Volume 1. Number 12. July 5, 1824, pp. 72-78.

• Essays on Ecclesiastical Characters, Councils, Creeds, and Sects.--No. III. by Alexander Campbell, pp. 72-75.
• Preface To "Reasons for Separating from the General Synod of Ulster." by Alexander Carson, pp. 75-76.
• A Familiar Dialogue between the Editor and a Clergyman by Alexander Campbell, pp. 76-77.
• A Circular Letter by Alexander Campbell, pp. 77-78.
• [On the First Volume of "The Christian Baptist"] by Alexander Campbell, p. 78.

      IN the two preceding essays under this head, we partially adverted to the causes that concurred in ushering into existence that "monstrum horrendum informe ingens cui lumen ademptum;" that "monster horrific, shapeless, huge, whose light is extinct," called an ecclesiastical court. [72] By an ecclesiastical court, we mean those meetings of clergy, either stated or occasional, for the purpose of either enacting new ecclesiastical canons or of executing old ones. Whether they admit into their confederacy a lay representation, or whether they appropriate every function to themselves, to the exclusion of the laity, is, with us, no conscientious scruple.--Whether the assembly is composed of none but priests and levites, or of one half, one third, or one tenth laymen, it is alike antiscriptural, antichristian, and dangerous to the community, civil and religious. Nor does it materially affect either the character or nature of such a combination whether it be called presbyterian, episcopalian, or congregational. Whether such an alliance of the priests and the nobles of the kirk be called a session, a presbytery, a synod, a general assembly, a convention, a conference, an association, or annual meeting, its tendency and result are the same. Whenever and wherever such a meeting either legislates, decrees, rules directs, or controls, or assumes the character of a representative body in religious concerns, it essentially becomes "the man of sin and the son of perdition."

      An individual church or congregation of Christ's disciples is the only ecclesiastical body recognized in the New Testament. Such a society is "the highest court of Christ" on earth. Furious controversies have been carried on, and bloody wars have been waged on the subject of church government. These in their origin, progress, and termination, have resembled the vigorous efforts made to obtain the Saviour's tomb, or like the fruitless endeavors of the Jews to find the body of Moses.

      As we intend to pay considerable attention to this topic, and to give details of the proceedings of ecclesiastical courts, &c, we think it necessary, in the first place, to attend to the import of the phrase "church of Jesus Christ," and also to the nature of the bishop's work. In the present essay, I will introduce a few remarks from the "Reasons of Alexander Carson, A.M. for separating from the General Synod of Ulster." These will cast some light on the import of the phrase "church of Jesus Christ"¹

      Matt. xviii. 15-18."Moreover, if your brother shall trespass against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he shall hear you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear you, then take with you one or two more, that, to the mouth of one or two witnesses, every word maybe established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it to the church: but if he shall neglect to hear the church, let him be to you as a heathen man and a publican." Here the last appeal is to the church. He does not say, If he does not hear the church, take him to the presbytery; and if he does not hear the presbytery, take him to the synod, &c. but if he hear not the church, "let him be to you as a heathen man and a publican." I know, indeed, that various subterfuges have been invented to evade the force of this plain scripture. Every sect has attempted to find its own discipline in this passage; whilst individuals, to apologize for what they cannot justify, have attempted to darken its meaning so as to make it of no practical use. The multiplicity of interpretations, in the opinion of Dr. Stillingfleet, is an argument to prove that it is totally inexplicable; in my opinion it proves only what is proved by the variety of sentiments on every other point in scripture, the perversity, the selfishness, or the prejudice of professing christians. What! has the Lord Jesus given a precept, in a case of such importance, and of such frequent occurrence, which cannot be understood? Did he wish to be, or could he not avoid being unintelligible? Must the Holy One of Israel speak with the darkness and evasion of a heathen oracle? If he did not mean to be understood, why did he speak? If he meant to be understood, why did he not speak in intelligible language? If we cannot find out who are the divinely appointed arbitrators of our differences, he might as well have said nothing on the subject. What an insult upon the Holy Ghost to represent his language to be so vague and indeterminate that it cannot be understood! Christ has said "tell it to the church." Is there no way of coming at his meaning? Has the word church no determinate meaning in the New Testament? But Dr. Stillingfleet is of opinion, that if the discipline Christ has appointed be executed, it is not material by whom Is it then the same thing whether a law be enacted by the lawfully appointed legislators, or by any other body of self constituted men? or that a criminal be tried by a lawful judge and jury, or by men who assume the right of judgment, without the countenance of lawful authority? If Christ has appointed any particular referees, it is as really a breach of his injunction to appoint any other, as it would be totally to neglect that instance of discipline. But is there any native, necessary obscurity in the precept arising from the promiscuous use of the word church in the New Testament? If it is now in any measure obscure, it has been rendered so not from the ambiguity of the scripture use of the word, but from its prostituted application in modern acceptation, and the sophistry and subtleties of interested, prejudiced, or bigoted men: we find no difficulty in the passage until we hear the forced explanations of it given by controvertists, and our mind begins to be distracted, and the subject obscured by the smoke of their unhallowed fires."

