Volume 3. Number 12. July 6, 1826, pp. 249-257.

• For the Christian Baptist by Mirzah, pp. 249-250.
• On the Millennium.--No. I. by Philip (Walter Scott), pp. 250-251.
• To the Editor of the Christian Baptist: On Faith by Amicus, p. 251-252.
• To Amicus by Alexander Campbell, pp. 252-255.
• Independent Baptist to the Christian Baptist by An Independent Baptist, pp. 255-256.
• To an Independent Baptist by Alexander Campbell, pp. 256-257.

      WHEN deep sleep comes upon man, and mortals, tossed and harrowed in their minds, enjoy, for a moment, the sweets of forgetfulness, which, upon the whole, has been conducive to my happiness; having been for months past disturbed not only by day, but sometimes by night, on the great difficulty of deciding who, of all the guides of the people, are under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. If, Mr. Editor, the vision will, in your view, be of any use to any, please lay it before the public.

MIHZAH.      

      IN visions of the night I saw most distinctly through the whole area of a field, which I supposed to be many thousand miles square, the most extensive groups of human beings, which fancy when awake could well conceive of. The field itself exhibited no little variety. On all sides there were hills and vallies, woods and rivers; of singular aspect, yet presenting no obstruction to my sight, for every elevation and protuberance appeared to be transparent as glass. The field, as already described, was square, though at intervals it appeared to be octagonal, and sometimes to have a hundred equal sides. Of the numberless curious and attractive scenes which crowded upon my sight, few of which can either be distinctly recalled or related, I shall attempt, at present, the recital of but a few. Never on earth before did I see a field of any dimensions so diversified with roads and paths. Indeed, it sometimes appeared as though the whole area had been once trodden with human feet in the way of large and small roads, straight and crooked paths. Even at the present time, during my vision, it appeared as if the whole premises were allotted to engineers and supervisors for the purpose of making experiments in the construction of roads and paths. No conceivable design could have located several hundred paths, side by side, sometimes parallel to each other, and sometimes as serpentine as the milky way, other than the mere project of experiment. For notwithstanding the my roads of paths in every direction in this vast field, there were but two gates and principal roads, which all seemed at one time or another to frequent.

      The whole scenery was illuminated with a very strange and fluctuating sort of light, which seemed to emanate from no fixed fountain or source, but differing in degrees at different intervals, and sometimes so very, faint that objects quite contiguous could not be discriminated from one another. The countless myriads which were always in motion in this vast area, kept up such a continual noise, that for a long time, though extremely anxious to learn something about them, I could not distinguish one articulate sound. They often appeared in great agitation, and in large and small groups appeared to oppose each other, and the stronger often compelled the weaker to desert one path and flee to another. Either a gleam of light, or something under that appearance, often seemed to arrest the attention of those in its vicinity, and all seemed attracted by it, and, for a while, appeared tranquil in contemplating it; but in a shorter or longer period it vanished, and they all became as restless as ever.

      After many fruitless efforts to acquire some information on all that pressed upon my attention, I resolved to mingle with some crowd or to set out a solitary traveller in quest of information. While thus pondering in my mind, a venerable figure approached me, and looking very earnestly in my face, said, "Whence camest thou hither?" I could make no reply. He, without giving me time to propose a question, said "It is all as uncertain as before" What? said I. "Paradise," he replied, and instantly leaving the path in which he stood, began his march in another, and vouchsafed me no farther information.

      At this moment, turning to the East, I saw an immense crowd assembled before a chair of huge magnitude, in which many hundred persons could be comfortably seated, yet but one august personage sat in it, beneath whose feet, on platforms of different elevations, stood myriads of mitred dignitaries, having inscribed upon their foreheads "The Called and Sent." At the right hand of the chair stood a huge cross, on which, as well as on the chair, was inscribed J. C. V.¹ While I was gazing with astonishment on these strange scenes which I could not understand, I observed many individuals, and sometimes considerable groups, abandoning the countless millions which stood in solemn gaze upon the chair, its occupant, and the dignitaries beneath, and saw them pass through a grotesque and antique gate, on the side of which, fronting the chair was inscribed Heresy and on the other side Reformation. Through this gate of enormous dimensions, which permitted not only whole groups to pass together without inconvenience, but also to carry with them immense loads, resembling bales, each inscribed with M. E. T.² I directed my course, and saw two chairs, something smaller than the former, and not quite so venerable, dignified [249] with two patriarchal rabbis resembling the archbishops of York and Canterbury; a crown of gold, engraved and lettered, "Defender of the Faith," hung at equal distance from them both. Around them stood twenty-four fathers, with beautiful vestments covered with sentences of Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, all importing "The Called and Sent." Many thousands kneeled before them with four cornered tiaras, having the same inscription, "The Called and Sent."

      A gate fronting these chairs, less than the former, but having the same inscriptions on both sides, was equally thronged with dissenters, who, after gazing a while at those exalted pontificals, withdrew through it and disappeared. I pursued them in great haste, determined to obtain some certain information. But, to my astonishment, on passing through it, more than a hundred paths diverged from its threshold in all directions, each one leading to a small eminence covered with chairs, and all filled with incumbents, bearing upon their little tiaras, in small capitals, the same inscription, "The Called and Sent." Larger or smaller crowds stood before them all; but so fluctuating that no one could tell which was likely to become the greatest or the least.

