Volume 1. Number 8. March 1, 1824, pp. 48-54.

• Address to the Readers of the Christian Baptist.--No. IV. by Alexander Campbell, pp. 48-50.
• [Introductory Remarks on Essay on Socinianism] by Alexander Campbell, p. 50.
• [On Socinianism] by O., pp. 50-53.
• To the Editor of the Christian Baptist by Robert Cautious, p. 53.
• To Mr. Robert Cautious by Alexander Campbell, pp. 53-54.
• [Introductory Remark on Abstract from "Paley's Evidences"] by Alexander Campbell, p. 54.
• [The Success of Missionaries] by William Paley, p. 54.
• [On Reading "The Christian Baptist" on the Sabbath] by Alexander Campbell, p. 54.
• Queries by Alexander Campbell, p. 54.

      WE have, in the two preceding numbers, presented our views on two charges that have been very generally rumored against us. There yet remains another which we have promised to notice. On these points we wish to be clearly understood. The charge now before us, is, that we deny "experimental religion." Before we plead "guilty," or "not guilty," of this impeachment, we should endeavor to understand the subject matter of it. Not having been in the use of the phrase "experimental religion," I could neither affirm nor deny any thing about it. The question, then, is, what is the thing? The name we have not in our vocabulary; and, therefore, could only deny the thing constructively. We will first ask, what does the bible say about it? Upon examination, I found it says not one word about "experimental religion." The bible is as silent upon this topic as upon the "Romish mass." I then appealed to the Encyclopedia. The only thing like it, which I could find, was "experimental philosophy, "which is a philosophy that can be proved by experiment. I then looked into the theological dictionaries, and soon found different kinds of religion, such as "natural," "revealed," &c. but not a word about experimental." I then applied to a friend, who had once been deeply initiated into the modern sublimities of the refined popular doctrine. I was then informed that there were two kinds of religion much talked of in the pulpit and amongst the people, the one called "heart religion," and the other "head religion"--the latter dwelling exclusively in the head, and the former in the heart. I also learned that the former was sometimes called "Christian experience," and this was presumed to be the thing intended by the words "experimental religion." As the New Testament is my religious creed, I appealed to it again. But it was as silent as the grave on all these distinctions. I then began to philosophize, in the popular way, on the head and the heart, with a design of deciding which of these two religions was the better one. I had heard that "head religion" consisted in notions, and "heart religion" in feelings. Finding that all the learned agreed that the spirit of a man dwells in his head, and not in his heart, I had well nigh concluded that "head religion" must be the better of the two, as the human spirit is concerned more immediately with what takes place in its habitation than elsewhere.I reasoned in this way--that if the spirit of a man dwells in his head, then head religion must be better than heart religion, and heart religion better than hand religion, &c.¹ Being unwilling to conclude too hastily on this subject, I thought of examining the phrase "christian experience." On reflection, I found that this phrase represented a very comprehensive idea. Every Christian has considerable experience, and some have experienced a thousand times more than others. Paul experienced many perils by land and by sea--by his own countrymen--by the heathen--in the city, in the wilderness--among false brethren. He experienced weariness, painfulness, watchings often, hunger, thirst, fastings, cold, and nakedness, stripes and imprisonments. From the Jews, he experienced five whippings, each of forty stripes, save one. He was thrice beaten with rods--once stoned--thrice shipwrecked--a day and a night in the deep. Besides this, he experienced all the anxieties and griefs, all the sorrows and joys that arose from the care of the churches. This was, indeed, the experience of a Christian, and this I never denied. Many Christians can tell of similar experiences, but none can give a narrative so long, so varied, and entertaining, as that of Paul. Even Peter the apostle, was not able to detail such an experience.

      But on reading this to a friend, I am told that I have not yet hit upon the point in question; that the Christian experience of which the populars speak, is, "the inward experience of grace upon the heart." What is the meaning of this grace upon the heart, said I? I know that the glad tidings is sometimes called the grace of God. Thus says Paul, "the grace of God that brings salvation, has appeared to all men, teaching us," &c. Here the gospel is called " the grace of God appearing to all men." Again, says Paul, he who seeks to be justified by the law, is fallen from grace; or has renounced the gospel. Indeed, nothing is so worthy of the name "grace of God" as the gospel. Now if this gospel, which is sometimes called "the [48] word of God," "the spirit," "the grace," and "the truth," dwell in a man, that is, be believed sincerely, like a fruitful vine it yields in his heart and in his life the heavenly cluster of love, joy, peace, long suffering, gentleness, goodness, fidelity, meekness, temperance. These are the fruits of the Spirit. Like precious ointment it diffuses in his heart heavenly odors, and the sweetness of its perfume exhales in his life, in the work of faith, the labor of love, and the patience of hope. This, said I, is just what I contend for. If you call this "christian experience," I never denied it; yea, I have always taught it. But I cannot approve of the name, since it is altogether an ambiguous name.

