Volume 5. Number 3. October 1, 1827, pp. 372-383.

• Deism and the Social System.--No. V. by A Lover of Just Reasoning, pp. 373-374.
• Reply to the Above by AC, pp. 374-376.
• A Problem for the Editor of the Harmony Gazette and his Doubting Brethren by AC, pp. 376-377.
• Paulinus to the Editor of the "Christian Baptist" by Paulinus, pp. 377-378.
• To Paulinus by AC, p. 378.
• From the Christian Messenger To the Christian Baptist by B. W. Stone, pp. 378-379.
• To the Christian Messenger by AC, pp. 379-381.
• Miscellaneous Letters.--No. I. by AC, pp. 381-382.
• To Rev. S. M. Noel, D. D. by AC, p. 383.

Randolph County, Ind. July 3, 1827.      

      DEAR SIR,--IN looking over some of your late numbers of the Christian Baptist, I found a series of essays addressed to Mr. D., whom you call a sceptic. Though I am not fond of useless "replication," yet when controversy is instructive, I have no objection to give ear to it, and learn what may be learnt from it. This being the case, I feel somewhat inclined to investigate some positions laid down (I will not say assumed) by you in the above essays; but at the same time, I will observe that I wield a young untutored pen--one in which it would be the height of presumption to undertake to vie with the masterly quill of the erudite A. Campbell.

      In the first and second numbers of your Replication, you deny the possibility of the existence of a God being known without deriving that knowledge from the Bible. Strange, indeed, is it, that the all-wise Creator of the universe should make the most fallible kind of evidence, viz. testimony, the only possible vehicle through which he can be known to his creatures! It is strange that he should make the frail inventions of men, such as empty sounds, paper, &c. the archives of his name and character, in exclusion to the more durable work of his own hand--the Book of Nature.

      I think that the evidence of the scriptures is of the most fallible class; because it is to us history, hearsay, or evidence resting on the testimony of others. There are but three kinds of evidence by which we assent to the truth of a proposition; and of these but one is infallible, and that is where the principles on which the evidence is founded are intuitive. Such is the evidences on which mathematical truths are founded. The next highest class of evidence is that which I call experience; and is that which is received immediately by the senses. It is on this kind of evidence that the truths of natural and experimental philosophy stand. This, though a very high kind of evidence, is still fallible: for we are liable to be deceived by our senses, since, to a man having the jaundice, every thing appears yellow. The next and last class of evidence is testimony, wherein we give our assent or dissent to a proposition on the veracity of others. This kind of evidence is quite fallible: for the witness may either wilfully deceive by prevarication or lying; or though he wish to give correct testimony, his senses may have deceived him; and he being deceived, those who receive his testimony cannot but be deceived also.

      The truths of the Bible are with us, founded on this kind of evidence. For though at the promulgation of the gospel, its truth was attested by miracles; yet we believe that it was attested in such a manner, on the evidence of testimony.--It is possible for the Bible to be all a fable or romance produced by priestcraft. And as it is possible for it to be so, you see that the vehicle which you would make us believe is the only one by which we can come at a knowledge of our Creator, may deceive us, and we may spend our whole lives in controversial bickering about fables.

      Having said this much to show you that there is not so much credence necessarily attached to the scripture account of the Creator and his character as you would have us believe, I shall now undertake to show you that, notwithstanding you could not, by your senses, discover but that the Creator "was either not almighty; that the winds and rain were stronger than He, or that he was the most notionate, irrational, and whimsical being in the universe;" we can, by our senses, and reasoning faculties, be as imperatively convinced of the existence of a God, as we can by the scriptures. I would here observe that this is the main point in which I disagree with you in your "replication."

      To show that we are capable of knowing that there is a God, and how it is we came by this knowledge, I think we need go no farther than ourselves. Man, beyond doubt, has a clear perception, and certain knowledge that he exists and is something. If any one is so sceptical as to deny this, he may enjoy his opinion, for me, till hunger or pain convince him of the contrary. For such are beyond the power of reason or demonstration to touch, if it were possible for such to be. But it is impossible for such rational creatures to exist; therefore, rational creatures that do exist, are certainly assured of their existence.

      "In the next place, man knows, by an intuitive certainty, that bare nothing can no more produce real being, than it can be equal to two right angles. If a man knows not that non-entity, or the absence of all being, cannot be equal to two right angles, it is impossible that he should know any demonstration in Euclid. If, therefore, we know there is some real being, and that non-entity cannot produce any real being, it is an evident demonstration that, from eternity, there has been something; since what was not from eternity, had a beginning, and what had a beginning, must be produced by something else.

      "Next, it is evident, that what had its being and beginning from another, must also have all that which is in, and belongs to its being from another too. All the powers it has must be owing to, and received from the same source. This eternal source, then, of all being, must also be the source and original of all power; and so this eternal being must be also the most powerful.

      "Again, a man finds in himself perception and knowledge. We have, then, got one step farther; and we are certain now, that there is not only some being, but some knowing intelligent being in the world. [373] "There was a time, then, when there was no knowing being, and when knowledge began to be; or else there has been also a knowing being from eternity. If it be said there was a time when no being had any knowledge, when that eternal Being was void of all understanding--I reply, that then it was impossible there ever should have been any knowledge; it being as impossible that things wholly void of knowledge, and operating blindly, and without any perception, should produce a knowing being, as it is impossible that a triangle should make to itself three angles bigger than two right ones. For it is as repugnant to the idea of senseless matter that it should put into itself sense, perception, and knowledge, as it is repugnant to the idea of a triangle, that it should put into itself greater angles than two right ones.

      "Thus, from the consideration of ourselves, and what we infallibly find in our own constitutions, our reason leads us to the knowledge of this certain and evident truth, that there is an eternal, most powerful, and most knowing being; which, whether any one will please to call God, it matters not. The thing is evident, and from this idea duly considered, will easily be deduced all those other attributes, which we ought to ascribe to this eternal Being. If, nevertheless, any one should be found so senselessly arrogant, as to suppose man alone knowing and wise, but yet the product of mere ignorance; and that all the rest of the universe acted only by that blind haphazard: I shall leave with him that very rational and emphatical rebuke of Tully, (C. 2. de leg.) to be considered at his leisure. What can be more sillily arrogant and misbecoming than for a man to think that he has a mind and understanding in him, but yet in all the universe beside there is no such thing? Or that those things which, with the utmost stretch of his reason he can scarce comprehend, should be moved and managed without any reason at all?

      "From what has been said, it is plain to me, we have a more certain knowledge of the existence of a God, than of any thing our senses have not immediately discovered to us. Nay, I presume I may say, we more certainly know that there is a God than that there is any thing else without us. When I say we know, I mean there is such a knowledge within our reach, which we cannot miss, if we but apply our minds to that, as we do to several other inquiries."--Locke's Essay, B. 4. ch. 10.