      The unceasing din and commotion between the outposts of each crowd reminded me of nothing so much as the swarms and commotions of a large assemblage of bees when the sun approaches Cancer. I could distinguish not one sentence, though every chair was filled with an orator, and in every crowd a multitude appeared repeating the same sentences. In despair I retired to a long skirt of woods which covered the margin of a tranquil stream, and there expected to find a requiem for meditation. But soon as I descended towards its borders, I observed a great many stragglers who had deserted all the crowds and hastened to the river. These seemed at first to be following me, but passed me by without uttering a word, until they reached the stream, into which they plunged themselves as though they were weary of life and sought a termination of its toils and uncertainties. I looked to see them emerge no more, but with no little surprise I saw them every one ascend the opposite bank, and were met there by twelve long bearded men, wearing leathern girdles and camblet gowns. Each of these seemed eager to seize by the hand every one who emerged from the river, and to lead them into beautiful arbors and booths pitched at a respectful distance from each other along the stream. Each of these twelve primates had a different head dress, but all inscribed with "The called and sent." At this moment I found my feet wet with the water of the stream, the edge of which I had unconsciously approached. At this instant I was hailed and invited to cross by a very humble and venerable figure on the opposite shore. But while in suspense I was caught by the skirts by a number of "The called and sent"³ of the crowd nearest the river, having "liberty and independence" added to all their other inscriptions. These pulled me back, while I was zealously invited by those on the opposite side to enter their arbute arbors. One exclaimed, "If you fear the stream I will send you a canoe;" another said, "Nay, here is a balloon;" a third pointed to a rainbow over a bridge, and a fourth said, "Swim the stream, or be lost forever." In the mean time a crowd like harpies had a hold of every protuberance on my raiment; not a button was left on my garments, and I was likely to be rent from head to foot. In the mean time, frantic with despair, I struggled for life, and by a fortunate effort disentangled myself and plunged into the stream. Soon as I had crossed I was seized by at least half a dozen of the sages I had seen, and was as likely to be torn to pieces as before. I begged for time to change my apparel, which being granted, I made my escape to a cavern I descried in an unfrequented spot at some distance, where I sat musing on all that had passed. After some time a refugee, like myself, entered the same cavern, and, after discerning me, said, "Friend, how camest thou hither?" I told him my story, and he told me his. He informed me that he had been for many years on his feet, running in the different paths, and now, for the first time, had sat down. He told me he had found a map in a cave which he had long wished to peruse, but never till now had found an opportunity.

      All the information he had gathered during many years traveling amounted to no more than this: That it had been once announced in these regions that a happier country, called Paradise, had been once prepared for all who desired it; that the way to this country had been graphically laid down, but that a predecessor of that godlike man who sat upon the first huge chair which I noticed, had secreted the map of the country and the high road that led to it, and that his successors said they could describe it better by words than by maps, and that all the different roads and paths which I had noticed had been laid down by different great and wise men of former times; that all those different orders of chaired pontificals claimed the honor of being "The called and sent" of the author of the original map to put the inhabitants of these regions in the sure and certain road to that celestial country. He also informed me that many had traveled for years in different paths, and had followed different guides, all called and sent; but that they, depending upon those guides, had never found that country; and that so great was the increase of new and improved guides, that all the dominions which they enjoyed were likely to be cut up with new roads and paths, without promising a happier result than before. "But," says he, "come let us open this map." We opened it, and to our surprise, found that not one of those guides who claimed the patronage of the author of the map, had been authorized by him, but that he had once authorized a sufficient company of surveyors and engineers, who had exactly defined the country and the way thither. We followed the map, and soon found a road which, although almost covered with grass, shrubs, and trees, led us safely into the confines of Paradise, where in transport I awoke, and found it but a vision.

MIRZAH.      

      MANKIND are certainly moving in the horizon of some great and eventful change, into the centre of which all society must inevitably and speedily be carried. The world is in strange commotion; expectation is all aroused--anticipation of something good, splendid, and unknown, is become undoubting and impatient, even to painfulness; and the time is at hand when a plenteous harvest of toil and talent must be reaped from all orders of society, that many run to and fro, and knowledge be increased.

      The time is certainly arrived, when the great political establishments, the powers and principalities of the world, which have created and [250] fostered those warlike feelings, and mercantile and rival interests, so hostile to the spirit of the gospel, and which have led men so far away from nature, must speedily be dissolved; and when the economy of God, which shall be more in unison with the religion of his Son and with nature, shall suddenly make its appearance.

      The object of this paper is to show that God has designs of high favor towards man, and will vouchsafe him an age of happiness, in which the entire sum of physical, moral and intellectual good, which can be enjoyed on earth, will be granted.

      The subject is one of immense depth and extent. It involves the whole series of scripture history, and prophecy, and is as protracted as the duration of the world itself. Accordingly the reader will not expect the author of this paper to go into a detail of the subordinate parts of a subject of such plenitude and sublimity; but if the two extremes of the providential chain, with a few of the more illustrious links by which they are connected, shall be clearly pointed out, so as to furnish christians with an elementary clue to this grand topic, it is presumed the reader will be sufficiently remunerated for his trouble in reading this essay.

      All men exist under a threefold order of relations; first to the natural world; secondly, to one another; and thirdly, to God; and the history of the world demonstrates, that, to mankind in the aggregate, as to each individual, the knowledge of these relations is slow and progressive; that it is not incident to the infant child alone, but also to the infant family of mankind, to stop at these immediate and more obvious relations which subsist between us and matter; that mankind in the aggregate, as well as each individual, have their physical pursuits; and that, therefore, the antediluvian period, characterized by the absence of all governmental arrangements, may, with propriety, be called the physical age of the species.

      Secondly, the middle period of the worlds history is pre-eminently distinguished for a high regard to that more remote order of relations, which subsists in great and populous empires, as the Babylonian, Persian, Grecian and Roman; during which long epochs personal liberty and personal security have been better established; and happiness, which is the end of our existence, less fluctuating and uncertain than it was during the merely physical age, which passed before the flood. This may be styled the secular age of our species, concerning which the prophet says, "I beheld until the thrones" i. e. of those empires "were cast down." But,

      Thirdly, Mankind having nearly exhausted the limits allotted to them for pursuits purely physical and political, and having, by dint of long experience, learnt the inefficiency of commerce and war to secure happiness, are now deeply inspired with a premonition of some great and incomprehensible change, the present nature of which time alone can fully clear up. This is the millennial or evangelical age of the world; during which the human race will enjoy great happiness, and that third order of relations which have been revealed as subsisting between men and their Creator and Redeemer, shall be fully investigated, developed, and enjoyed.