      "I lay it down, then, as an axiom, that Christ meant some determinate thing by the word church, and that there must be sufficient evidence in the New Testament to lead the humble, teachable inquirer into that meaning.--Christ must have spoken intelligible language. Now, to investigate the scripture use of the word church."²

      "Ekklesia literally signifies an assembly called out from others, and is used among the Greeks, particularly the Athenians, for their popular assemblies summoned by their chief magistrate, and in which none but citizens had a right to sit. By inherent power it may be applied to any body of men called out and assembled in one place. If ever it loses the ideas of calling out and assembling, it loses its principal features and its primitive use.

      "Such being the origin and use of this word among the Greeks, to what may it be legitimately applied when used in sacred things? It may signify any assembly called out from the world, and united in Christ. Agreeably to this, whenever it is used in scripture in a sacred [73] sense, that is, as applicable to believers, we find that it is invariably appropriated to an individual assembly of Christians, meeting to enjoy the ordinances of Christ, or the Christian community in general."

      "But with equal propriety may this word be applied either to all the Christians on earth, or all both in heaven and earth, as assembled in Jesus. Nor does this application stretch it a whit beyond its natural and intrinsic meaning. It is as literally and as truly applied to the one as to the other. All the saints on earth, all the saints in heaven, are assembled in him, as really as the branches of a vine are united in the trunk, the stones of a building upon the foundation, or the members of the body with the head. With the strictest truth all Christians may be said to be already "in heavenly places in Christ." This double application of the word is neither foreign nor forced, incorrect nor indistinct. When it is used indefinitely, it is applied to the community of believers assembled in Christ: when it is used with respect to an individual church, which is its most general application, the context or the nature of the circumstances gives sufficient intimation. Let any one take the trouble to run over all the places where it is found in the New Testament, and I will be bold to say, he will not find a single text which will not fairly explain on this hypothesis. The cases where it may occur in the civil or unappropriated sense, are not accompanied with the smallest difficulty; the context, or a note of appropriation, as "church of Christ," &c. sufficiently marking the difference.