      Now, sir, do you think that you and "Inquisitas" made the best use of your reason, when you undertook to discover the existence and character of God? Your stories are as cogent reasoning in support of your hypothesis, as the story of the man who said he had lived 20 years at one place, and during the whole time he never found his head hanging down, would be to disprove the diurnal motion of the earth. Others might reason better; but you, Inquisitas, and the man, all reasoned alike, that is, "the best you could."

      I do not wish you, from the above remarks, to think I am an enemy to the laudable work in which you are engaged. I do think it high time for a people who boast of their freedom, to have the fetters of superstition broken, and their minds liberated. But, conceiving that you reasoned wrongly on the above point, I have made free to give you some of my thoughts on the subject. Judging from your character as a disputant, I expect to be heard patiently and dealt with fairly.

A LOVER OF JUST REASONING.      

      DEAR SIR.--TO the classification of evidence which you adopt, I offer no objection. But more has been said on the superiority of intuitive evidence than the subject deserves, Its superiority in the estimation of philosophers, is greater than either in fact or utility. For the sake of argument, I am willing to admit that it produces infallible certainty; but this infallible certainty is of no greater importance in actual life than is the certainty, fallible or infallible, which results from the evidence of our senses or of testimony. I am intuitively certain that a whole is greater than a part. I am experimentally certain that fire will burn. I am, by testimony, certain that George Washington once lived. I doubt no more the truth or certainty of the last mentioned than of either of the former. You, in theory, place intuitive evidence above all other, as respects certainty; but, in fact, you place the evidence of your senses or experience above it. Take an instance in the close of your letter. You attempt to prove that there is a God from intuitive principles; and after reasoning for some time on these principles, you conclude your syllogisms by saying. "From what has been said, it is plain to me we have a more certain knowledge of the existence of a God, than of any thing our senses have not immediately discovered to us." But, what follows? Not so certain, or not more certain than we are of any thing which our senses discover to us. In this way the philosopher often forgets his theory when he comes in contact with fact. I attribute Locke's words to you, as you have adopted them.

      But as men do not feel themselves certain upon, nor according to, the principles graduated by philosophers in their schools, it is a matter of no importance with me to spend many minutes in objecting to your remarks upon evidence in general. The Revelation of God was not first communicated by testimony: he did not choose to reveal himself in this way; but to us now it is all matter of history or testimony: but not merely so, as you represent it. The Revelation is addressed to the whole man, and it has within it its intuitive principles, which it presents to the honest student as Euclid does to his students. When the terms are understood, it is as intuitively evident that good men differ from bad men, as that 2 and 3 are not one and the same. There is no proposition in Euclid more capable of lucid and conclusive demonstration than this one. It is impossible that the bible could have been forged or introduced through priestcraft or kingcraft. To those acquainted with its contents, it is an axiom as evident in, morals, as any respecting quantities in mathematics, that good men could not surreptitiously introduce this volume. Neither could bad men. But, without particularizing on a subject so plain, I proceed to remark that the evidence which supports the claims of this volume is not confined to any one species, but embraces the whole. Its truth becomes the subject of experience, properly so called. Jesus the Messiah puts it in the power of every person whom he addresses experimentally to prove the truth of his pretensions. He says, "Come to me, all you that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. If any man put himself under my guidance he shall know the truth, and the truth shall make him free." Thus we have the means of deciding experimentally on the reality of his pretensions. Whether he were an impostor, or the Messenger of the Great God, is submitted thus to be tested by our experience. Where is [374] the man who has proved these promises false? Myriads have experienced their truth. Thus you see it is doing injustice to the wisdom of the author of this volume to say, that he has made it a matter of testimony only, properly so called. For its claims are supported by intuitive evidence, experience, and testimony.

      But there is a shorter, and, to the bulk of mankind, a more cogent way of deciding the question, Whether the Book of Creation, or that called the Bible, is better adapted to communicate to the human mind the knowledge of God? This is by furnishing an answer to the following question: Whether do they who read the bible, or they who read nothing else but the Book of Nature, know most of God, or know him best? Which of them possess the more clear, consistent and rational views of Deity? The progress of the students is the better proof of the qualifications of the preceptor. But the principal point is that which is yet to be noticed. You object in strong terms to my u denying the possibility of the existence of God being known, without deriving that knowledge from the Bible." Permit me distinctly to state the difference between my views and those of natural religionists, deists, and sceptics in general, on this subject.

      1. I contend that no man, by all the senses, and powers of reason which he possesses, with all the data before him which the material universe affords, can originate or beget in his own mind the idea of a God, in the true sense of that word.

      2. But I contend so soon as the idea of Deity is suggested to the mind, every thing within us and without us, attests, bears testimony to, and demonstrates the existence and attributes of such a being.

      If the first position can be established, it will follow that there cannot be a rational deist on earth. If the second position be established, there cannot be an atheist amongst all the compos mentis of the human race. I think both of these positions can be triumphantly maintained against all objections whatsoever. The first one is that which you assail, and these essays are devoted to the establishment of it alone. I proposed three questions to the illuminati of New Harmony for this purpose, expecting that if they were deists, they would answer them in the affirmative, and then offer their proof. But not knowing whether they would affirm or deny, I could do no more than simply propose them.--They, very politically, and, I suppose, honestly, (for honesty is always the best policy) said they could neither affirm nor deny. But in their last number which reached me to-day, (September 10) they have exhibited more wit than logic on the subject of these queries. I will lay before you a second class of answers given to these three queries by another of these sage philosophers, and to which the editor says aloud, Amen!

      "The editor of the Christian Baptist appears desirous to get rid of the onus probandi, the trouble of proving, by demanding from the sceptics of Harmony answers to three questions. This seems to me unphilosophical. As the writers in the Gazette are professed sceptics, the onus probandi can never, with propriety, be thrown upon them. When I say, I doubt; this wants certainly no other proof but my assertion. But I shall, nevertheless, answer his questions, and by doing so, show their philosophical impropriety."

      1st. "Is there a God who created all things?" I answer, from my heart, I do not know. If you know, pray prove it! This is the norma disputandi, as Miss Wright says, and I think with her, there is as much proof pro as con. If, by the word "creating," you mean producing out of nothing, I feel the irresistible weight of the axiom, ex nihilo nil fit, out of nothing nothing can come, which repels your assertion. If you call God the first cause, he is an effect without a cause, and this is again nonsense. Even as the proofs pro or con, temporarily preponderate in my mind, I call, at one time with Goethe, the world an "ever-devouring, ever-regurgitating monster," or at another I exclaim with Pope, "all discords harmony not understood,"--"whatever is, is right!" When I observe benevolent design attained, I am for a God. But when I see design not attained, (as e. g. the nipples in males of men and quadrupeds, or muscles to move the external ear in man without a nerve to influence its motion, &c.)--or a bad design, attained or or not, (e. g. the claws of the tiger to tear the innocent lamb, or those of the hawk to pierce the heart of the harmless dove, &c.)--the idea of a God speedily vanishes. If the editor of the Christian Baptist can prove the existence of a God, he is heartily welcome: for my part, I cannot.