      Let it not be supposed, however, that these observations are made merely to arrive at the trite conclusion that man is a physical, moral, and intellectual being; but for the important purposes of showing the chain of high and holy providences, by which the God of all mercy and grace, has long been conducting the human family to an age of virtue and happiness; also that he has done it by a course of physical and politico-moral experience, perfectly adapted to human nature, without which mankind would never, for any length of time, have remained either virtuous or happy; and this division of the world into physical, secular, and evangelical ages, is neither arbitrary nor fanciful, but is founded in matter of fact, and abundantly supported by divine declaration. The first age being marked out by a judgment not less notable than the flood; the second issuing in the judgment and total overthrow of the anti-christian governments; and the evangelical age terminating in the final judgment itself. And let no one say that in order to induct the human family into the evangelical age, God has too much protracted the physical and secular ages. Such language would be improper, even if we had made all of past experience which we ought to have made of it. But what improvements have we made of past experience? Do not facts the most numerous, obvious and striking, demonstrate that we have not advanced one step in the art of applying the liberty and security so richly enjoyed in America to the promotion of our happiness, which is the grand and glorious end of all the present, past, and future dispensations of providence in regard to us. For of what value is personal liberty, and personal security, so long as they are prostrated to ambition, speculation, and war; for granting, that the intervention of science, and the milder influence of the gospel has quenched the spirit of war in these states, yet mark the rival interests and intense passions excited by the commercial spirit that is abroad. If the spirit of war is hushed, the fact resembles the case where one unclean spirit makes room for seven others still more abominable than himself; for, at this moment, the United States, the noblest nation in the world, is on the verge of becoming a race of speculators; while their boundless territories, the nations real estate, lies comparatively unappropriated to their real happiness.

      Meanwhile, let the reader bear in mind that history, and especially the holy scriptures, show us that the march of man towards virtue and happiness has been slow and progressive; they show us also that God is exceedingly opposed to, and displeased with, aristocratic and oppressive governments; while, at the same time, the fatal destruction of the antediluvians, clearly evinces the impracticability of existing in any way but under some general government, to secure us at once against foreign force and domestic broils. That, in the approaching age, political authority will be confined to the regulation of its proper concerns, and while all enjoy the sum of physical, moral, and intellectual good--the word of the Lord will have free course and be glorified in the salvation of thousands. So much, at present, for the physical, secular, and evangelical ages, by which the scripture, history, and age of prophecy, are seen to harmonize so admirably with the course of human improvement.

PHILIP.      

Connecticut, April 25, 1826.      

      I FULLY believe with you that much has been said and written on this subject inconsistent with the simplicity of the Word, and tending much to perplex the minds of the disciples of Christ. I accord with you, that faith is the belief of testimony; that the faith with which [251] salvation or eternal life is connected, is the belief of the testimony of the Son of God in the scriptures of truth. But the distinction you appear to make between faith and repentance, in respect to divine influence producing these, appears to me to be unscriptural. You admit the scriptural truth that Christ "is exalted to bestow repentance," (No. 1. vol. ii. p. 85) but you say, (Sentimental Journal, p. 58,) "evidence alone produces faith, or testimony is all that is necessary to faith." I wish you to try this principle, and place before your calumniators "evidence" that you are an honest man, and see whether it "produces faith." What means this scripture?--"How can you believe that receive honor one of another, and seek not the honor that comes from God only," or the alone God? Does not Jesus Christ here plainly teach that the evil disposition of the heart biases the man and causes it to resist, or prevents it from perceiving the evidence which is placed before it? Did he not teach that the cause why the Jews would not come to him, or believe him, was, that they loved darkness rather than light? Do you not think that the cause of some persons defaming you is the prejudice of their own minds, and not any deficiency in the evidence of your good character, which you have given them? Jesus told the Jews, "Because I tell you the truth, you believe me not?" They could believe the lies of false prophets. If some other came in his own name, him they could receive; but because the Son of God came in his Father's name, or to exhibit and establish the goodness of that law which they had broken, they would not receive him. They repented not that they might believe. Matt. xxi. 32. When Paul was at Corinth preaching "the things concerning the kingdom of God," the cause of many believing not was not a want of evidence of the truth of the divine testimony, but that they "were hardened." Acts xix. 9. Passages of similar import might be added to prove that the cause of unbelief and impenitence is the same, and consequently divine influence is as necessary to remove one as the other. The cause is loving darkness or sin rather than light or holiness. You will please to observe also that Jesus Christ condemned the Jews, which is additional proof that unbelief arises from an evil heart or disposition, and not for want of evidence. Again, "Whosoever believes that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God." There is, in my view, abundant evidence in the scriptures of truth that the faith which is connected with justification is as much "the gift of God" as repentance or any other fruit of the Spirit. Faith and repentance, &c. are indeed acts of our own minds, but they are all effects of the renewal of our minds by the Holy Spirit. It is no more congenial to the mind of a sinner to believe to the saving of the soul, than it is to repent of sin or to love God. I have no desire to go beyond the word on this or any other divine subject; neither will I reject the plain testimony of that word, because the judgments of God are unsearchable, and his ways past finding out. I apprehend that "the matter" of saving faith is something more than "that Christ died for our sins, and was buried and is risen from the dead," unless we suppose that the belief that Christ died for our sins, implies a belief of his holy doctrine respecting the law of God, the evil of sin, and our just condemnation. I am very confident that I believed the facts that Christ died on the cross, was buried and rose from the dead, long before I had any faith that "overcomes the world." These facts may be believed, while the holy truth connected with these, is denied and rejected. Mr. Fishback, in the extracts you have published, well observes, when considering the truth to be believed, that "the gospels written by the four evangelists, contains the history of Christ's incarnation, life, doctrine, miracles, death, resurrection, ascension, and intercession; and one of the evangelists tells us the design of his history:--These are written, that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, and that, believing, you might have eternal life through his name." He remarks, "It is of his own will that God begets men to the faith, with the word of truth." He also declares that belief and love "unite in saving faith." If so, divine influence must be as necessary to produce saving faith as love. Mr. Fishback likewise remarks, "He (the Spirit) has imparted saving faith in the Lord Jesus." I notice these remarks of Mr. Fishback's, because you remark that his "observations concerning faith" are "expressive of (your) sentiments." I have no idea of faith as a principle in the heart separated from the word of truth; but I understand that it is by the operation of the Spirit that the truth is believed to the salvation of the soul. In your reply to P. H. [No 9 vol. ii.] you observe, "Some of them who believed the ancient revelations, like Lydia, and whose hearts were thereby opened, honestly disposed," &c. I beseech you, dear sir, to compare this representation of the subject, with that of the Holy Spirit. The inspired historian, writing of Lydia, remarks, "Whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended to the things that were spoken by Paul." You represent the opening of the heart, as the effect of attending to, or believing the truth. The Spirit of Truth represents it as the cause. You observe, "We are asked--why do not all believe the same testimony?" and "another, and another why is proposed. And so it ends with a why just where we began." I would rather say it ends just where the Spirit of Truth ends it. We may propose questions which are answered by the revealed truth. Thus far we may go; but here curiosity and pride must be stayed. If we ask, Why do not all who have the gospel believe it? The answer is, Because they love darkness rather than light. "You will not come," &c. said the faithful witness. If the question is, Why do some believe rather than others? the answer is, "As many as were ordained to eternal life, believed." "You has he quickened who were dead in trespasses and in sins," &c. "But God who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, has quickened us together with Christ." "By grace you are saved," &c. "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to good works," &c.

