Volume 4. Number 2. September 7, 1826, pp. 265-273.

• On the Millennium.--No. II. by Philip (Walter Scott), pp. 265-266.
• [On Correspondents and Correspondence] by Alexander Campbell, p. 266.
• Paulinus to the Editor of the "Christian Baptist," Wishes Grace, Mercy, and Peace.--1st Epistle by Paulinus, pp. 266-268.
• To Paulinus by Alexander Campbell, pp. 268-270.
• To the Editor of the Christian Baptist by D., pp. 270-271.
• Replication.--No. I. by Alexander Campbell, pp. 271-272.
• [On Proposed Discussion of Experimental Religion in the Baptist Recorder] by Alexander Campbell, pp. 272-273.

      THE division of the history of our world into the physical, secular and millennial aged, besides spreading before the mind the beginning and end of things, has also this great and desirable advantage, that the inquirer after truth, having once ascertained the distinguishing characteristics of each age, it enables him to distribute the prophecies accordingly, and to acquire a correct general knowledge, not only of his own age, but also of that which has preceded or may follow it.

      To understand the course of human events as glanced at in the rapid sketches of the prophets, and to know the relation which our own times and labors bear to what has actually gone before or may be reasonably and scripturally hoped to follow after, is, of all things, the best calculated to inspire the christian with resignation, and to endow him with those qualities of reasonableness and sobriety which his high profession so imperiously demands.

      To hear the servant in the house of Christ confounding all times and events, and ignorantly setting forth the secular church and authorities, in the terms of the splendid but unaccomplished prophecies which relate to the millennial church and authorities, is very unbecoming, and it may be highly criminal and dangerous--criminal, because it flatters secular and opposing institutions, which God has largely condemned; and dangerous, because it tends to mislead the public mind, and consequently to retard general improvement.

      It is a crime, however, of which the ecclesiastical dignitaries are exceedingly guilty. Where a complimentary sermon is to be delivered, I speak of the European world, the preacher seldom fails to select a text which affords him a fair opportunity of flattering the prince; the scriptures which relate to the millennium are generally resorted to, and the prince whom God has set forth in the scriptures as a wild beast, or the horn, which is the very instrument of terror or rage in a wild beast, is thus painted by the preacher as an inimitable diadem in the hand of Jehovah and a nursing father in the church. The prince is flattered. The priest is rewarded--and so the way of thus confounding things proves a chief art by which the abettors of bad government and false religion mutually encourage and deceive one another.

      We ourselves are not behind in the practice of this art, and were we not kept humble by the manifest prevalence of the secular plagues, debates, envyings, wraths, strifes, backbitings, whisperings, swellings, tumults, we should seldom fail to flatter ourselves that among us, and among us alone, Christ was enthroned in his Millennial glory. But alas! the thrones are not yet cast down, the secular age has not yet expired, war, commerce and ambition, with the rival passions created by them, pride, envy and emulation every where prevail.

      It has been observed, in a former paper, that the physical, secular and millennial ages are marked out on the face of scripture by three attendant judgments--the Flood, the extinction of immoral government, and the resurrection of the dead. The remainder of this paper I devote to remarks rather on these judgments than the ages to which they severally belong.

      The flood, an amazing catastrophe drawn from the resources of the material world, constituted the judgment of the first age. The gratification [265] of the sexual and other appetites formed the chief guilt with which the age was chargeable, "until Noah entered the ark," says the Redeemer., "they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage," &c. it was with great propriety, therefore, that God swept away the animal crimes of a race so sensual by the judgment of the flood.

      The corruption of the secular or middle age being of a higher and more refined nature i. e. of those political and social relations which subsist in large communities, the judgment which shall wipe it away, the scriptures describe to us as being of a more artificial and complex nature. It consists in the extinction of immoral government and false religion, by means of war, conducted under the united aid, and upheld by the united lights of revelation and general science.

      Still more extraordinary, however, will be the final judgment, the resurrection of the dead, sudden, general, and conclusive, it will be effected by an immediate effort of the strong hand of Jehovah--when all the men of all the ages physical, secular, and millennial, shall stand before the judgment seat of Jesus Christ and give to him an account of the deeds done in this body, whether they be good or evil.

      The first judgment then was effected by natural means--the second will be by artificial means--and the third and last by supernatural means, when the human family, which has so apostatized from God, shall be judged and the material world shall be dissolved.

PHILIP.      