      2d. "Is there a spirit in man?" &c. Here again I must impugn the irregularity of the opponent. He should first have given a definition of the word spirit. I should define it to be something not in the least like to any thing I know; and this would be a good definition of nothing.--Modern philosophy with the celebrated professor Kant, has quite set aside the unmeaning distinction between matter and spirit; for who can tell where matter ceases and spirit begins? The substances of electricity, galvanism, caloric, magnetism--are they matter or spirit? If he will let me substitute the word substance, essence for spirit, I will answer the question. The substance which thinks and wills in us, must last forever; for annihilation is nonsense to us, who have never witnessed it. But whether that substance, as an individual being, can think and act, when uncombined with other substances, as in man during life, is again a problem justly to be doubted. The editor of the Christian Baptist will here again have to prove, or wait with me "the great teacher, Death."

      3d. "Is there a future state of felicity or torment?" Bitter and sweet are so equally mixed in the cup of life, that we can claim neither compensation in bliss, nor owe retribution in torments hereafter. If happiness be our lot after death, it is mere generosity that bestows it; and if misery, it would be sheer, wanton, unmerited tyranny.

      "This is all I know about these matters; and if the editor of the Christian Baptist knows more about it, I implore him, in the name of all honest sceptics, to come forward and PROVE it!

      They are premature in alleging that I put, or was wishing to put, the onus probandi, or task of proving, upon them. I was waiting their affirmation or negation; and then if there was a necessity for proof, the "norma disputandi," or law of disputing, would decide who should have the onus probandi. I told them at first I was willing to divide the burden before I knew what it would be. You will at once perceive that you and they are at issue, or that they decide in my favor against you. So that I may very justly hand you over to them, or them over to you. You and they, not I and they, are at issue on the first position. They have renounced both christianity and deism. They call deism "nonsense." Your [375] argument and that of Locke, they boldly affirm to be "nonsense." I have now, by the testimony or concessions of a plurality of the most enlightened sceptic philosophers in the world, gained the very point, to establish which, these essays were commenced. They are devoted to deists; and a competent jury of sceptics, the only umpires in this case, have given in their verdict that a "rational deist" is a contradiction in terms or equivalent thereto; and that all his philosophy is "nonsense." My first position is established with them, and those who oppose it I hand over to them. You will please, then, if you have any doubts on my first position, after reading this essay, make them known to those philosophers. For my part, unless I were to edit a work devoted to scepticism in all its various forms, (and this I think would be very necessary in the present day) I can say but little more on the subject in this work, as its object is of a different kind. Should I find room for a series of essays on the 2d position, I would like to come in contact with the sceptics of the Gazette. But as atheism is rather a distemper of the moral powers, than a defect in the intellectual, and as it never has, and I think never can make headway in the human family, I do not feel myself imperiously called to demonstrate my second position. There is not one person in ten myriads who will dispute its truth; and therefore, so long as there are many other truths of great importance, against which many object, both good reason and benevolence suggest that these should first be attended to. If a hundred persons will furnish ten subscribers each to a monthly paper, the same size, execution and price of this work, per annum, to be devoted to scepticism in general, I will engage to do the duties of an editor as far as I am qualified. And indeed I have often thought that such a work is much needed in the present day. A word to the wise is sufficient for him, and ten will not move a simpleton.

      But I must not conclude this paper without pointing out the grand error in your and the philosophers' reasoning upon intuitive principles to originate the idea of a Creator or first cause. You begin to work with the idea in your own mind, and fondly imagine you have acquired it by your reasoning. Your effort should have been to show how a person without such an idea is to originate in his own mind the whole idea of a God. You suppose him in possession of a part of the idea before he begins to reason at all.

      All that the book of nature teaches is that every animal and vegetable is dependent on one of its own kind for its production. The whole volume does not afford a model or archetype for an idea of any animal or plant being dependant on any other of a different nature and kind for its production. You leap over the distance from earth to heaven in your reasoning, or rather, you fledge yourself with the wings of faith, and find in the bible the idea of all things being dependant on a Being unlike every other, who produces no being like himself, contrary to your analogy from the book of nature, and who produces all beings both unlike himself and one another. You flew so nimbly and so easily over this mighty gulf, that you were not conscious that you had got out of the region of earth-born ideas altogether, and were farther than all space from the volume of nature which you sat down to read. Ask Locke and Hume, and they will tell you that you cannot have a single idea--a simple uncompounded idea, the pattern of which or the thing of which it is the idea, is not first presented to some one of your senses. Ideas are images, and before the image is seen in the glass, or exists in the mind, an object must be presented. And when have you seen any thing creating or producing something out of nothing, or forming any thing essentially unlike itself? And if such an object is no where presented you, can you have the image of it!!!

      A natural man might see, and have an idea, that every animal and vegetable is dependant upon one of the same kind for its existence; but by what steps he could arrive at an idea that an invisible being made one or all animals and vegetables, I think no man living can show. And that any man could logically infer that there is a first cause, which is the effect of no antecedent cause from any thing he ever saw or heard outside of the bible, no philosopher has yet shown, nor can it ever be shown until man gets six senses instead of five. Locke and other philosophers who have rejected the doctrine of innate ideas and who have traced all our simple ideas to sensation and reflection, have departed from their own reasonings when they attempted to show that, independent of supernatural revelation, a man could know that there is an eternal first cause uncaused. You have a lever, but like Archimedes, you must exclaim "dos pou sto." You must beg a place on which to rest your fulcrum. And outside of the bible the universe does not afford you a speck of matter on which to place your fulcrum.

      But I have a few facts which, on your principles, are inexplicable--on mine they are easily understood:--

      1. Not one of the terms peculiarly expressive of the idea of a God, such as spirit, eternity, immortality, &c. are to be found amongst any people antecedent to their being possessed of oral or written revelation.

      2. No nation or individual, without oral or written revelation, can be found who has a single idea of any item in the deists' creed.

      3. All the deaf and dumb that have been made to hear and speak, or who have been taught to communicate their ideas, have uniformly and universally declared that an idea of a God, or any thing under that name never entered their mind. This is decisive proof that the knowledge of God enters the human mind by the ear, or by communication, verbal or written.

      4. Not one of the idolatrous nations pretend to have derived their religion from reason. These are facts which I can only state at present; but which, when developed, contain volumes of invincible argument on this subject.

      My dear sir, all your philosophy ends in doubts. And you may see from the philosophers of Harmony, that so soon as the bible words and ideas are proscribed, man is left in total darkness, both as respects his origin and destiny, the two grandest and most sublime points ever imagined or expressed. While they boast of light, they make a man more ignorant than an ass which knows its master's crib. They divest him of all his majesty, and make him of no more consequence than a snail or a mushroom, Sic transit gloria philosophiæ.