      If the question is, why does God thus quicken some rather than others? the answer is, "He has mercy on whom he will have mercy." "For your pleasure all things are," &c. Here the divine testimony ends the subject, and here we ought to end. But it any are disposed to murmur against this truth, there are a few questions for them to answer. "He that reproves God, let him answer it." "Is your eye evil because I am good?" "Shall I not do what I will with my own;" "Who are you, O man! that reply against God," &c. "Surely the Judge of all the earth will do right."

AMICUS.      

      If, as you say, "faith is the belief of testimony," there can be no faith without testimony; [252] and if faith be no more than the belief of testimony, nothing more than testimony enters into the nature of faith. This is admitted by all persons of reflection on the subject of faith properly called human. But many will have that faith which is so often spoken of in the christian scriptures, to be something more than the belief of truth, or the belief of the testimony of God; and even of those who contend that faith is simply the belief of the gospel, or testimony concerning Jesus the Lord, some will have this faith distinguished in some way, either as the effect of regeneration, as a holy or spiritual act, as inwrought by some physical agency in the heart, or some way differing from the usual and commonly received import of the term. Hence so much mystery, and mysterious reasoning on the subject of "saving faith." As nothing of this kind of reasoning or definition appears in the inspired writings, we are naturally led to look for its origin and progress somewhere else. We can soon trace it to "Mystery, Babylon the Great," but no farther. And here I am willing to leave it. But many wish to leave only a part of it there, and seek to introduce an improved system of definitions into the christian vocabulary.

      If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is more worthy of reception, and produces greater certainty; and this is all the difference the New Testament presents to me betwixt faith in the testimony of man, and faith in the testimony of God. But this will not satisfy those of a metaphysical taste, who are philosophically inquisitive into the doctrine of causation. They must, step by step, ascend to the ultimate cause, or to the most remote cause of every thing; and while each one pursues the course which education or chance opens to his feet, and terminates his inquiries only because he can travel no farther, the christian taught by God is meditating the things revealed, which seraphs admire, and seeking to enjoy a fulness of the blessing of the gospel of Christ. But this is not the worst of it. One believer not unfrequently contemns another because be cannot soar so high in the doctrine of causation as himself. He dislikes him, too, not because he is not as good a christian, but because he is not so wise a philosopher as himself. Hence one christian philosopher terminates his inquiries here--"As many as were ordained to eternal life believed;" or, "You believe not because you are not my sheep." Another, who is not so strong, or perhaps stronger, terminates his inquiries here--"They searched the scriptures with all readiness of mind; many of them, therefore, believed." Each one loves his own theory, and is zealous for it as though it were the gospel of Christ. Indeed, some often call their doctrine of grace "The Gospel." Many texts are brought into the field, and strung together, whose connexion is dissevered; and not one of which was, perhaps, designed to prove any such theory. Some texts are of doubtful import as respects either theory. These are declared to be lawful plunder, and each belligerent, according to his martial skill, captivates them to his service. Thus the war is protracted and the strife maintained, which it is the desire of every christian to see terminated. To come to the drift and scope of your communication, I would observe, First. That you seem to gather from the Christian Baptist (how lawfully I will not inquire) that I make a distinction between faith and repentance as respects divine influence in their production. This I never intended; nor do I see that affirming that "evidence alone produces faith," and that "repentance is bestowed," implies that there is any difference in the origin of either as respects divine influence. In one instance we spoke not of the origin of faith, but of its nature. In the other, of the origin of repentance, and not of its nature. But we are so much accustomed to a quaint orthodox style, that if a person speaks of faith or repentance, and does not always preface his remarks by observing that both are "the gift of God," he is at once supposed not to be sound in the faith.