      My friend replied, "This is not precisely the popular use of the phrase. It denotes, amongst most of the populars, a certain mental experience to becoming a christian, an exercise of mind, a process through which a person must pass before he can esteem himself a true christian; and until we know from his recital of it that he has been the subject of it, we cannot esteem him a christian."

      Then it is some invisible, indescribable energy exerted upon the minds of men in order to make them christians; and that, too, independent of, or prior to, the word believed. I read in the New Testament of many who were the subjects of energies and diverse gifts of the Holy Spirit, but it was "after they had believed." The gifts of the Holy Spirit by which the gospel was confirmed, by which it was demonstrated to be of God, were conferred on the Jews and Samaritans after they had believed. Even the apostles themselves did not receive those powers and gifts of the Holy Spirit until they became disciples of Christ. On the Gentiles was poured out the Holy Spirit, or his gifts, while they heard Peter preaching the glad tidings, which they believed; for they came to hear Peter in such circumstances as to dispose them to believe every word he said. The age of those gifts has passed away, and now the influence of the. Holy Spirit is only felt in and by the word believed. Hence says Peter, "You are born again, not of corruptible, but of incorruptible seed, by the word of God, which lives and abides for ever"--and "this is the word which by the gospel is preached to you."

      This descriptive preaching, of which we hear so much, is the most insipid and useless thing in the world. An orthodox divine of my acquaintance spends about one-fourth of every year in preaching up the necessity, nature, and importance of regeneration. He usually tells the people his own story; that is, the history of his own regeneration. He sometimes comes to "visions and revelations." He tells the people that they are "as spiritually dead as a stone;" "there is not one spark of life in unregenerate sinners;" nor can they, "in the state of nature," do any thing that can contribute to their regeneration. "It depends entirely upon the Spirit of God, which, as the wind blows where it lists, works when, and upon whom it pleases. If there were not a thousand preachers like him, I would not disturb his mind by thus noticing the burden of his message. The spirit by which he speaks is doubtless not that Spirit which was promised the apostles; for that Spirit, Messiah said, would not speak of himself, but of him. But this preachers Spirit speaks of himself, and not of Christ. It is worthy of notice that the twelve apostles, in all their public addresses, on record, delivered not one sentence of this kind of preaching; no, not one.--And suppose it were as true as the gospel, that such is the state of mankind, we can conceive of no possible good which could result from such descriptive harangues. They resemble a physician, who, instead of administering a remedy to his patient, delivers him a lecture on the nature of his disease. Miserable comforters are such preachers! They have no glad tidings of great joy to all people. Methinks I see a poor unfortunate sinner, lying in a slough up to the neck in the mire, perishing with cold and hunger; and one of the orthodox divines riding along observes him. Methinks I hear him tell him, fellow sinner, you are in a miserable condition--mired from head to foot. Believe me, you are both cold and hungry; and I can assure you that you are unable to help yourself out of this calamity. You could as easily carry one of these hills upon your shoulders as extricate yourself from your present circumstances. Perish with cold and hunger you must; it is in vain for you to attempt an escape. Every effort you make to get out only sinks you deeper in distress. Your Creator could, if he pleased, bring you out; but whether he lists or not, is uncertain. Fare you well:--The unfortunate sinner exclaims, What good is in your address?--He is assured that it is an article of precious truth, worthy to be believed. But when believed, what good is in the faith of it? The gospel is glad tidings of great joy, to all people; and whatever is called "gospel," that is not good news and worthy of all acceptation, is not gospel.--But I have wandered from my subject.

      The popular belief of a regeneration previous to faith, or a knowledge of the gospel, is replete with mischief. Similar to this is a notion that obtains among many of a "law work," or some terrible process of terror and despair through which a person must pass, as through the pious Bunyan's slough of Despond, before he can believe the gospel. It is all equivalent to this; that a man must become a desponding, trembling infidel, before he can become a believer. Now, the gospel makes no provision for despondency, inasmuch as it assures all who believe and obey it, upon the veracity of God, that they are forgiven and accepted in the Beloved.