EDITOR.      

      YOU think that reason cannot originate the idea of an eternal first cause, or that no man could acquire such an idea by the employment of his senses and reason--and you think correctly. You think also, that the bible is not a supernatural revelation--not a revelation from a Deity in any sense. These things premised, gentlemen, [376] I present my problem FOR ATHEISTS in the form of a query again. The christian idea of an eternal first cause uncaused, or of a God, is now in the world, and has been for ages immemorial. You say it could not enter into the world by reason, and it did not enter by revelation. Now, as you are philosophers and historians, and have all the means of knowing, how did it enter into the world?

EDITOR.      

      DEAR SIR:--EXISTING circumstances seem to require from me a statement of facts, with a few explanatory remarks:--I hasten to offer them accordingly.

      Some little time past, I received from my much esteemed friend, Bishop R. B. S. the Kentucky "Baptist Recorder" of June 2; with a letter containing a reference to an editorial article in that paper. In this article, (which is addressed to yourself by one of the editors,) notice is taken of a letter which it seems was written by my friend above mentioned, to a correspondent in Kentucky; and an extract is given, in which the writer, speaking of Paulinus, says, "He wrote something last year, in which he certainly went too far. He is now convinced, (I am persuaded,) and is guarded against our friend Campbell's chimeras." In the last number of the Christian Baptist, too, I find this extract introduced by one of your correspondents; a circumstance which tends to hasten me in this statement.

      That the writer felt the persuasion here expressed, I am too well assured of his candor, for a moment to question; nor can I indulge any disposition to complain of his having mentioned this impression to his correspondent, in a letter, which, as he informs me, was not designed for publication. That he might feel such a persuasion--a persuasion that I had measurably receded from some of my positions, is easy to imagine; though I certainly never intended, by any thing I may have said, a retraction of what I had written in the Christian Baptist.

      Among the several points introduced in the correspondence between you and myself, there were two especially, on which my friend above mentioned had thought that he and I differed considerably. These regarded the subject of the "Old Dispensation," and the questions concerning "Creeds and Confessions of Faith." In the course, however, of several conversations, friendly discussions, and mutual explanations, we conceived that the difference, if any, was immaterial. I understood him as maintaining the perpetual obligation of Old Testament injunctions, only in so far as they are of a moral nature; and all such are surely sanctioned in the New Testament; and on my part, while I maintained the impropriety and injurious tendency of creeds and confessions of faith, considered as standards, I conceded to him, that I could see nothing improper in a written declaration or explanation of our religious sentiments.

      Now, it is very possible, that, in regard to these matters, my brother S. might consider me as yielding, in some measure, the points for which I had contended; while I might believe, (as I certainly do,) that in all this--taking my two epistles in the Christian Baptist together--there was nothing the least inconsistent with what I had there written.

      This statement is not intended for the purpose of screening myself from the imputation of a change in sentiment. We know but in part; and I am far from thinking it dishonorable, when conviction has taken place, to retract, a former opinion or adopt a new one. In this case, however, I see no occasion to retract; being persuaded that what I have advanced will, if properly understood, abide the test of any examination.

      But there is a point, (permit me now to say,)--a matter of deeper interest and greater importance than any I have here alluded to; on which brother S. and myself, with many others, are cordially agreed;--I mean, the necessity of a present divine influence from the Holy Spirit, for the renewal of the soul of man in the image of Christ; and on which I must say, you do not appear to us to come out with sufficient clearness. Since your answer to my second epistle, (for which I hereby offer you my sincere acknowledgments,) I have read your whole series of "essays on the work of the Holy Spirit in the salvation of men;"--"counting, (to use the words of Solomon,) one by one, to find out the account; which yet my soul seeks, but I find not." Amidst a display of masterly talent, and lucid argument, and excellent matter, I find not any explicit exhibition of the point above mentioned. But you seem to think that this would be going so far towards forming a mere theory; and you seem to think that this is a point of mere speculation. Well, my dear sir, I must say, I do most devoutly differ from you in this opinion. To me it appears that this would not be theorizing (if there is such a word,) but expressing a scriptural truth; and that it is by no means a mere speculation, but a point of deep practical importance.

      I forbear, at present, to enter into this subject; reserving it for an essay which (God willing), I intend to write when more at leisure; and for which I hereby give you notice, I shall solicit a place in the Christian Baptist.

      With the other extract in the "Recorder," there is no occasion, I presume, for me to interfere; the particular object of this communication being an explanatory exhibition of what concerned my own case. My acknowledgments, however, are due to brother Clack, of the "Recorder," and I beg through this medium to make them--for his favorable opinion as to my disposition. I am, indeed; as he believes, "not disposed to rend the churches for the sake of establishing the constructions and interpretations" of any person: for though I think there is room for reformation even among the Baptists, I am persuaded that this desirable object should be attempted, and may be best effected, by other means than those which might be calculated to rend the churches: and I wish, that in treating on each others' errors, we might not forget to love each others' persons.

      Asking an insertion of this (entire) in the Christian Baptist, and wishing you grace, mercy, and peace, I am, dear sir, yours for Christ's sake.

PAULINUS.      

      P. S. Although my note has already extended beyond the limits which I had designed, I cannot be content to send it on, without saying how well pleased I always am with your attacks on the follies and vanities, the avarice and ambition, too prevalent in the religious world, and among the clergy, (so styled,) as well as the laity. [Would that I could be as well satisfied in every thing!] While some species of errors should, I think, be met in the spirit of mildness, these evils deserve the keenest strokes. Whence comes the desire, among the christian ministry, to be honored by human titles, and elevated by a factitious dignity? Not from the spirit of Christ. And who gave to our colleges the authority to weave a spiritual chaplet for the brows of a [377] preacher? Not he who said, "Be ye not called of men Rabbi." What a pity that Baptists, who profess to be followers of Christ in simplicity, should ever "cast one longing, lingering look" at such vain baubles: and be willing to follow, though at humble distance in the track of the grand hierarchy. Excuse the length of my note.

PAULINUS.      

      VERY DEAR SIR,--IN the proposed communication, which I shall receive gladly, please be full on one point, viz. in showing that the decision of one question is "a point of deep practical importance." I mean that the teaching of the unregenerate the necessity of a divine influence to their renewal or conversion, is to them "a point of deep practical importance?' I remain yours as ever.

EDITOR.      