      It has often surprised me to find with what tenacity the sound of some texts is held, regardless of the meaning, because the sound, more than the sense, suits some favorite position. Of this very species is the text now before us. I am quite certain that it is generally quoted to support a position which was not before the mind of the writer. In the new translation, which we have just published, of Campbell, Macknight, and Doddridge, it reads thus: "And when they had heard these things, they acquiesced, and glorified God, saying, God has then given to the Gentiles also reformation to life." Taken in all the attendant circumstances, it just means--God has then no longer confined his benignity to the Jews, but has, to the Gentiles, as to them, given the same reformation to life. But this is not the text to which the allusion is. It is, "Him has God exalted at his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, to give reformation to Israel and remission of sins." This as evidently refers to the Jews as a people, as the former does to the Gentiles as a people. And both, I apprehend, mean no more than that Jesus, as a Saviour, has conferred upon both Jews and Gentiles the blessings of life through a reformation proceeding from a belief of the favor of God through himself. And the term "also," in reference to the Gentiles, shows that it had already, prior to their calling, been granted to the Jews. But this is toto cælo different from the popular notion of what is called "evangelical repentance" wrought in the heart of any individual, Jew or Gentile.

      In the second place, I observe that I perfectly accord with what you say, that "it is not the want of evidence, but the want of disposition;" so not the want of ability, but the power of prejudice, and vicious inclinations, or a wicked heart, which prevents many from hearkening to, believing, and obeying the gospel. Hence unbelief is a sin. But were it so that a want of evidence, or of ability to believe, was the cause of so many I infidels, then infidelity could not be a sin, or a worthy cause of condemnation. But God has given sufficient evidence, and consequently sufficient ability to every man to believe the testimony of his Son; and, therefore, the unbelief of every man is chargeable to his own wickedness. Nor is there, in my view, the least discrepancy between these positions and that "that evidence alone produces faith, or is all that is necessary to faith," when speaking of the nature of faith.--For faith, however it comes into existence, is no more than the belief of truth; and it is evidence alone that ascertains and demonstrates what is truth. That the evidence of truth does not arrest the attention of all, is equally true of things human and divine. And it has been often and long remarked how easily men assent to a proposition which they wish to be true, and with what difficulty they assent to one averse from their inclinations. This only proves the influence which the will has upon the understanding. In other cases, where there is no previous bias for or against any proposition, the assent is just [253] proportioned to the evidence. These remarks are as true in reference to the dogmas of sectaries, as they are with regard to matters of simple belief.

      I observe in the third place, that what you call "the matter of faith," or the truth to be believed, as more than that "Jesus died for our sins, was buried, and rose again," does not exactly accord with the emphasis which the holy apostles lay upon these superlative truths. It has often been admitted that thousands acknowledge these as facts from common education, as the Turks do that Mahomet was heaven's last prophet, who I do not understand their import, nor recognize the evidence on which they rest. On this we lay no stress. No man can truly believe them and not overcome the world. We have never said or supposed that a man's saying he believed them, while they did not work effectually in his heart and life, was any evidence that he believed them; nor do we think that they can operate to the saving of the soul, unless when received in their scriptural import. On this topic we have repeatedly written very plainly.

      I remark in the fourth place, that the greatest objection I have to the scope and drift of your communication, is, that it goes to the trite, inoperative, ineffectual, and cheerless conclusions of the Geneva metaphysics. I know right well how many texts can be paraded in support of these conclusions, and you know very well how many texts can be paraded on the other side. I advocate neither side of this controversy, because neither, in my judgment, was the design of the apostolic writings. And I am very sure that to sinners there is no gospel in the Calvinistic system, as it stands in the creeds of those sects who I embrace it. It is no gospel to proclaim, that "God from all eternity elected a few individuals to everlasting life; that these few of Adam's progeny are all that he loved; the rest he doomed permissively to everlasting death; for these few elect ones, and for these only, his Son was born, lived and died. These only he effectually calls, these he quickens by his Holy Spirit, and these shall, in spite of all opposition, persevere to the end and be saved." I say this honest front of Calvinism, how true soever in metaphysics, is not the gospel of Jesus Christ our Lord, and all those texts which are brought to prove it are either wrested, perverted, or misapplied.

      Though born, educated, brought up, and I might say, confirmed in this system, by all the reading, and study of my life; I am, from the apostolic writings alone, convinced, that to teach, preach, or proclaim such a system, is not to teach, preach, or proclaim the gospel I find in the New Testament. And I can see no reason nor propriety in opposing such a system to deny that God rules over all, that his counsel stands, that he does all his pleasure, that he influences the heart of every one that believes, as he did that of Lydia. If you please, that he gives his Holy Spirit to all that ask him or to all them who believe--that our whole salvation is of favor, free as the light of the sun, and that God is its sole author: for all things in it and connected with it are of God. I say, I see no reason to deny or oppose these positions, to maintain the conclusion--that every man who hears the glad tidings may believe them and be saved if he pleases, or if he truly desires it.

      This conclusion, strange as it may appear, I find no intelligent Calvinist able or disposed to controvert, however tenacious about his original sin, his total depravity, and his effectual calling.

      I thank God that he has given the fullest proofs of philanthropy, and not of personal regards; that he has in sincerity called men to look to his Son and be saved, and given the fullest assurance that whosoever will, may, can, and ought to come to him, and be saved; and that all that disobey this call have no excuse for their sin. This may be called any ism men please, but that it is in accordance with the whole scope, design, and letter of the inspired volume, I doubt not.

      That multitudes love darkness rather than the light, and the gratification of their brutal and animal appetites rather than obeying the gospel, I have to lament; but one thing I know, they can not implicate the benevolence of God, nor charge him either with partiality or injustice in condemning them for this course.

      That the Lord opened the heart of Lydia, and delivered Paul out of all his tribulations, is equally true; and that Lydia, before that day, was a pious worshipper of God, and that Paul escaped by his own feet, and once by a basket, is just as true. It is also true that the corn which I eat is the gift of God, and so is the faith and reformation which I enjoy. I say this merely as a hint to show how easily all those texts can be rationally and scripturally understood, which are so often presented to prove dogmas which prophets and apostles never thought of, nor entered into their hearts to conceive. You will see, then, that there is no necessity for stopping to inquire into the truth or falsehood of those dogmas, so long as the scope and drift of these conclusions are at variance with the whole current of revelation, nor of examining particular proofs, so long as the conclusions themselves make both law and gospel a dead letter, and represent men as dead as the stones of the field in a sense called "spiritual."