      "Having stated the literal meaning, the profane and sacred application of the word ekklesia, let us next examine the claims of its modern³ acceptations. It is quite a chameleon. It is as various in its meaning as the necessities of each party require. Sometimes it is a church session, sometimes an individual church; sometimes a classical presbytery; sometimes a synod; sometimes a general assembly; sometimes church rulers; sometimes all the churches of a province or kingdom. Truly, if the scripture gives ground for all these, it is more dark and perplexing than was ever an answer of the Sybil. Is not the bare statement a refutation of the fact, and the supposition a calumny on the oracles of God? But the practice of presbyterians themselves, is a complete refutation of this hypothesis. They do not speak promiscuously of all their assemblies by the name church, but have a distinct name for each, as the, congregation, the session, the presbytery, the synod, &c. Now, if each order of these courts be a church, as well as each congregation, and the collective congregations, why do they not speak of them by the scripture name? Why have they imposed upon them names of their own invention? Evidently because they would otherwise be unintelligible. If one of their writers on church discipline was to speak of all their assemblies by the name church, without additional marks of distinction, his readers would not understand him; yet this is the very inaccuracy they charge upon the writers of the New Testament. They suppose them to speak promiscuously of the greatest variety of subordinate courts, as well as assemblies of a different nature, by the same name, without any mark of distinction to guide the reader. Now, I think this is a very fair criterion; scripture ordinances should be sufficiently intelligible by scripture names, without the use of any other. I believe it will be found a very just conclusion, that the institutions which have not a name in scripture, have not an existence in scripture. Let presbyterians, then, use nothing but the scripture names, and the doctrine of their subordinate courts will be jargon. By their unnatural extension of this word, they have taken it in modern use from that which alone deserves it--the individual assemblies of the saints. Let us suppose, then, that ekklesia might have been legitimately appropriated to denote any one of these assemblies, this appropriation will take it from all the rest. If a session is a church, then a congregation cannot be a church; if either of these be a church, then a presbytery cannot, without confusion, be usually so denominated; and if a presbytery is a church, then it will take that name from all inferior and superior courts. Now, if these courts be scriptural, let their advocates produce their distinct scriptural names. No word can have two appropriate meanings upon the same subject; ekklesia may be a civil assembly and appropriated also to a religious assembly; but in neither civil nor religious matters can it be appropriated as the distinctive name of two different assemblies, the one subordinate to the other. It may denote a particular assembly of saints, and the community of christians assembled in Jesus; but without confusion, it cannot be used as the appropriated name of a particular and general assembly of the same sort. This is clear from the names of civil courts. Though some of these be such as to be literally applicable to all, yet they arc not so appropriated. Thus sessions, assizes, &c. Thus also in the church of England, though each of the orders are called clergymen, yet for this very reason it could not be the appropriated distinctive name of any one of them. There is curate, rector, bishop, &c. For the same reason, though bishop was the common name of all presbyters originally, yet when it was appropriated to one of the number, it was taken from all the rest. If, then, the word church be generally applicable to such a variety of assemblies, each assembly must have a distinctive name besides; to produce which out of scripture will be rather an arduous task. Besides, in speaking particularly of each of these assemblies, the common name could not be used, any more than the name clergyman would distinguish a bishop from a presbyter. When our Lord says, "then tell it to the church," if he intends presbyterian ecclesiastical courts, to which does he refer? If to the session, then all higher appeals are cut off; for if the offending brother will not "hear the church, let him be a heathen man and a publican:" if it means a general synod or assembly, then all inferior courts are cut off. But if church be also the scripture name of an individual assembly of saints, consisting of pastors and church members, is not the obscurity still increased? Whether must the congregation or the session be appealed to?"

      "There is not the least intimation in any part of the New Testament of a representative government. Nothing is said about a number of church rulers being selected as an ecclesiastical council over a number of individual churches nor any such use of the word church, as including a number of individual churches. When the inspired writers speak of a single assembly of saints, they invariably call it a church; when they speak of a number of churches, or the churches of a province or district, they do not call them a church but churches. Thus when Paul writes to the Corinthians, he addresses the [74] "church of God which is at Corinth;" but when be writes to the Galatians, he addresses the churches of Galatia. Thus also when the church of Jerusalem is spoken of, it is called a church; but when the aggregate of the individual churches of Judea and Samaria is spoken of, they are not called the church of Judea, or the church of Samaria, but the churches of Judea, and the churches of Samaria. Thus also the church of Cenchrea, (Rom. xvi. 1.) and the churches of Achaia; the church of Ephesus, the church of Smyrna, &c. But when they are spoken of in the aggregate, it is the seven churches of Asia, not the church of Asia, (Rev. i. 4. and ii. 1. &c.) I know indeed with respect to Jerusalem and Corinth, it is alleged that the saints in those cities must have been too numerous to have assembled in one place. But I need not take up my time in showing how or where they might assemble, or in ascertaining their numbers.--They are not more numerous than I wish them to have been; and the scripture itself refutes the objection in both instances. Acts ii. 44. 1 Cor. v. 4. and xi. 18. In these passages they are expressly shown to have met in the same place."