      BROTHER CAMPBELL,--YOUR talents and learning we have highly respected: your course we have generally approved; your religious views, in many points, accord with our own; and to one point we have hoped we both were directing our efforts, which point is to unite the flock of Christ, scattered in the dark and cloudy day. We have seen you, with the arm of a Sampson, and the courage of a David, tearing away the long established foundations of partyism, human authoritative creeds and confessions; we have seen you successfully attacking many false notions and speculations in religion--and against every substitute for the Bible and its simplicity, we have seen you exerting all your mighty powers. Human edifices begin to totter, and their builders to tremble. Every means is tried to prevent their ruin, and to crush the man who dares attempt it. We confess our fears that in some of your well intended aims at error you have unintentionally wounded the truth. Not as unconcerned spectators have we looked on the mighty war between you and your opposers; a war in which many of us had been engaged for many years before you entered the field. You have made a diversion in our favor, and to you is turned the attention of creed makers and party spirits, and on you is hurled their ghostly thunder. We enjoy a temporary peace and respite from war where you are known.

      From you we have learned more fully the evil of speculating on religion, and have made considerable proficiency in correcting ourselves. But, dear sir, how surprised and sorry were we to see in your 10th number, volume 4, a great aberration from your professed principles. You there have speculated and theorized on the most important point in theology, and in a manner more mysterious and metaphysical than your predecessors. We refer to your exposition of John i.1. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the word was God." Please, sir, attend to a few friendly remarks, designed to correct in time what may hereafter become of more serious injury, than any system before invented by the wisdom of man. You have assumed very high grounds, from which you look down upon all the Christian world, and see them at an immeasurable distance below you--the Calvinist midway between you and the Arian--the Calvinist on a mountain, the Arian on a hill, and the Socinian on a hillock. From this eminence you see a vast difference between the Calvinist and Arian; but on a page or two before, you could discover very little, if any difference between their views of the Son of God. The ground you occupy is too high for common minds to tread. I should be afraid to venture, lest giddiness should be the consequence. I would advise my dear brother not to soar too high on fancy's wings, above the humble grounds of the gospel, lest others adventuring may be precipitated to ruin. Not that I should advise you to settle on Calvin's mount, on the hill of Arius, or on the hillock of Socinus, (these are all far too low,) but on the holy mount of God, revealed in his word. This, though high as the heavens, is safe for all to tread.

      You object to the Calvinistic views of Trinity, and of calling Jesus the eternal Son of God, for reasons which have long since induced us to reject them. Yet, my dear sir, we confess we can see no material difference between your views and those of the Calvinists. What you call the WORD, they call the eternal Son of God; yet you both believe the Word of God and the Son of God to be the one, self-existent, and eternal God himself. We are led to conclude this of you, because frequently you apply the term Eternal to the Word--as "his eternal glory," "his eternal dignity," "co-eternal with God," "the eternal relation between the Saviour and God." We believe that whatever is eternal, is also self-existent and independent, and therefore God supreme. We cannot think that you believe in two eternal Gods, though some of your readers may draw this inference from some of your expressions. You speak of "the relation which the Saviour held to the God and Father of all, anterior to his birth"--"the relation existing between God and the Saviour, prior to his becoming the Son of God"--"the eternal relation between the Saviour and God." We have always thought that a relation implied more than one; and that if God from eternity had existed alone, there could have been no relation between him and non-entity. We view these expressions of yours as unguarded, and not designed by you to communicate what the language imports, as when you say, "God from eternity was manifest in and by the Word." It might be asked, To whom was he manifest from eternity, if he alone existed from eternity? Again, that you and Calvinists differ only in phraseology on this subject, while you believe the same things, appears in another particular. What they call the human nature of Christ, or the man Christ Jesus, you call the Son of God, Jesus, Christ, Messiah, Only Begotten. They believe that the human nature of Christ existed not till born of Mary; You believe and declare that "there was no Jesus, no Messiah, no Christ, no Son of God, no Only Begotten, before the reign of Augustus Cesar." Neither Calvinists nor Socinians should impeach your orthodoxy on this point. The Calvinists maintain that the eternal son of God, who was the very and eternal God himself, became man by taking to himself a reasonable soul and true body, being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost in the womb of the Virgin Mary; of her substance, and born of her. Confession of Faith, Lar. Cat. Ques. 37 and 47, &c! You say, the Word, by whom all things were made, "became flesh and dwelt among us. He became a child born and a son of man."

      You may deny that you ever affirmed the Word to be the only true God. Then we would humbly ask you, What was it? Was it an intelligent being or a mere name or relation? We think the query important. If it was an intelligent being, and u co-eternal with God," as you say, then it must be the eternal God himself; or [378] another eternal, distinct God. If it be neither of these, then it must have been an eternal, unintelligent name or relation; or, in your own language, it was the sign or image of an idea, which idea is God. Shall we think that the Word, which was God, and by which all things were made, and which was made flesh, was nothing but an unintelligent name, relation, or sign of the only true God? Can this be the Saviour of sinners? We dare not impute this absurdity to you, but we fear your unguarded speculations may cause the less informed to err.

      Permit us, dear brother, to propose a few queries for your consideration, and we hope for our profit:--

      1. When it is so frequently asserted of the Son of God that he came down from heaven; that he ascended up to heaven, where he was before; does not this language naturally convey the idea that he was there prior to his coming down, and consequently before the reign of Augustus Cesar?

      2. What can be the meaning of John vi. 38? "Jesus says to them, I came down from heaven not to do mine own will, but the will of Him that sent me." Was this Jesus who spake the only true God? How could the only true God say, "I came not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me? No Christian can apply this to the only true God. Was this Jesus the person that never existed till the "reign of Augustus Cesar?" How, then, could he in truth say, I came down from heaven, where he was before? The text cannot apply to him. If he was not the only true God, nor the person that never was till Cesar's reign, it must be the Word whom we call the Son of the living God, God's own Son, his only begotten, his first begotten, brought forth before the world was; yet we agree with you, and the generality of all sects in the present day, that he was not eternally begotten, or eternal Son. We plainly suggest these objections to your scheme to elicit information.

      3. How can John xvii. 5. be reconciled with your views? "Father, glorify you me with your own self, with the glory I had with you before the world was." This person could not, we think, be the only true God; for if he was, he prayed to himself, (v. 3.) Will Christians say that the only true God prayed to himself to be with himself, to be glorified with himself, and to restore to himself the glory he once had with himself, but which he had not now, (therefore changeable,) &c. Should we not consider a man deranged who should thus fervently pray to himself to be with himself, &c? We dare not impute this to the only true God, nor can we apply the text to the person who began his existence under Cesar's reign, for this person that prayed had a glory with the Father before the world was, and therefore must have then existed. If it cannot apply to the only true God, nor to the person who had no existence till Cesar's reign, to whom can it apply? Surely not to a mere name, or unintelligent effulgence, or relation.

      4. Again--who was the person spoken of in 2d Cor. viii. 9? "For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich he became poor, that you through his poverty might be rich." It could not be the only true God, for he is unchangeable; nor could it be the Jesus or Christ, who existed not till Cesar's day, for he was never rich in any sense, and became poor! We ask, Who was he?

      5. Who was the person mentioned Phil. ii. 6, 10? The whole passage plainly shows it was not the only true God, nor the person who never existed before the christian era.