      Many have labored with great toil to take the texts one by one from their opponents; but the whole contest is mere logomachy. Of this species is the text you have quoted from Luke's history: "As many as were ordained to eternal life believed." A correct translation, in most instances, is all that is necessary to settle many of these controversies. Doddridge, a Calvinist too, renders it "As many as were determined for eternal life believed." This is as ambiguous as the original, which Dr. Campbell has proved to be the true method to be pursued in giving a fair translation. For the determination may either be that of the Creator or the creature, which of the two must be ascertained from other considerations than the mere import of the term. Whitby has it, "As many as were disposed for eternal life believed," and argues that the original term is used but once in the same form by Luke in this treatise, and there it must signify one's own disposition--"Paul was disposed to go on foot." I mention this to show much may be subtracted from the imposing authority of a few texts whose sound seems to sanction dogmas at variance with the whole scope of the gospel of Jesus.

      You will not, my dear sir, suppose that I consider you as wishing to support the dogmas of Calvin or any other man: I have a far higher opinion of your intelligence and virtue than to suppose this. I know you aim at the mere understanding of the scriptures, and acknowledge no man as a master in these things. But I think your communication, however well intended, and of this I entertain no doubt, is modelled upon that system, and terminates in sheer fatalism. And I know from experience how easy it is to be under the influence of impressions and biases directing our views into particular channels [254] when it is not our intention to go farther than the bible seems to authorize us. There is one thing, I think, must be obvious, that it can be of no use to any sinner or unregenerate person, either to believe, or to have preached to him, that only the elected sinners can believe the gospel. I would wish to attend to all the items in your communication; but time and space forbid. I have been on generals--for particulars again.

EDITOR.      

      MR. EDITOR--IF, in my last epistle, I have sinned against the law requiring us to love as brethren, my defence must be that it was not intended. As "perfection" was not pretended to, you will forgive the exceptionable words and phrases, arising from a strong feeling on the subject of discussion. It is a difficult attainment to be able to admonish in the simple and mild language which soothes while it sanctifies. The defence you make in reply to me has been carefully read. I am not satisfied; and, to speak candidly, it is, in my opinion, the first instance where the editor of the "Christian Baptist" seemed to be at a loss. Aliquando Homerus dormitat. The real question is not touched, and instead of a manly and triumphant appeal to apostolic principle and example, you have produced a thing made up of verbose declamation and sophisticated special pleading. With the remark that what you say of "consistency" may be generally true, but not called for, I hasten to the point.

      With the hope of escaping from the clutches of the Dialogue, you assert that the "only bond of union among christians, advocated by the Christian Baptist, is a sincere and hearty conviction expressed or confessed by the lips, that Jesus is the Christ," &c. Taking advantage of the simplicity of this proposition, you go on to say that when this belief exhibits itself by an overt act, the individual so confessing and acting must be recognized as a brother. Now this is all true in terms, and yet in fact it is sheer trifling. Let me follow your example by way of illustration. Suppose I affected to prove the whole christian world to be one society of enlightened, sanctified and regenerated individuals, in a state of gracious acceptance and reconciliation with the true God. Having you for a model, I would declare in favor of charity in loose and general terms, and close with "It is written," "Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God." Who does not perceive, that excepting a few obstinate Jews, I have (according to your mode of argument) demonstrated the new creatureship of the Quaker, the Pope, and the "Christian Baptist," with all the christian world, man, woman and child. Nay, it might secure the salvation of the Turk and the "restitution" of devils. My antagonist, if I had one, would no doubt reply, "It is so written, but the use you make of the text is sophistical; you have no right to dislocate and insulate these words, thereby giving them an application not intended by the Holy Spirit. Does such a confession (he would ask) imply the expression of so many words, or the belief of a character, the ingredients, features, and qualities of which are to be learned in the rest of the divine testimony?" The only answer which this question admits of, would contain the refutation of my theory, and mutatis mutandis, it is your refutation also.

      Waving the advantage I might claim, by a general view of the Messiah's character, I will confine myself to a single trait. When Peter said, "God has made that same Jesus whom you have crucified both Lord and Christ," and it was believed by a Jew, was not his confession that Jesus is the Christ at least tantamount to the following, viz. "I confess Jesus of Nazareth to be the promised Messiah--the Prophet like to, nay, greater than Moses; that he is King of Zion; and that (if possible) I am bound to "hear" Jesus with greater submission and obedience more exact than ever Jew heard Moses the servant of God?" If so, the one foundation implies a hearty conviction of Christ's royal supremacy as sole lawgiver in Zion, and instead of an "overt act," (as you loosely express it) as the exhibition of this conviction, it will, nay, must be followed by obedience to the peculiar institutes of his house or kingdom. Your very charitable recognition of Paido-Baptists, &c. as brethren, serves to neutralize the distinction between truth and error--between allegiance and rebellion. As for the societies of sprinkled "new creatures," with whom you could wish (if they would let you) to have "full communion," equal to what you have with the whole Baptist society, they resemble what a synagogue of Jews would be, who rejected circumcision, sacrificed swine, and new-modelled and modified the law to suit convenience and expediency. They might think themselves Jews--some time-serving Rabbi might call them brethren Jews; but if they claimed Moses as their lawgiver, I would justly charge them with gross inconsistency; a charge which, upon analogous ground, is now proved against the "Christian Baptist."