      A devout preacher told me, not long since, that he was regenerated about three years before he believed in Christ. He considered himself "as born again by a physical energy of the Holy Spirit, as a dead man would be raised to life by the mighty power of the Eternal Spirit." Upon his own hypothesis, (metaphysical, it is true,) he was three years a "godly unbeliever." He was pleasing and acceptable to God "without faith;" and if he had died during the three years, he would have been saved, though he believed not the gospel.² Such is the effect of metaphysical theology. [49]

      I read, some time since, of a revival in the state of New York, in which the Spirit of God was represented as being abundantly poured out on Presbyterians, Methodists, and Baptists. I think the converts in the order of the names were about three hundred Presbyterians, three hundred Methodists, and two hundred and eighty Baptists. On the principles of Bellamy, Hopkins, and Fuller, these being all regenerated without any knowledge of the gospel, there is no difficulty in accounting for their joining different sects. The Spirit did not teach the Presbyterians to believe that "God had foreordained whatsoever comes to pass;" nor the Methodists to deny it. He did not teach the Presbyterians and the Methodists that infants were members of the church, and to be baptized; nor the Baptists to deny it. But on the hypothesis of the Apostle James, viz. "Of his own will beget he us by the word of truth." I think it would be difficult to prove that the Spirit of God had any thing to do with the aforesaid revival.

      Enthusiasm flourishes, blooms under the popular systems. This man was regenerated when asleep, by a vision of the night. That man heard a voice in the woods, saying, "Your sins be forgiven you." A third saw his Saviour descending to the tops of the trees at noonday. A thousand form a band, and sit up all night to take heaven by surprise. Ten thousand are waiting in anxiety for a power from on high to descend upon their souls; they frequent meetings for the purpose of obtaining this power. Another class, removed so far south, by special illumination, have discovered that there is no hell; that the Devil and his angels will ultimately ascend to the skies; and that Judas himself, Herod and Pontius Pilate, will shine like stars forever and ever. And, to encourage the infatuation, the preacher mounts the rostrum, and with his sermon, either in notes or committed to memory, he "prays to God for his spirit to guide his tongue, and to send a message that he will bless to the salvation of that dear congregation." Thus the people lay themselves out for operations and new revelations. Like the Phoenix in the fable, they and the preacher have gathered a bundle of dry sticks, and they set about clapping their wings with one accord, that they may fan them into a flame--which sometimes actually happens, if our faith could be so strong as to believe it.

      From all this scene of raging enthusiasm, be admonished, my friends, to open your Bibles and to hearken to the voice of God, which is the voice of reason. God now speaks to us only by his word. By his Son, in the New Testament, he has fully revealed himself and his will. This is the only revelation of his Spirit which we are to regard. The popular preachers, and the popular systems, alike render the word of God of none effect. Some of them are so awfully bold as to represent it as "a dead letter." According to them it ought never to have been translated; for the reading of it in an unknown tongue, if accompanied with some supernatural power, with some new revelation of the Spirit, would have been as suitable to the salvation of men as though read in our own tongue. The jarring elements of which their systems are composed do, however, by the necessary laws of discordant principles, in the act of combustion reflect so much light as to convince us that the written word is the last appeal. Let us make it the first and the last. It comes to us in the demonstration of the Holy Spirit, and with the power of miraculous evidence.The word of Jesus Christ is, "spirit and life." "The word of God is quick and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword;" yea, it is the sword of the Spirit, it is the spirit of his mouth. "The entrance of thy word, O Lord, gives light, and makes the simple wise."

EDITOR.      

      IN a work so small as the present, we should aim at brevity and variety in the articles inserted. This has always been our intention, though we have not been able to conform to it. The following article requires an apology on account of its length, but this we have in its importance. The argument may be called a new one, as far as any thing that is now discovered in the scriptures can be called new. We know that Mr. Wardlaw in his reply to Mr. Yates, and other writers, have urged the same passages in support of their views; but not in the same manner, nor with half the effect. We think it is unanswerable. Small as our work is, we would not hesitate to allow half a dozen of pages to any writer that will attempt to answer it, provided that the reply be exclusively confined to this one argument. On this condition alone could we admit it. We publish it on two accounts: the one, its own intrinsic merit; the other, as proof positive of our innocence of a recent charge brought against us, as favoring the Socinian hypothesis. While we renounce the metaphysics jargon found in creeds, on what is called the doctrine of the "trinity," such as "eternal generation," "filiation," &c. we regard both Arianism, semi-Arianism, and Socinianism, as poor, miserable, blind, and naked nonsense and absurdity.