      EVERY Christian is a member of two kingdoms perfectly distinct, but perfectly compatible in their interests. In each of these, he has peculiar duties, in the discharge of which he is to pursue a very different conduct. As a subject of civil government, he is called to unreserved, unequivocal obedience, without waiting to inquire into its nature and quality, or even the legitimacy of the title of those in power. If he understands his bible, he knows that "the powers that be are ordained of God," and that he must "submit to every ordinance of man, not merely for wrath, but also for conscience' sake." In Britain he will submit to monarchy; in America, to a republic; and in France he will obey, without puzzling himself in determining whether Bonaparte is a legal governor or a usurper.⁴ But it is not so in the kingdom of Christ. Here it is his duty in every thing to judge for himself, and in no instance to be the disciple of man. He is commanded to examine, not blindly adopt the dogmas of his spiritual guides. He is no where required to conform and submit to that form of church government under which he has been educated, or to which he may at any time have thought it his duty to attach himself. He is enjoined to "prove all things and to hold fast only that which is true." He is Christ's freed man, and should not suffer himself to become the servant of man, nor to be fettered by human systems.

      Convinced that this is both the duty and privilege of every christian, I have largely and leisurely examined the original nature and present state of that⁵ church in which I was educated, and in which I have for some years acted as a minister. I have examined, and am convinced, that both in plan and administration, it is contrary to the word of God. It must appear to everyman of candor that I could have no interest in deciding as I have done. Every interest of a worldly nature was surely on the other side. The day I gave up my connexion with the general synod, I gave up all that the world esteems. I sacrificed not only my prospects in life, and my respectability in the world, but every settled way of support. It is usual for men to desert a church under persecution; I have deserted one in the tide of her prosperity, or, as some of her friends speak, in her "meridian glory." If people never begin to think any thing amiss in their religion till they are persecuted for it, or till superior honors and advantages are held out to view, they have reason to suspect their judgments. But when wealth and respectability in society are in the gift of the church, when one of her members sits in judgment upon her, she is likely to get a fair trial. A man is not apt, upon slight grounds, to reason himself out of his living, his friends, and his reputation. It will not be out of whim he will exchange ease for labor, respect for calumny, present competency for the naked promise of God. Notwithstanding this, I am perfectly aware that the worst motives and designs will be attributed to me. I would indeed know little of human nature, and less of the bible, if I did not expect the reproaches of the world. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, much more those of his household. He himself experienced such treatment from the world, and he knows how to succor his children in like circumstances.

      The divine right of the Presbyterian form of church government, it may be expected, will now become the present truth among all sects of Presbyterians in this country. Their inveterate rage against each other will for a time be suspended that they may unite against the common enemy. Every pulpit will resound with the cry of innovation; many an affecting representation will be given of the sufferings of our worthy forefathers, in erecting the venerable fabric. I would caution christians not to suffer themselves to be imposed on by such senseless declamations. The appeal on both sides must be to the scriptures; not a stone of the fabric can be lawfully rested on any other ground. If classical presbytery is in the New Testament, let its advocates come forward and fairly refute my arguments. I have no object but truth, and whatever may be published against my pamphlet, in a christian and candid manner, shall receive every attention. But let them not lose their temper, nor substitute railing for argument. Neither let them nibble round the surface of the subject, but let them enter into the essence of the debate. If any arc convinced, let them beware of stifling convictions. Let them not suffer interest, prejudice, or the fear of reproach, to deter them from obeying the least of the commandments of Christ. "Whoever shall be ashamed of me and my word in this sinful and adulterous generation, of him also shall the Son of Man be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels." Mark viii. 38. "He that loves father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loves son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me. And he that takes not his cross, and follows after me, is not worthy of me. He that finds his life shall lose it, and he that loses his life for my sake, shall find it." Mat. x. 37-39.

      Though I am decidedly convinced of the complete [75] independency of the apostolical churches, and of the duty of following them, I would not be understood as placing undue importance upon this point. Christians of every denomination I love; and I will never, I hope, withhold my hand, or my countenance from any who, after impartial investigation, conscientiously differ from me. I can from my heart say, "grace be with all those who love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity and truth." Pity, indeed, while there are so few friends of Jesus, that those should harbor hard thoughts of each other for conscientious differences. But it is not to be expected from this, that I shall "know any man according to the flesh," or avoid freely censuring whatever I judge unfounded in scripture, out of compliment to any friend who may countenance it. This would be" to walk as men."