      Your reply suggested the query, "Where now are all the scripture proofs to which Mr. Editor, in a good cause, can make so powerful appeal?" The feeling was natural; for, in christian sincerity, I consider your bible knowledge to be immense. True, in one instance you call upon Paul to help you, by raising a question as to the probable pliability of the apostle's conscience in certain cases. But I am verily persuaded that Paul rejects this unholy alliance. His Master commissioned him to teach the baptized disciples to observe all things whatsoever had been commanded. This tested and increased their love. When churches were built on the one foundation, the divine pattern was carefully copied. If irregularities crept in, he reproved and admonished; if they repented and confessed him the ambassador of the Great King, he rejoiced and approved them as brethren; if they repented not, he denounced them as fallen; and trampling on the accommodating conscientiousness of degenerate men, in the majestic moral attitude of a man acting "in Christ's stead," he decreed, "We have no such custom, neither the churches of God." This is a church question, and not a judging any man's personal piety and conversion. If a man says, "I believe," &c. well, I judge him not as concerns his final salvation. But if he hint at "full communion" with the church of Christ, I must reply, "Arise and be baptized," &c. "O, says he, I have been solemnly sprinkled by a Levite already." Here I pause till he obey. But what would you do? You would call him brother Paido, and eat and drink with him in "full communion," expressing approbation of the thing represented and of him in so far as he conforms to it. If this new creature should ask me why I refused him, holding, as he said he did, to one Lord, one faith, one hope, &c. I would tell him that faith without works is dead; that he could not break bread; that Christ must be obeyed; and that no [255] instance, divinely authenticated, had ever appeared of any man having believed the gospel, in whom it failed to produce a desire, and willingness to be baptized, and to continue "stedfastly in the apostles doctrine," &c. Here your practice and mine would be directly opposite, and yet I appeal to the readers of the "Christian Baptist,' whether I do not exactly conclude with your printed sentiments. If so, the charge of inconsistency remains, and the panoply of the Dialogue is impenetrable. But what need of argument; it is a palpable evasion of the question, to talk of recognising a society of "new creatures" as a New Testament church, who, whatever may be their piety and solemnity, are not ashamed to confess that their church is organized and upheld according to the suggestion of human policy. Horresco inferens!

      You attempt to fix the charge of inconsistency on me by a counter-dialogue, going to show that your Christian Baptist agrees in many respects with the Regulars, and that, therefore, you would be inconsistent if you did not maintain "full communion" with them--"the legs of the lame are not equal." That another objector could prove you inconsistent, by a different road, is surely not my fault, neither does it invalidate the force and truth of my position. "See you to that." Besides, your argument is inconclusive. It is as if I had engaged to show that gold and tin are both metals, but essentially different, and in order to do so I have pointed out the differential quality. You have endeavored to prove them to be one and the same metal, by enumeration of the qualities common to both--and with the same truth and fairness with which you attempt to roll over the reproach upon me, you might affect to assure the world that you had proved the identity of gold and tin. To make the best of your argument, the "full communion" which you enjoy and advocate, if carried out to its legitimate extent, instead of producing in the church the visible image of Christ, would create a resemblance to a certain "great image, his legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay!" This is the dream; cannot you, Mr. Editor, tell the interpretation thereof?

      The declamation you have indulged in, with the view of decrying strictness, separation, &c. is what is termed in these days, liberal, charitable and kind; but most astonishing as coming from you. It breathes the spirit which has lowered the tone of scriptural feeling, and gone far already in the production of a homogeneous nondescript, in which the church and the world are blended and the eternal distinction lost. Suffer the word of respectful and affectionate admonition--Ponder well the paths of your feet--Be warned--You have been at the monastic tropic, and are now it seems leaving the line--Watch and pray, or by and by you will be at the latitudinarian tropic--and instead of shining (as my prayer has been and now is) in the firmament of the kingdom of heaven, a fixed star--you may yet resemble (which may God's mighty power prevent) the moon, at best but a satellite of the earth, having this motto, "Little light, less heat, and many changes."

      May God keep you in his way--and long preserve you an instrument of good in his church--"Now therefore, O God, strengthen his hands"--Instead of leaning upon "Associations" as a prop, when the regular or irregular Sanballats are wishing to prevent you from repairing the wall, craftily saying "Let us meet together in the house of God within the temple," &c. then is your time to stretch forth your hand like good Nehemiah and say, "should such a man as I flee? and who is there that being as I am, would go into the temple to save his life? I will not go in." May your leaf never wither and your end be PEACE!

	I remain yours, &c.
	AN INDEPENDENT BAPTIST.
Saturday morning, May 20th, 1826.

      DEAR SIR,--IT appears from your favor before me that the grounds on which your first charge of inconsistency was based are sandy. You labor, indeed, to fasten upon me the same charge, but rather on new grounds than on the old. For your remarks upon what I have called the bond of union and peace, are directed more to affect the principle of union itself, than my declaration on which your first letter was founded. So that in fact, and in effect, you now contend with the principle itself, and not with my practice. You do not now admit, that the only bond of peace, and consequently of Christian union, is "a sincere and hearty conviction expressed or confessed by the lips that Jesus is the Christ," &c. You ought then to have manfully and explicitly attacked the principle when first advanced, in the first volume of this work; and not now have demurred at the carrying of this principle into practice. For with all your ingenuity, this, to the judicious, must appear to be the sticking point with you; the very thing itself against which you object.

      It was not "with the hope of escaping the clutches of the dialogue" that I now assert this principle. Nay, verily, it has been asserted and contended for more than once or twice in the first volume of this work. I take no "advantage of the simplicity of this proposition" when I observe "that when this belief exhibits itself by an overt act the individual so confessing and acting must be considered as a brother." This you say, even in your last, "is true in terms"--and strange to tell, "yet in fact it is sheer trifling." This last assertion is yet to be proved. And here you fly off in a tangent. Why, dear sir, do you labor to show me that the simple pronunciation of the terms of any position, such as "that Jesus is the Christ;" or "that every spirit that confesses that Christ has come in the flesh is of God," regardless of the import of these terms in the scripture sense of them, is not sufficient to produce confidence in the person, so pronouncing these terms, as a Christian? Is there such a position or declaration in this work? I say there is not. You are really fighting with a creature of your own formation, and not with me. And here, give me leave to observe, you afford me fresh evidence of the unassailable character of the ground on which I stand; for with all your ingenuity and dexterity, and these I admit are conspicuous, you cannot touch the principle otherwise than by caricaturing an abuse of it. And with your remarks of making the pronunciation of any terms, found in the bible, regardless of the biblical import, the criteria of a disciple, or a bond of union, I most cordially agree. You must perceive then that you are at war with some creature of your own formation, and not with me, for I will join you and aid in annihilating this spectre of your own imagination. Strike it once, and I will strike it twice. We can annihilate it, for it has nothing immortal nor indissoluble about it. But here let me put you on your guard. Take heed that when fighting against a monstrous production, you do not imperceptibly direct your artillery against the offspring of heaven, and be found in the ranks of [256] creed makers and dogmatists who defame the one foundation, and, Babel like, project the basis of a city and tower which is to reach from the plains of Shinar to the heavens.