EDITOR.      

      THE presumptuous Socinians call themselves christians. Alas! poor men! they are drivelling philosophers. The polite and the stupid may, indeed, suppose that on their heretical paradox these doctors reason divinely. Well, be it so. "Jesus," say they, "is the son of Joseph." Excellent christians! If you, gentlemen, interpret nature as you do religion; if you unlock the mysteries of the material world with the same adroitness and perspicacity with which you usher into the open day the spiritual abortions of your own disordered rains, indeed you are divine philosophers. I have always thought the paradox of the Socinians a little too barefaced even for the vulgar. The devotees of the popular religion are very stupid, because their teachers generally leave them, in point of information, just where they find them, prodigiously ignorant of the holy scriptures; nevertheless, if they should at all look into the sacred volume, they will not be apt, I should think, to gather up Socinianism.

      We have got a nest of these little creatures in our good city, where, with the incredibly industry of pismires, they have succeeded in throwing up an earthen shell over their heads; and this they call a church!

      Let us hear them in religion. "Jesus," say they, "is the son of Joseph." Now the twelve apostles, and all whom they taught the religion, [50] worshipped Jesus; ergo, the apostles and all whom they taught worshipped the son of Joseph ergo, the apostles and all whom they taught were idolaters!

      But now, beloved, if we should show that the Socinian sect fails of a peculiarity which distinguished the first christian church, and those by whom it was gathered and instructed, the apostles, from all other worshippers besides, even from those who held many other things in common with them, what then? Again, if we should show that it was this very peculiarity which the Socinians have wiped from their creed that procured the disciples of Jesus the name of Christians at Antioch; and, lastly, if we should make it appear from reason and scripture that the Socinian paradox is a mere quibble, what then? Will it not inevitably follow that these little bigots, act very fondly when they assume the name of christians?

      To our first proposition, then. But let not the reader suppose that I go out of my way to break my lance over the steel cap of the poor Socinians. I am no churchman militant--but a layman, as Antichrist would call me, because I reckon a New Testament a better tutor in the kingdom of the Saviour than all the doctors of divinity in christendom. From my heart I pity I the Socinians--I compassionate their temerity--and would not, the bible being in my hand, rush into the presence of the Judge of quick and dead with their sentiments, for twice the value of the universe. But this only by the way.

      And now to discover that peculiarity in the sentiments of the first christians, which then distinguished them from their own infidel countrymen, the Jews; and now from our own countrymen the Socinians; let us away to the New Testament and rummage it in search of the mighty cause of that dreadful persecution which commenced with the death of Stephen. Acts vii.