      In endeavoring to overthrow the system of Presbyterianism, I have only assaulted the main pillars of the edifice; if I have succeeded, the roof and all the rubbish will fall of course. The voluminous defences of presbytery, of former days, I consider too stale to be particularly noticed. I wait till their advocates recognize them. But though every pin of that system could be proved to be divine, it would not affect my opinion of the duty of separating from the synod. I would stand upon ground still tenable. I do not shrink from discussion. Truth will finally prevail.

      Clergyman. WHY do you preach, seeing you decry all preaching?

      Editor. I do not decry all preaching. I have said that it is the duty of every disciple to preach.

      C. But how can they preach except they be sent?

      E. I presume there are no preachers upon earth who are sent in the sense of those words quoted from the apostle.

      C. Yes; I believe I am as much sent as any preacher ever was; and if I did not believe that I was sent I would not preach a word.

      E. Well, sir, I find myself happy in meeting with a preacher sent from God. I will sit down at your feet and believe every thing you say, only remove some few doubts I have respecting your mission.

      C. I do not want you to receive all that I say. Judge for yourself.

      E. You do not, then, believe you are sent by God; for, assuredly, if you were sent by God, I should be a great sinner not to believe every word you say. For God would not send you to declare falsehoods, nor to deceive mankind.--If you will then prove that you are sent, I will examine no more for myself. I will believe what you say. Who ever was sent by God with a message to men, that it was not lawful and necessary implicitly to receive upon his word? or, in other words, was it not highly criminal in every instance, and at the peril of the hearer, to refuse implicit faith in the word of every heavenly messenger?

      C. I do not pretend to plenary inspiration; but I contend that I am sent, or called by God, to preach.

      E. To preach what?

      C. The gospel.

      E. What do you mean by preaching the gospel?

      C. I mean to make it known.

      E. You are not, then, sent to us in this region, for the gospel has been made known to us already by such preachers as leave us without excuse; whom, if we believe not, we would not be persuaded though one rose from the dead. I mean Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul and Peter, if you please. Have you any thing new to add?

      C. I do not mean to make it known as if it had never been read or heard before; but to make known what they have said about it.

      E. You mean to explain it, I suppose.

      C. Yes, and to enforce it upon the attention of mankind.

      E. To make a fact known is to preach, and to explain the meaning of that fact is to teach. But on your own views I would humbly ask, Did ever the Father of our spirits send one class of preachers to make known his will, and afterwards send another class to explain their message and to enforce it?

      C. Yes, he sent the apostles to explain the prophets.

      E. And he sent you to explain the apostles; and, by and by, he will send other preachers to explain you; and so explanations will never cease, and new missions will succeed each other till time be no more. Your saying that he sent the apostles to explain the prophets, is not more ingenious than Tobiah's saying, "He sends the event to explain the accomplishment of prophecy."

      C. And are there not many things in Paul's writings "hard to be understood, which the unlearned and ignorant wrest to their destruction?"

      E. I hope you do not suppose the explanation of these things is preaching. But as you and many of your brethren often cite these words, will you hear a remark or two upon them. It is not the epistles that is the antecedent to "hois," but "the things" mentioned by Peter. I need not tell you that epistolais is feminine and hois neuter; consequently, it is not the language or style of Paul that is referred to in this passage, but the things themselves of which he spoke.--However, I lay no stress on this distinction, as we admit the scriptures are often wrested--but by whom? Peter says the unteachable, (amatheis,) not the unlearned, but, as Macknight says, "the unteachable" and the double-minded; and these are always the learned or those who think themselves wise. You know that the Romanists infer from these words the necessity of an infallible interpreter. Their words are, "The scriptures are not sufficient for deciding controversies concerning the articles of faith; and the decision of these matters is to be sought from the Catholic church." But the misfortune is, that the Catholics do not tell us "whether it is the Pope alone, or the Pope in conjunction with his own clergy, or a general council of his bishops, or any particular council, or any other body of men in their church distinguished by a particular denomination." This is good policy; for all those to whom they have attributed infallibility have erred, as they are constrained to admit. And I think you will admit that none now differ more about the meaning of scripture than the learned.