      When this half of your letter is disposed of, it is all disposed of as respects the topic on which you commenced your correspondence. The charge of inconsistency is disposed of; and whether you or I will have to patronize it, is not for you or me to say. Neither of us would, in civil courts, be admitted as evidence on a question of this kind--This is the province of the jurors. And with their verdict I am satisfied. Are you?

      The new ground of inconsistency which you have now taken, arises not from my remarks to a correspondent in Missouri; but from my remarks to an "Independent Baptist." And here permit me to remark, that you have taken for granted what has not been asserted yet; that Baptists and Paido-Baptists should, irrespective of their difference on the subject of baptism, break bread together. Whether they ought or ought not, has not been asserted by me. This question is yet, with me, sub judice. It is true that I expressed a wish to be on the same terms of communion with the pious of all denominations as with the Baptist. This is a desire I am very far from hoping is peculiar to myself. But if I had asserted it as my conviction, and upon that conviction had acted so far, as to break bread with Paido-Baptists on the same principles as those on which I would unite with a Baptist community, your remarks would rather confirm me in the practice than have caused me to doubt of its propriety. For I reckon that when any person attacks any principle or practice, and either fights with something else under that name, or is compelled to adopt principles of argument which would condemn other principles and practices of the propriety of which there is no doubt, at least with himself, this procedure rather proves than disproves the position against which he argues. This appears, if you will indulge me once more, to be a little the case with the Independent Baptist. Your arguments will equally condemn any intercommunity of worship with them. You cannot, on your principles, pray with them, sing praise with them, or unite with them in one individual act of social worship--I pray you consider this.

      With what propriety you compare a "society of sprinkled new creatures," to a "synagogue of Jews who reject circumcision and sacrifice swine," I confess I do not see. There is no analogy between the two cases. Erroneous and weak as the sprinkled new creatures are, they do not reject circumcision in some sense, nor baptism in some sense; nay, they are too much attached to circumcision. They dislike the knife and prefer water. But there is no "rejection" of the ordinance of baptism by sprinkled new creatures; but a mistake of what it is. I think we can find an exact comparison which expresses the full amount of the pravity of the error and practice of the honest baby-sprinklers. It is this:

      Paternus says to Filius bring me a book; Filius, eager to obey his father, goes and brings him a leaf of paper. Paternus, Why did you not obey me? Father, says Filius, I did; I went at your command, and lo, here it is, pointing to the leaf. That is not a book, says Paternus. I thought it was, replied Filius. Paternus says, well my son, I accept your obedience, and pardon your mistake, because it was not a wilful one. Paternus calls another son. Go Junius, says he, and bring me a book. Junius goes to play at tennis. His father indignant calls for him. He appears. Where is the book, says he, for which I sent you? O father, replied Junius, I preferred a game at tennis to bringing you the book; I thought you might go for it yourself; send somebody else, or do without it. You are a rebel, sir, and you shall be beaten with many stripes. This, Mr. I. B. is your Jew, and that is my Paido-Baptist Christian brother. Now make you the comment, there is the text.

      You are equally unfortunate in your comparison of "gold and tin." You make water the differential quality. It is a pretty comparison; but ill adapted. I did not make myself gold, and the Baptists, in general, tin, nor vice versa: consequently I was not engaged in proving gold and tin to be one metal; and if I had, you would not have proved them to be different by making water the essential differential quality. You will consider this.

      Your "dream" and Nebuchadnezzar's are nothing akin. His image was partly gold, silver, brass, iron, and clay. Mine is the representation of a family of babes, striplings, young men, and fathers all of one faith. Now to compare this image to Nebuchadnezzar's is worse than to make water the essential difference between gold and tin.

      It was not the paucity of scripture documents which I have to urge in defence of the grounds assumed in my former letter that caused me to content myself with a reference to the alleged practice of Paul in breaking bread with the congregations to which he wrote letters of commendation, reproof and admonition. It was because I thought a hint of this sort was enough. For, indeed, I find no point more fully developed, in all the epistles, than the one foundation, and the duty of all Christians to maintain the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace. Were I to enter upon this topic, I would find line upon line, and precept upon precept, enforcing this maxim, "wherefore receive you one another without regard to difference of opinion," on which the apostle writes the largest section in the epistle to the Romans. (Chapters xiv. and xv.) I would call to my aid, his letters to the Corinthians, and his demonstrations, to other congregations, of this principle, that "In Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails any thing, but a new creature, but faith which works by love." But of this again. If there is any position laid down with unusual plainness, and supported with more than ordinary demonstration, in the epistolary part of the New Testament, it is this: That Christians should receive one another as Christ has received them, with all their intellectual weaknesses. This you may call Latitudinarianism; and such a Latitudinarian, I pray you may become.

      If you have any thing to add upon the principle or practice resulting from the bond of peace which I have long since advocated, I will hear you cheerfully again. You have one advantage over me. No person knows who the Independent Baptist is; but alas! I am as a target on a naked hill. Perhaps if you would authorize me to unbutton your coat it might contribute to explain some items in your correspondence; but without your consent not one button shall be unplaced.

      In the mean time, however, I cannot close without most sincerely reciprocating your kind wishes and unfeigned desires for myself and the cause in which I am engaged.

	Yours sincerely,
	EDITOR.

[TCB 249-256]