      To find out this, let it be noted that the two great prevailing parties in Jerusalem, at the moment of publishing the new institution were the Pharisean and Sadducean. Now what were the more prominent doctrines of these two sects? The scriptures, and I desire no better authority, the scriptures inform us that the Sadducees denied the resurrection, and the existence of angels and human spirits; but that the Pharisees maintained both. These two sects divided between them the inhabitants of the capital; and, as the Pharisaic party was at all times vastly more numerous than the Sadducean, it follows that a very large proportion of the citizens of Jerusalem held the resurrection of the dead and the existence of angels and spirits. Now what aspect did the apostles' doctrine bear to the respective sentiments of these sectaries? Why it confirmed, in the most illustrious manner, the dogmas of the Pharisees; it set the doctrine of the resurrection on an entire new footing; and, at the same time, covered with shame and contempt the sentiments of the Sadducean materialists. The apostles first delivering with great power of miracles their testimony concerning the resurrection of Jesus, they immediately grounded the general doctrine of a resurrection on that splendid and well attested event, and gave such a blow to the pretensions of the Sadducees, as completely excited the odium theologicum of these incomparable doctors. But here it is but reasonable to suppose that the apostles' doctrine would irritate. This supposition, indeed, agrees well with the fact, for the chief priest (Caiaphas) and all his party, the sect of the Sadducees, were filled with zeal, and laid their hands on the apostles and put them in the common prison: Acts v. The reader may perhaps wish to know why the Sadducees liked the doctrine of a resurrection so ill from the mouths of the apostles, and yet made this tenet a matter of forbearance in the case of the Pharisees. St. Paul says that we suffer fools gladly when we know that we ourselves are wise. The Sadducees well knew that the doctrine of a resurrection was not appended to the law of Moses, and these five books were all that these men held sacred; consequently, the Pharisaic arguments in proof of a resurrection must always have appeared very impotent and unsatisfactory to the Sadducees, because they were drawn chiefly from the lesser prophets' writings which that party did not recognize as canonical. But the apostles grounded the general doctrine on the specific certainty of Christ's resurrection, and this was what irritated the Sadducees; they were grieved that the apostles preached "through Christ" the resurrection from the dead, Acts iv. 2. But now as this particular in the apostles' doctrine incurred the resentment of the Sadducees, whose sentiments it condemned: so it is but reasonable to suppose that it would conciliate the favor and protection of the Pharisees, whose sentiments it confirmed. This in fact was the case; for when the Sadducees, who had imprisoned the apostles, consulted about cutting them to death, as the sharpest and surest refutation of their hated argument for a general resurrection, there stood up a man in the sanhedrim, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, in great esteem among all the people, (Acts v.) and this divine plead the cause of the Christian teachers with such moderation and eloquence, that "to him they agreed?" The apostles were dismissed, but charged by the Sadducees to teach the doctrine no more by the resurrection of Jesus, though, indeed, they had already filled the city with it. Now here it is wonderful and entertaining to behold the workings and contortions of religious bigotry! The Sadducees thought they saw in the apostles their last worst enemies, and they could have worried them. On the other hand the crafty Gamaliel saw in the apostles' doctrine the most certain argument for a resurrection, the favorite tenet of his own party, and with what art does he procure them their dismission. However, all this had occurred at the moment of publishing the new religion, before either party, Sadducean or Pharisaic, could well determine what was the grand peculiarity. I dare say that both these sects, in the first instance, were induced to think Christianity nothing more than some modification of Pharisaism; for the great tumult and conversion which the new doctrine at its first appearance excited in the city, together with the confusion of feeling caused by the preaching of the resurrection of Jesus, which was always very prominent in the public addresses of the apostles, had prevented these sectaries from inquiring more minutely into the faith and practice of the apostles.