      6. Who was the person that said, "A body have you prepared me, O God?"--the person that took flesh and blood? Heb. ii. 14, x. 5.

      7. Is it any where said that the Word created or made any thing (hup'autou) by himself as the original cause? Is it not always said that all things were made (di'autou) by him as the instrumental cause? as Eph. iii. 9. God created all things (dia) by Jesus Christ. 1 Cor. viii. 6. "But to us there is but one God, the Father (ex) of whom are all things; and one Lord Jesus Christ, (di'hou) by whom are all things." Heb. i. 2. "God in these last days has spoken to us by his Son (di'hou) by whom he also made the worlds," the material worlds, Heb. xi. 3. Col. i. 16. "All things were created (di'autou) by him and for him." It is true in the beginning of this verse en autou is used, but in the same sense.--The Greek fathers of the second and third centuries, commenting on those texts above quoted, say that hupo means the original, or first cause, and that dia signifies the second, or instrumental cause. Thus Philo, Origen, Eusebius, and Cyril, who certainly better understood their language than we do. (Clarke on Trin. p. 91. 92.) Doctor Clarke also remarks that this was the constant and unanimous sense of the primitive church. If these observations be true, will it not follow undeniably, that the Word (di'hou) by whom all things were made, was not the only true God, but a person that existed with the only true God before creation began; not from eternity, else he must be the only true God; but long before the reign of Augustus Cesar?

      We are not sticklers for names; we can grant to you, without any relinquishment of principle, that this person, the Word, never bore the name of Jesus, Christ, Messiah, or Son of God, till the reign of Augustus. But we cannot say with you that these names solely belong to him; for Joshua was called Jesus, Cyrus was called Messiah, or Christ, or Anointed (for the Hebrew is the same)--and Adam was called the Son of God. Heb. iv. 8. Isa. xlv. Luke iii. 38. But the person of Joshua existed long before he was called Jesus, or Saviour--and the person of Cyrus existed before he was called Messiah or Christ. This name he never bore till he was anointed and appointed by God to restore captive Israel. So we believe the intelligent person, the Word, or the Son of God, existed long before he was called Jesus, Christ, or Messiah.

      Dear brother, we submit these thoughts to you and the public from the purest motives, which we have already stated. We did design to make a few remarks on your speculations on the relation of a word and idea. We think the application of this to God and the Word, is foreign from the truth and meaning of the spirit. But the short limits of our work forbid us to write more. With sentiments of high respect and brotherly love we bid you adieu.

B. W. STONE, EDITOR.      

      BROTHER STONE,--I WILL call you brother because you once, told me that you could conscientiously and devoutly pray to the Lord Jesus Christ as though there was no other God in the universe than he. I then asked you of what import and consequence was all the long controversy you had waged with the Calvinists on the trinitarian questions. They did practically no more than pray to Jesus; and you could consistently and conscientiously do no less. Theoretically you differed, but practically you agreed. I think you [379] told me that you were forced into this controversy, and that you regretted it. Some weak heads amongst my Baptist brethren have been scandalized at me because I called you brother Stone. What! say they, call an "Arian, heretic," a brother!! I know nothing of his Arianism, said I, nor of his Calvinism. I never seriously read one entire pamphlet of the whole controversy, and I fraternize with him as I do with the Calvinists.--Neither of their theories are worth one hour; and they who tell me that they supremely venerate, and unequivocally worship the King my Lord and Master, and are willing to obey him in all things, I call my brethren. But more than this, brother Stone, I have to say to you. Your enemies, and they are not a few, have, to a man, as far as I have heard them speak, said your Christian character, your moral deportment, was unblemished. Would to Heaven that this could have been said of all who opposed you! I do not think it strange that, in running post haste out of Babylon, you should have, in some angles of your course, run past Jerusalem. Nay, verily, I have been astonished that you should have made so few aberrations in so many efforts.

      But, brother Stone, I exceedingly regret that you have said and written so much on two topics, neither of which you, nor myself, nor any man living, can fully understand. One of these is the burthen of your late letter to me. You do not like my comment on John, Ch. 1. Ver. 1st.--Well, then, just say so, and let it alone. I said in presenting it I was not about to contend for it, nor to maintain any theory upon the subject. My words are, "Nor would I dispute or contend for this as a theory or speculation with any body." Why then, call me into the field? I have received many letters on the subject of that essay, not one of which confines itself to the things I have said, nor to the grand object I had in view, viz. to examine into the ideas attached to the term employed by the Holy Spirit to designate the relation existing between him that "was made flesh," and sent into the world, and him who sent him.

      I have uniformly found that all writers for the trinity and against it, have much to say upon the rationale of the doctrine. Reason is either proscribed or enthroned. Those that one while proscribe her, at another appeal to her; and those who make her sovereign will not always do her homage. So that the controversy is from reason to Revelation and from Revelation to reason, as the parties are pressed. I will take the liberty of laying down a few positions on this subject, not for the sake of demonstrating them, but for the sake of deciding on a proper course of conduct.

      1. The pretensions of the bible to a divine authority or origin are to be examined by our reason alone. Its evidences are addressed to our reason, and by our reasoning powers the question is to be answered, "Is the bible of divine or human origin?" So soon as reason has decided this question, then

      2. The truths of the bible are to be received as first principles, not to be tried by our reason, one by one, but to be received as new principles, from which we are to reason as from intuitive principles in any human science.

      3. The terms found in the bible are to be interpreted and understood in the common acceptation, as reason or use suggests their meaning; but the things taught are to be received, not because we have proved them by our reason to be truths, but because God has taught them to us.

      4. The strongest objections urged against the Trinitarians by their opponents are derived from what is called the unreasonableness, or the absurdity of three persons being but one God, and that each of these three is the Supreme God. Now as you know I am not at all disposed either to adopt the style nor to contend for the views of the Trinitarians, any more than I am the views of the Socinians or Unitarians of any grade: you will bear with me when I tell you that no man as a philosopher, or as a reasoner, can object to the Trinitarian hypothesis, even should it say that the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, are three distinct beings, and yet but one God. There is nothing unreasonable in it. I will, indeed, in one sense, say, that it is unreasonable there can be a God at all, or an Eternal First Cause; because in all the dominions of reason there is nothing could suggest the idea: and because it is contrary to all the facts before us in the whole world that any cause can be the cause of itself, or not the effect of some other cause. No man, from analogy, can reason farther than every cause is the effect of another, ad infinitum.

