six thousand; to form a medium therefore, and to give a round
number without fractions, I compute it at twenty-four thousand miles. All my
calculations, respecting the earth, are made upon that scale, except the
foot-note in the introduction.

41. The American empire contains six hundred and forty millions of acres, of
which, fifty-one millions are water.

42. The nearest fixed star is at such a distance from us, that a cannon-ball
must fly at the rate of one hundred fathoms a second, and take nearly seven
hundred thousand years to reach it: the distance being computed at almost two
and a half millions of miles. A line of wheat-grains, from the sun to said star,
allowing four grains to the inch, would form a mountain of wheat, more than
sufficient to sow forty such globes as this, allowing a bushel to an acre.

43. Some suppose that the best way to clear the character of God from being the
cause of every kind of evil, is, to imagine that Adam stood a representative of
all the lower creation, human, animal, vegetative and the gross parts of it, and
that when he sinned and forsook his moral order, it threw the whole creation
into disorder. That as soon as sin raised a war of elements within him, the
contagion ran through all the elements without him, and brought a curse upon the
fire, air, water and earth. That briers and thistles and all poisonous weeds
sprang up, as a consequent thereof; and that the infection rose up in the sap of
the tree of good and evil, (which had not this quality before the fall, as they
judge,) and that the animals received a cruel, venomous disposition from the
source of Adam’s sin, as well as the human world, a wicked stubborn nature.

44. This mode of reasoning is just in the plan of salvation, but inadmissible in
the moral system.


========================================================================
Source: https://sermonindex.net/books/leland-john-various-writiings-wip/
========================================================================