      The church must have already consisted of many thousands by this time. The first address of Peter, on the day of Pentecost, proselyted three thousand; and we are told that the Lord continued to add to the church daily the cured. Afterwards it amounted to five thousand, and still multitudes, both of men and women, were the more added to the Lord; myriads of the priests were obedient to the faith, and the word or doctrine of the Lord increased mightily in [51] Jerusalem. Now all these had hitherto enjoyed the favor and protection of Gamaliel and his sect, and had been, perhaps, chiefly Pharisees themselves. We have seen how the Sadducees opposed them, and how artfully Gamaliel procured the release of the apostles who were at the head of the church. These things bring us to the end of the fifth chapter. The death of Stephen and a horrible persecution of the church generally are the very next events which follow in the order of the Acts of the Apostles. And here a reader, awake to what the author of this treatise recounted must pause in astonishment--must be confounded at the fickleness of religious favor. Stephen is murdered by the sectaries, and the disciples of that very Gamaliel, who had, but this moment, employed all his eloquence in the defence of the Nazarenes, are now imbruing their hands in their blood, entering into houses and dragging out both men and women. Paul, the scholar of Gamaliel, committed them to prison. What was their crime? By what unheard of practice did the brethren forfeit the favor and protection of the people, for hitherto they were in favor with them all? Were they still only the Sadducees who persecuted the disciples? Alas! the Pharisees were turned against them also, and had now discovered a peculiarity in the christian doctrines which made them as much the enemies of the apostles as the Sadducees had been before. But did not both parties just now agree to let the christians go on unmolested? Did not Gamaliel say, "Let them alone?" resolving all into this pious conclusion, that if this counsel, or this work, were of men, it would come to nought; but if it were of God it could not be overcome. What had the christians done? Why all this horrible persecution? It was not because they had violated any legal institute--any of the external Mosaic observances. For though the word of God increased mightily in Jerusalem, though multitudes of men and women were the more added to the Lord, and myriads of the priests were obedient to the faith; yet were they all zealous of the law. The new doctrine, however Pharisees and Sadducees may have rated it, seemed only to make those who received it better men, for they were daily with one accord in the temple praising God and having favor with all the people. Now if the brethren were not persecuted for abandoning the law, for this they carried with them into the new religion, then they must have been persecuted for the apostles' doctrine, and yet not for all the several points in that doctrine; for we have seen that the Pharisees favored their method of preaching the resurrection, and protected them on account of it from the outrages of the Sadducees. Indeed, it was formally agreed by both these parties to let the christians alone; to let them proceed unmolested, as long as nothing worse than the doctrine of a resurrection marked their religious creed. But this they did at a time when they had not as yet thought that the apostles' doctrine merited a more minute investigation. Still, however, the question returns, what had the christians done to excite the united fury of these two sects? Is there no scriptural answer to this important question? Is there nothing which might serve as a clue to bring us to the bottom of this persecution? We have seen who inflicted the punishment, and who had to endure it. But the cause--what was that? Not the doctrine of the resurrection. What then? Let us follow the scholar of Gamaliel to Damascus; let us accompany this pious student of divinity to the place of his destination; the place whither he was commissioned by letters (no doubt clerically patent) for the godly and religious purpose of hunting up the poor innocents of the Lord of Glory. The time was come when those who slew them thought they offered an acceptable service to God. Alas! mistaken men! they shall give an account to Him who is ready to judge the quick and the dead. Paul tells us that in this affair he carried with him to Damascus letters of authority from the high priests, but he does not himself mention the very crime which characterized a christian; the peculiarity which distinguished a follower of Jesus from other Jews, that made him obnoxious to the persecutors, and liable to be carried off by Paul to Jerusalem. And this leaves us as much in the dark as ever concerning the particular point in the apostles' doctrine, which lay at the root of this persecution. However, the apostle was converted on his way to Damascus, and the surprising phenomena which accompanied his conversion were obvious to those who accompanied him. The whole party was struck to the earth by the splendor of the Saviour's glory. And the change in Paul's sentiments--his conversion from judaism to christianity, was soon blazed throughout the city. Paul (Acts ix.) immediately associated with those whom he had come to persecute and to carry bound to Jerusalem; and had even the courage to enter the Jewish synagogue, and to preach Jesus that he was the "Son of God;" at which all the Jews and proselytes of Damascus who heard his address, who listened to his arguments and were as yet unsuspecting of the change, were surprized, were confounded! The young scholar of the great Gamaliel, the famous zealot, who had carried it against the christians with such a high hand at Jerusalem, was now an abettor of the supposed heresy of the Nazarenes--in short, was, to the pious estimation of the synagogue people, lost! an apostate! an idolater! What were the reflections of those who witnessed all this--who heard him speak who heard him argue, who knew the tenor of his commission, and the particular crime of those whom he persecuted in Jerusalem and had come hither to seize? Reader, attend! the following are their very words: "Is not this he who made havoc of them at Jerusalem who call on (invoke) this name, and came hither to carry such bound to the chief priests?" Surprising sentence! "Carry such." Carry whom? All who invoked the name of "the Son of God? We have hit at last, then, on the particular point in the apostles' doctrine which made the church so obnoxious to the Pharisees and Sadducees after they had discovered it. The brethren, then, it was found, lived in the idolatrous practice, as the Socinians would call it, of "invoking the Lord Jesus." Now, then, we can see the full import of that passage in the ninth chapter, where Ananias manifests such reluctance to visit Paul, even after the Lord Jesus bade him. Ananias, poor man, was guilty; he was one of those who invoked the name of Jesus, and was probably doing so at the hour of prayer, when the Lord Jesus vouchsafed him this vision. Reader, hear his own words. When the Lord desired him to go visit Paul in the house of one Judas, "Lord," says he, "I have heard from many concerning this man, how much evil he has done to your saints in Jerusalem, and he is here with authority from the chief priests to bind all who invoke your name." Acts ix. 13. Now, in these two quotations, the church in Jerusalem, and the [52] brethren in Damascus, are alike obnoxious, and are guilty of the same crime--the invocation of Jesus. Yet the church of Jerusalem was gathered and instructed by the apostles; nay, it was the first of all Christian churches, and is to be imitated by all. Is Christianity really a system of idolatry? Is the Son of God, whom Christians have been taught by the apostles to adore, the son of Joseph, the carpenter? Take these words of the apostle John, 1st epistle, v. 13. "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have everlasting life," &c. "This also is the confidence which we have in him, that if we ask any thing according to his will, he hearkens to us. Now if we know that he hearkens to us in whatever we ask, we know that we obtain from him the petitions which we have asked." This is a very odd sort of sentence on the Socinian scheme. John says that he had entire confidence in being heard: perhaps the reader does not know what the apostle alludes to in this expression. The allusion, reader, is to an expressive declaration made by the Saviour himself whilst on earth; (John's gospel, chapter xiv.) The apostles were dreadfully alarmed at the idea of his leaving them, being ignorant of the nature of his kingdom; so, in order to comfort them, he tells them that though he must leave them, yet he would return, and then whatever they would ask in his name he would do it for them--I am going away, i. e. to heaven; but, reader, mark the Lords own words--"but whatever you ask in my name that I will do." Again, "that the Father may be glorified in the Son, if you ask any thing in my name I will do it." Amen! It was this promise that made John confident that Christ would hear us. Thus Jesus corrupted the apostles, and they corrupted the church of Jerusalem, and all others who would wish to shape their faith and practice by their example and teaching in the New Testament. And thus we see the origin of Stephen's dying prayer, "Lord Jesus receive my spirit--Lord, lay not this sin to their charge." And now the Socinians may themselves query whether this characteristic of the first of all Christians, and Christian churches, belongs to them. No man, however, can triumph over these little creatures. I know them well. A Socinian is a little mortal--