      C. But do not you say it is the duty of all disciples to preach, and what are they to preach, and to whom?

      E. The disciples can preach only in the same way that Moses was preached, being read in the synagogues. This they may and can do, either by declaring the same things viva voce, or [76] by reading the gospel and exhibiting its evidences to them who either cannot or will not read the Evangelists and Apostles.

      C. But have they not all heard already? and can you, on your own principles, make known to them what they have already heard?

      E. They have not all heard; for there are all the children born to the disciples, which it becomes their duty to disciple to Christ, and therefore christian parents stand in the relation of preachers to their own children. There are also some parents that are not disciples, and consequently their children are Brought up in darkness, Now, as every disciple has access to these, it becomes his duty to instil into their minds, as far as human agency can extend, the words of eternal life.

      C. Yes, and miserable preachers the mass of disciples will make--can't put three sentences together--not one in ten of them can explain one verse intelligibly. And you will set the women's tongues loose too, and they have always been too troublesome even when under every possible restraint; but you have removed all barriers and turned them loose upon us.--Believe me, sir, your principles are of a disorganizing character.

      E. And to what is the incapacity of the disciples to preach and speak intelligibly owing? Doubtless to their religious education--to their teachers. Every person who has ideas upon any subject can communicate them. If his ideas are indistinct, his communications will be so too; but if his perceptions are accurate and clear, his addresses will be plain and intelligible. But you who occupy the pulpit, are the very persons who are to blame for this incapacity. This useless and senseless way of talking, which you call preaching, into which the old pagans led you, is the very way to make the people ignorant, to confound, perplex, and stupefy them. This everlasting sermonizing! What good is in it? It resembles nothing that is rational in all the compass of thought. A B professes to teach arithmetic; he gets a class of forty boys from twelve to fifteen years old, we shall say. He tells them to meet once a week and he will give them a lecture or a sermon on some important point in this useful science. The first day he lectures on the cube root for an hour. They sit bookless and thoughtless, heedless, and, perhaps, often drowsy, while he harangues them. He blesses them and sends them home, to return a week hence. They meet. His text is arithmetical progression.--He preaches an hour; dismisses as usual. The third day of the meeting up comes vulgar fractions; the fourth, rule of three; the fifth, addition; the sixth, notation; the seventh, cube root again, &c. &c. Now in this way, I hesitate not to say, he might proceed seven years and not finish one accountant. Who ever thought that a science or an art could be taught this way? And yet this is the only way, I may say, universally adopted of teaching the christian religion. And so it is that many men have sat under the sound of the gospel (as they call it) for forty years, that cannot expound one chapter in the whole New Testament. And yet these same christians would think it just to prosecute by civil law that teacher who would keep their sons four or five years at English grammar or arithmetic, and receive their money, and yet not one of their sons able to expound one rule in syntax or arithmetic. They pay the parson--they are of maturer minds than their children, and they have been longer under his tuition, and yet they will excuse both the parson and themselves for knowing just as little, if not less, of the New Testament, than their striplings know of grammar or arithmetic.

      C. Then you will reduce the christian doctrine to a level with common arithmetic, and you suppose that christianity can be taught just as easily as arithmetic.

      E. You profess to be a Calvinist, if I mistake not; and do you not suppose that a disciple is as capable of being taught christianity as arithmetic, provided he is "a subject of divine grace," and you know that otherwise he would not be a disciple on the Calvinistic hypothesis. But upon either the Calvinistic or Arminian hypothesis, a disciple of Christ can be taught the christian religion in a proper course of education as soon as he can be taught any human science.

      C. And so you suppose there is nothing more grand, sublime, deep, or unsearchable in the christian religion, than in a human science, such as arithmetic?

      E. That does not follow from my assertion. There are many things incomprehensible and sublime in various sciences; but a person is said to understand and to be able to teach them, who is not able to comprehend and to explain every topic connected therewith. Many persons can teach arithmetic very well who do not understand one proposition of Euclid's ratios.

      C. But it is only when the Spirit of God accompanies the preacher's words that the people learn; and that Spirit is not at the command of the preachers.