      Here reason shuts the door. Here analogy puts up her rule, and shuts her case of instruments. Now in this sense, the Unitarian and the Trinitarian are alike unphilosophic--alike unreasonable. But here is the sophism: the bible originates, or still keeps up the idea of a God--both the name and the idea. We see it is proved by every thing within and without us. The bible teaches us something concerning three beings, shall call them the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit. It teaches us that there is but one God. From what the bible teaches A supposes that these three beings are each and together one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory. B. says it is inconsistent--it is absurd. How can three persons or beings be one? How can one of these three be the Deity and yet the three be no more than the Deity! C. says, This is not more unreasonable than that there should have been from all eternity one First Cause uncaused; and adds, Your error is this: you know nothing of the existence of spirits at all. All bodies you know any thing of occupy both time and place; consequently, it would be absurd to suppose that three beings whose modes of existence are such as to be governed by time and space, could be one being. But inasmuch as we do know nothing about the mode of existence of spirits, we cannot say that it would be incompatible with their nature, or modes of existence, that three might be one, and that one being might exist in three beings. Now, as no man can rationally oppose the Calvinistic hypothesis on principles of reason, so neither can he prove it to be correct by any analogy, or principle of reason whatsoever. Why, then, wage this warfare? We may disprove a theory by what the bible declares, but not by our reasoning on such topics. Why not, then, abide in the use of bible terms alone? [See Essay on Purity of Speech, No. 8. vol. 4.]--There is as much reason on the side of the Trinitarian as on the side of the Unitarian; and neither of them can, without a gross dereliction of their grand positions, accuse the other of being unreasonable in their reasoning or conclusions.

      But I adopt neither system, and will fight for none. I believe that God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten Son: that Jesus was the Son of God, in the true, full, and proper import of these words; that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Christ, which [380] was sent by the concurrence of the Father and the Son to attest and establish the truth, and remain a comforter, an advocate on earth, when Jesus entered the heavens. If any man's faith in this matter is stronger or greater than mine, I have no objection. I only request him not to despise my weakness, and I will not condemn his strength.

      I am truly sorry to find that certain opinions, called Arian or Unitarian, or something else, are about becoming the sectarian badge of a people who have assumed the sacred name Christians; and that some peculiar views of atonement or reconciliation are likely to become characteristic of a people who have claimed the high character and dignified relation of "the Church of Christ." I do not say that such is yet the fact; but things are, in my opinion, looking that way; and if not suppressed in the bud, the name Christian will be as much a sectarian name, as Lutheran, Methodist, or Presbyterian.

      Were I to contend for any of the speculative views found in the piece under consideration, I do not know but we might soon be found in the graveyards attached to the schools, digging up the bones of obsolete systems; or perhaps we might be trying our hands at the potter's wheel, making a new vessel; and rather than hazard this, I will decline for the present any thing more particular upon the subject, simply adding that your conclusion of the whole matter is admitted by me in a latitude as full as can be suggested by you, viz. "We believe the intelligent person, the Word, existed long before he was called Jesus Christ or Messiah."

      Wishing you favor, mercy, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and that you may never set up a new sect I am yours in the Lord.

EDITOR.      

      A HUNDRED letters, many of them of much consequence too, are on our files, and unless I should enlarge this work to double its present size, most of them must remain there until moth-eaten. I have concluded to attempt a sort of general answer in a series of letters called miscellaneous. The greatest inconvenience the reader may find in these letters, will be that he can seldom tell, when reading one period or paragraph, what he may expect m the next. If he have a taste for variety, this may compensate for the many disappointments and sudden vicissitudes he may in one single letter have to experience.--We proceed.

      Common sense, No. I.--A Baptist preacher of considerable standing, a few weeks since, did "preach a sermon on Eph. ii. 10." The divinity he taught was--1. That man lost "good disposition" before he lost Eden, and that he must get a good disposition before Paradise can be regained. That regeneration consisted wholly and solely in getting a good disposition, and was a mere change of disposition. The parable of the sower was alleged as proof: and he concluded that a man would be judged and rewarded according, to his disposition in the last judgment. That being created anew in Christ Jesus was simply to have a good disposition infused.--Now another Baptist preacher of still greater name and authority preaches thus: "Regeneration consists not in the creation nor infusion of new faculties, senses, perception, taste, disposition, or subjective light. But is a strong and lasting impression made on all our faculties by the almighty force of divine faithfulness and truth. It is an unshaken purpose and pursuit formed in the mind by a full view of the government of God as explained by Jesus Christ. It is supported by an abiding conviction that under his government it shall go well with the righteous and ill with the wicked. That infinite good may be obtained, and infinite evil escaped by a conformity to the laws and spirit of his government. If the infusion of a new and good disposition from the Holy Spirit was regeneration, then all laws and restraints imposed by the King would be as useless as to make laws requiring us to taste sweetness in honey, bitterness in gall, and sourness in vinegar: to eat when we are hungry, and to drink when we are thirsty. Those who make the infusion of a good disposition regeneration, have no need for self-denial in their system; for if a man have a disposition directly infused by the Holy spirit, to deny this good disposition would be a sin, so that all exhortation to self-denial would be exhortation to sin." So teach the good and well disposed doctors: and what is the practical influence? Ay that's the question. Common Sense says, there is no use in either theory, nor for any theory on the subject--for Christ says, "If you continue in my word then are you my disciples indeed; and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

      Elder John Secrest told me, at the meeting of the Mahoning association, Ohio, on the 27 ult. that he had immersed three hundred persons within the last three months. I asked him, Into what did he immerse them? he replied, he immersed them into the faith of Christ, for the remission of their sins. Many of them were the descendants of Quakers, and those who had formerly waited for "the baptism of the Holy Spirit" in the Quaker sense of those words--But brother Secrest had succeeded in convincing them that the one baptism was not that of Pentecost, nor that repeated in Cesaria, but an immersion into the faith of Jesus for the remission of their sins. He labors in the word and doctrine principally in the counties of Belmont and Monroe, state of Ohio. Thus while my friend Common Sense, and his two Baptist doctors, are speculating on what regeneration is, brother Secrest has, by the proclamation of repentance towards God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and immersion for the remission of sins, been the means of regenerating three hundred, in three months, in the proper import of the term. He thinks that a thousand persons have been immersed this season in the bounds of his labors, by himself and those laboring with him. Immense have been the crowds attending, and great the excitement produced by the simple proclamation of the gospel in the good old fashioned simplicity of unlettered and untaught eloquence.

      The clergy, their love of titles, and human applause; the hireling system and all its springs; the missionary schemes, education societies, tract societies, with their endless retinue of offices and officers--and all those righteous projects, the life and soul of which seemed to be the mammon of unrighteousness, have been frequently noticed in this work. Because many have been enthusiastic and chimerical in all those projects, and have acted in direct opposition to many of the plainest precepts of the New Testament; others fold their arms and sit down in perfect apathy and say, We have washed our hands of all these crimes, we thank God we know better than others, and we will do less, we will give less, and labor less, and pray less than others; and while others are going to the other side of the globe to convert the Pagans, we will not go over [381] the street, nor trouble ourselves or our neighbors about such matters. We believe that the christians must be all united at home before the world abroad can be converted, and therefore we will neither labor for the unity of christians at home nor the conversion of the world abroad--We will read our Bible at home and eat our own bread and wear our own apparel and be as independent of heaven and earth as we can.--This is Scylla, and that is Charybdis.