O.      

      SIR--Your having received with so much candor the few lines I sent you some time since, emboldens me to be so intrusive as to address you again. I have carefully read seven numbers of the "Baptist," and I can assure you that the work, taken as a whole, merits my unfeigned approbation. To say that it has no defects, would be saying more than I dare say of any work of fallible authors. Your remarks in reply to my few lines of the 6th November last were satisfactory upon the item on which I addressed you; so far as this, that you advocate the circulation of the bible only on principles, or in a manner, different from the present popular plan. Your plan is no doubt more accordant to the genius of the Christian religion; however, as Paul rejoiced that Christ was preached, whether in pretence or sincerity, so I rejoice that the bible is widely diffused by bible societies, whether in pretence or in sincerity. You will not, however, understand me as disagreeing with your plan; for I can assure you I think well of it, and would wish to see the churches of Christ all doing so. I would much rather see the bible disseminated in this way than the present; as I have no doubt but the apostle would rather have seen Christ preached sincerely, than in pretence. But until I see your plan carried into effect, I will aid the present plan of distributing the bible.

      I have thought much on the missionary plan since l read the first number of your paper, and I have read a good deal on the subject; and your views, as far as I understand them, appear to accord with mine. I have sent you, some time since, by a friend, Brown's History of Missions, which I wish you to read if you have not. I would, were I disposed to expose the missionary mistakes desire no other documents than what come From the pens of missionary men and their advocates, to show their folly and the ignorance of Christianity which appear in this popular project. I hope you will kindly receive these few hints from the pen of a friend, whose heart desires the success of truth, and who wishes you all success in opposing Antichrist in the various forms which he assumes. The plainness of these remarks forbids their appearance in your magazine; but I know you will respect the motives which dictated them.

	Your sincere friend,
	ROBERT CAUTIOUS.
P----, Va. Feb. 23, 1824.

      DEAR SIR--THE "plainness of your remarks," as respects myself, should not, in my judgment, preclude their insertion in this work. I thankfully receive them, and in general acquiesce in their correctness. They are, indeed, such as had occurred to my own mind, and your statement of them confirmed me in the truth of them. I thank you for Brown's History. I will read it carefully, as soon as I find leisure. I have but partially read it, and at considerable intervals.

      Our objections to the missionary plan originated from the conviction that it is unauthorized in the New Testament; and that, in many instances, it is a system of iniquitous peculation and speculation. I feel perfectly able to maintain both the one and the other of these positions. What charity, what lawless charity would it require to believe that a Reverend Divine, for instance, coming to the city of Pittsburgh some time since, under the character of a missionary, and after "preaching four sermons" of scholastic divinity to a few women and children in the remote corners of the city, called on the treasurer of the missionary fund in that place, and actually drew forty dollars for the four sermons: I say, what lawless charity would it require to consider such a man a servant of Jesus Christ, possessed of the spirit of Paul, or Peter, or any of the true missionaries!! My informant is a very respectable citizen of Pittsburgh. He assured me he had the intelligence from the treasurer's own lips. Ten dollars for a sermon one hour long! preached to the heathen in the city of Pittsburgh by a regularly educated, pious missionary!! How many widows' mites, how many hard earned charities were swallowed in one hour by this gormandizer!! Tell it not to Gath, publish it not in the, streets of Askelon! "But," says an apologist, "it required the good man a week to study it; besides, he gave them prayers into the bargain." A week to study a sermon! for a graduate at college too!! Why his sermon was not worth a cent! There is not a lawyer in Pittsburgh who could not prepare [53] an orthodox sermon in a week, and deliver it handsomely too for ten dollars. From the prayers and sermons of such missionaries, may the pagans be long preserved!