      E. I know of no passage in the New or Old Testament that says that the Spirit of God accompanies any of our preachers' words. Besides, the disciples are the sons of God, and have the Spirit of Christ, and are therefore every way qualified to learn, under a proper teacher, according to your own hypothesis. But, sir, they can never be taught the christian religion in the way of sermonizing. Public speeches may be very useful on many occasions; but to teach a church the doctrine of Christ, and to cause them to understand the Holy Scriptures, and to enjoy them, requires a course essentially different from either hearing sermons or learning the catechism.

      C. I wish to resume sundry topics in the commencement of our interview, but will have to postpone it for the present. Adieu.

      APPEARED in the "Columbian Star" of June 19th, addressed to every Baptist church in Massachusetts, and signed by Thomas Baldwin, Lucius Boles, N. W. Williams, Jonathan Going, F. Wayland, jun., recommending as "a good work" the formation of a state convention, to be entitled, "The Baptist Convention of the State of Massachusetts." As an inducement to the churches in Massachusetts to form such a convention, they are told that similar conventions "are formed and forming" in Connecticut, Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, and New York, besides in several of the southern states.

      Provided three associations concur in the constitution recommended and in the measure as a whole, the first meeting is to take place in Boston the last Wednesday in October next. It is also proposed under the tenth article of this constitution, that "whenever a general convention formed from state conventions throughout the United States shall be formed or designed, it [77] shall be in the power of this convention to send delegates to such conventions and to instruct them to enter into any arrangements to promote the interests of religion," &c.

      The Baptist churches send three or four delegates or representatives to the associations. The associations are, according to this constitution, to send one delegate for every five churches to the state convention, and the state convention is to send delegates on some ratio to the general assembly or convention.

      And so we Baptists are to march forth in solid phalanx, "terrible as an army with banners." I would propose an amendment to this plan. I dislike tautology and monotony, and would, instead of so many kinds of conventions, move that the names of those highly useful meetings be changed as follows:--

      Those councils that are sometimes called churches, let them be called church sessions. Let the associations be called presbyteries; the state conventions, synods; the general convention, let it be called the general assembly of the Baptist church of the United States. Let there be a fund attached to this establishment called the delegates' fund; and let it be enjoined at the first meeting of the general convention or general assembly, that every minister shall dedicate to the Lord every male and female child, born of baptized parents, at any convenient time within forty days after its birth; and let this rite be called spiritual baptism adapted to infants; provided always, that the parents are willing to bring their infants to the church to the parson to bless them; and that the parson's hand which shall be laid upon their head shall be duly dry at the time of imposition.⁶

      Under this arrangement and modification, I think we shall be the most popular and powerful party in the union; and as for being orthodox, there can be no doubt upon that subject, seeing we shall have the concurrence of the Presbyterian and Congregational brethren, who will assuredly send us annually a few delegates, indicative of their great good will and high approbation of our charity, liberality, and soundness in the faith. I hope we Baptists in the western states will have no conscientious scruples on the propriety of this "motion," nor even call into question the "scripturality" of such a scheme, seeing the New England states and those in the south have said, "Go forward!" "Keep not back!" And especially as Jethro in the wilderness advised Moses to appoint captains over tens, captains over fifties, captains over hundreds, and captains over thousands. All of which is respectfully submitted to our brethren in the east and west--by

THE EDITOR.      

      I HAVE acted very imprudently, say many, in the exhibition of the matter contained in this volume. If I had not been so plain and so full in opposing many popular plans, just in the commencement, I might have, say they, obtained a more extensive circulation for this paper. I confess I used none of this sort of policy. My great object was to please myself. And as to policy, I acted under the impression of the truth of that adage which says, "Honesty is the best policy." Whenever I cannot obtain a circulation for what I believe to be the truth, I will cease to be an editor; and while this paper will quit cost, I shall bestow all my labor rather than be a silent spectator of the proceedings and events of the times. Its circulation, however, has far surpassed my anticipations. I think I may promise that the second volume will be more interesting than the first, as my time during the past year has been chiefly devoted to objects that did not enter into my views when the prospectus was issued. We flatter ourselves that our labors have not been altogether it vain.

EDITOR.      

[TCB 72-78]