      And you, Mr. Editor, are the cause of a good deal of this apathy and inactivity--Is it possible!! Did I ever teach that in avoiding one extreme, we must run into the other!! I do admit that I cannot sentimentally concur in almost any of the schemes of this day. Even the Bible Society and the Sunday school system, two of the best projects, and the most powerful moral engines in the world, are so clogged with sectarian appendages, and are so completely subordinated, in many instances, to sectarian purposes, that I can scarcely obtain my own approbation of any of their movements.

      Jesus Christ belongs to no religious party. All the sects themselves declare that the Holy Spirit is not confined to them, that God respects them not. Every religious revival announced is said to have embraced all that believe in revivals. Presbyterians, Methodists, and Baptists, generally participate in all these excitements, because they believe in them. But the Seceders, Covenanters, and High Church folks never have any revivals among them, because they do not believe in them. Be this as it may, one thing is certain, that there is nothing special, indicating that God is a party in any sectarian scheme.

      A query for the conscientious professors--If God does not specially build up the cause of any party; but scatters his blessings upon them all, why should those who love God confine their affections, their labors, their efforts, their desires for the advancement of one party to the exclusion of all others? I cannot do it. I must love, and labor for the benefit of all whom the Lord has received as far as I can judge

      All the good and virtuous in all sects belong to Jesus Christ, and if I belong to him they are my brethren. They cannot help being my brethren, and I cannot help loving them. Jesus the Lord cares not to what party the bad belong; neither do I.--They may be orthodox or heterodox, as they please, for aught I care--The Holy Spirit dwells in the heart of a Christian Baptist, and a Christian Paido-Baptist; but not because of the tail they have attached to their name; but because of the family name itself. Many, I hope, will stand on the right hand of the Judge in the great any, who cannot now walk on the same side of the street. Yes, they will feast at the same table who could not break bread together on earth. There sits John Calvin and John Wesley side by side in a close tete-a-tete, not far from where Michael and Gabriel are conversing, and their followers on earth biting and devouring one another! "Tis a dream; but perhaps a true one--and for my part I am got so sick of all this partyism that henceforth, and forever, if the Lord will, I will never conduct myself towards any professor who walks piously, in such a way that I should feel ashamed to sit at his side, or at his feet in the King's own country.

      Say, Mr. Editor, don't you love a good Baptist better than you do a good Presbyterian? Yes I do. But there is nothing Christian in my predilections for my Baptist brother above my Presbyterian brother, provided they are equally good subjects of the King. As respects their christian character, they are equally amiable and equally entitled to my affection. If I love the Baptist brother better, then it is mere sectarian affection, or the affection I have for a near neighbor above a person who lives one hundred miles off.

      Brother Thomas Bullock of Kentucky, suggested to me a good idea last winter concerning the present condition of the Baptist churches in that state. As respects the four churches and one pastor, or the monthly rotation, or "the horse mill plan," as some call it; that is, in plain Scotch, one preacher coming once-a-month to preach to one church in a regular round as many times as there are months in a year. Just as a blind horse when he has gone once round, begins a second tour in the same track. The preachers, as he judiciously observed, had been so long accustomed to going round in this way, that they could not now walk straight forward, and therefore never would make bishops of a particular flock. He thought they could do better at catching or gathering sheep in this circuitous way, than in feeding one flock; and suggested the following idea. Let every particular congregation elect one or more bishops who had never been spoiled by the preaching plan, and loose all the cords which bind these present preachers to four congregations, and let them go in circuits in rotation as often and as extensively as they could, and preach and teach; but let the congregations meet every Lord's day with their own bishops, and attend upon the ancient order of things; and when any of these circuit preachers made them a visit, let them exercise all the gifts they had, for the edification of the brotherhood and the conversion of all around; but by no means to interfere with the stated worship of the day. In this way the congregations would have as much, if not more, of the labors of all these public men, and their own enjoyments and edification would be greatly enhanced by their constant attention to all the ordinances of the Lord's house. Brother Bullock suggested this merely as a preparatory or preliminary step towards a full restoration of the ancient order of things, and not as a fixed system of procedure in all time coming. He would have the congregations to contribute weekly, and these contributions in the hands of the treasurers or deacons of the congregation, to be, at the discretion of the community, apportioned to such of the public brethren as visited them, according as the,: had need. This idea I think is a good one, and worthy the examination of the brethren.

      The Mahoning Regular Baptist Association did one good work at their last meeting. They agreed to support one active, spiritually minded, and able brother, as a messenger of the churches, who is to labor every day, for one entire year, all things concurring, in the word and doctrine, amongst the churches in the Association. He is to proclaim the word to those without, and to teach those within to walk in the Lord. Brother Walter Scott, who is now in the field, accepted of the appointment; and few men on this continent understand the ancient order of things better than he. His whole soul is in the work, and there is great room for many such at home. It is to be hoped that all christians will turn their attention more to good works and to the conversion of those around them, and to the union of all disciples on primitive grounds, in order that the whole world may be brought under the dominion of the Root and Offspring of David. The religious communities of this country have long enough indulged the idea of converting other [382] nations, and have squandered many thousands already, as well as sacrificed many useful lives in the chimerical project of converting foreign idolators, while millions at home demand more energies than all now employed to ameliorate their condition, and to accelerate the march of truth on its own high road throughout the earth. "Holy Father, may all that believe on me through the testimony of the apostles, be one--that the whole world may be converted and persuaded that you did send me to be the Saviour of the world!" So spoke the Lord Jesus. And who will not say, Amen!

EDITOR.      

      DEAR SIR.--I AM obliged to request you to explain a small moral impropriety. The Minutes of the Franklin Association were published not more than two or three days after my first notice of your circular could have reached Frankfort. My first notice of it was published at Bethany on the 6th of August. The Franklin Association met the 4th of the same month. The August number could not have been received by you before the middle of August, about the time the Minutes were in press at Frankfort. How, then, could you have stated to the public, in a notice prefixed to said Minutes, that my fruitless assault on your circular had created a demand for it unprecedented and surprising, and it was implied that my assault had helped to sell some editions of your circular.

      This needs some explanation from you. It is understood that it was through you, if not by you, this notice was prefixed to the Minutes. It is well known that my "assault" on your circular could not have been more than read by yourself and a few others in Frankfort when the Minutes were published. The question, then, is, How in one, or two days at most, my remarks could create a demand for your circular unprecedented and surprising, and contribute to sell three editions of it? This unprecedented and surprising fact, that two days at most after the arrival of my first notice of your circular, it should have created such an enormous demand as compelled you to announce the fact on the frontispiece of the Minutes, without leave or license from the Association, requires a word or two of explanation from yourself. That charity which hopes all things, induces me to hope that you will find some way of explaining this thing to divest it, at least, of any moral impropriety.

EDITOR.      

[TCB 373-383]