      Not questioning the piety and philanthropy of many of the originators, and present abettors of the missionary plan, we must say that the present scheme is not authorized by our King. This, I think, we proved some time ago; and no man that we have heard of, has come forward publicly to oppose our views. Indeed, I think we have few men of any information who would come forward openly to defend the plan of saving the world by means of money and science; of converting pagans by funds raised indirectly from spinning wheels, fruit stalls, corn fields, melon patches, potatoe lots, rags, children's play things, and religious newspapers, consecrated to missionary purposes; and from funds raised directly by begging from every body, of every creed, and of no creed what ever. By sending out men to preach begging sermons, and to tell the people of A's missionary patch of potatoes producing twice as much per acre, as those destined for himself and children; of B's uncommon crop of missionary wheat, a part of which he covetously alienated from the missionary to himself, and, as a judgment upon him, his cow broke into his barn and ate of it until she killed herself; of E's missionary sheep having each yeaned two lambs a piece, while his own only yeaned him one a piece, and a variety of other miracles wrought in favor of the missionary fund. I say, what man of good common sense and of a reasonable mind would come forward to defend a scheme of converting the world by such means, and by the means of that very "vain philosophy" and "science falsely so called," condemned by the apostles. Hoping always to hear from you when you have any thing deemed worthy of my attention, I remain your friend,

A. CAMPBELL.      

      WHEN the Messiah was crowned Lord of All, he sent out missionaries, called and qualified to proclaim salvation to the ends of the earth, and to set up his kingdom in the world. Behold their success in the following abstract from Paley's Evidences, p. 235.

ED.      

      "The institution, which properly began only after its author's removal from the world, before the end of thirty years has spread itself throughout Judea, Galilee, and Samaria; almost all the numerous districts of the Lesser Asia, through Greece, and the islands of the Ægean Sea, the sea coast of Africa, and had extended itself to Rome and into Italy. At Antioch in Syria, at Joppa, Ephesus, Corinth, Thessalonica, Berea, Iconium, Derbe, Antioch in Pisidia, at Lydia, Saron, the number of converts is intimated by the expressions "a great number," "great multitudes," "much people." Converts are mentioned, without any designation of their number, at Tyre, Cesarea, Troas, Athens, Philippi, Lystra, Damascus. During all this time, Jerusalem continued not only the centre of the mission, but a principal seat of the religion; for when saint Paul returned thither, at the conclusion of the period of which we are now considering the accounts, the other apostles pointed out to him, as a reason for a compliance with their advice, "how many thousands [myriads, ten thousands] there were in that city who believed." Thus the work goes on in which the Lord has a hand."

      NUMBERS of our neighboring clergy read the Christian Baptist, and having read it, as public censors of the press, tell their people, on "the Sabbath" that they ought not to read it: that it is dangerous to families to admit it within their walls. (Because it recommends the scriptures as their own interpreter, and exposes the tricks of the clergy.) This is like themselves. On all occasions, when the craft has been in danger, they have acted thus. The clergy once obtained a decree that every man's goods should be confiscated, who admitted into his house the writings of a monk, who opposed the priesthood, and recommended the bible. But, to save the clergy from the sin of "sabbath breaking," we will give any of them an opportunity of publishing in this paper, literatim et punctuatim, any thing they have to offer in their own defence, or against us. We shall give them page for page. Do, then, gentlemen, come forward manfully, and speak out against us. We speak openly. Come and do likewise.

EDITOR.      

      DID God ever call a man to any work for which he was not fully qualified, and in the performance of which he was not successful?

      Ans. No, if we except the modern preachers at home, and those called missionaries abroad. They say they are specially called, but neither their qualifications nor their success warrant the belief of these professions. With an open bible in my hand, I must say that God never called a man to any work for which he was not fully qualified, and in the performance of which he was not successful.

      If you believed yourself specially called by God to preach the gospel to the Birmans, what would you do?

      Ans. I would not ask the leave of any Board of Missions, nor their support; but, confiding in the power and faithfulness of him that called me, I would, without conferring with flesh and blood, depart, and look to Heaven for every provision, protection, and support, by land and sea, necessary for safe conduct thither, and also for success when I arrived. If I could not thus act, I could not believe myself called, nor expect success in the undertaking. This, reason requires. But enthusiasm, superstition, or covetousness would prompt one to apply to flesh and blood for patronage and support, and at the same time to profess to be called by God and to rely upon him for protection and success.

EDITOR.      

[TCB 48-54]