      THERE is a great advantage resulting to the community from the art of letter writing of which all are sensible. The letters I receive, and frequently lay before the public in this work, I consider of great interest and advantage to myself, and to my readers. These communications bring before the reader the sentiments and views of many persons of great intelligence and unfeigned piety on the grand subjects on which we treat. I have read some works a century or two old, in reference to which I should have been much edified and delighted, had the authors of those works possessed and given to their readers the sentiments of the distinguished men of their own times. What I have often regretted in works of considerable merit, as a defect, I have always wished to supply in this. I am peculiarly happy in having a number of correspondents of the first order in the literary and religious world, and on the present occasion have more than ordinary satisfaction in introducing, to the acquaintance of my readers, the sentiments of a new correspondent, whose intelligence, piety, and high standing among the churches of Virginia, require no eulogy nor notification from me. The letter itself is sufficient recommendation. I have only to solicit, on my behalf and that of my readers, a continuance or repetition of such favors, both from himself and some others, particularly from a correspondent in King and Queen county, from whom we have not heard for some time. I would delight in a private correspondence with many of my brethren in the east and in the west on all the topics which appear in this work; but the immense labor of my fingers and mind for some time past has prevented me of that pleasure, and therefore, I have, in some instances, where matter of great moment present themselves, preferred, even when the writer did not intend it, to publish his letters and my answers, for the public good. I have no idea of suppressing any thing of consequence because the writer and I may differ in some points. And while I edit this work it shall be open to every decent passenger of whatever creed, who holds the Head.

      DEAR SIR--FINDING the Christian Baptist to be a vehicle, free for all passengers who behave with tolerable decency, and considering myself to be one of that description, I have a mind, if there should be room, to take a seat and try a little trip. By the way, I doubt you will find it necessary to enlarge your vehicle, or submit too often to see yourself and some of your passengers crowded out. But let me drop the figure: I am fond of figures, and therefore would not wish to chase them out of breath. I feel a desire to offer you some thoughts, which, however you may estimate them, will be received, I am confident, in that spirit of friendship and good will, in which they are communicated. This confidence I am disposed to cherish, not only from the impression produced by a slight personal acquaintance with you, but from the candid manner in which, (as far as I have observed,) you have replied to your correspondents--those who have censured, as well as those who have approved.

      With regard to the Christian Baptist, (the object in view in this communication,) or rather, with regard to the principles and sentiments you maintain in that publication, my letter, as you will see, will wear a sort of mixed aspect. I have not yet had the opportunity of perusing all the numbers, from the commencement of this work; but as far as I have seen, I find much to approve, something to doubt, and something too from which I must dissent. Possibly, however, my dissention may be owing, (in part at least,) to the want of a full and correct understanding of your sentiments.

      I said, "much to approve;"--I might use a stronger term and say, much to admire. With several of your essays, I have been not only pleased but delighted. Many of your remarks too, in opposition to the errors and follies, too prevalent in the religious world, meet my own views and receive my warm and hearty commendation. In a word, I am greatly pleased with what appears to be your drift and aim, viz to clear the religion of Jesus of all the adventitious lumber with which it has been encumbered, and bring back the christian church to its primitive simplicity and beauty.

      After these general remarks, it will of course be expected, that I should notice some particulars.

      In the first place then, your views of the christian religion, considered as a dispensation, appear to me to accord, in general, with the spirit of the New Testament. I recollect, particularly, an essay on Christianity, which I had the opportunity of reading in the first Vol. which, in the main, I thought superlatively excellent; as well as that also on the Jewish Sabbath and the Christian Lord's day. In the same volume I think too, was an essay, the subject of which was, the cessation of Old Testament obligations under the Gospel dispensation. Some things, according to my present impression, were there advanced, to which I am not prepared to assent, without a re-perusal of the piece; but the leading sentiment appeared to me to he perfectly defensible on scriptural grounds.

      That we are not under the old dispensation, but under the new, is admitted by all christians: and that the obligations imposed upon us, by the revelation of God's will, do not arise from the [266] Old Testament, but from the New, seems not only to follow as a consequence, but to be abundantly manifested in the christian scriptures. If this therefore, is all you mean by denying the perpetual obligation of the Old Testament, then, as far as I can see, you are right in this point. That the old testament is of divine authority;--that it is a fund of sacred instruction--calculated, by divine wisdom, as a proper rule for the patriarchal and Mosaic dispensations, and an aid to christians in the present day, are facts not to be called in question. A great proportion too of the prohibitions, injunctions, and precepts, found there (all those indeed of the nature called moral,), are, doubtless, of perpetual obligation: but then they are such as are substantially introduced into the New Testament, and incorporated with its glorious truths. Or else, how, (I would ask,) are we to distinguish these moral matters, from those of a different character? from ceremonial and judicial ordinances? Is the light of feature to sit in judgment, in this case, in order to discriminate and decide? I should think not;--at any rate, while we have the light of the New Testament to guide us.

      Thus then it would seem that we may correctly and safely take this position:--That the old dispensation has passed away, and with it, all institutions, ordinances, and obligations, not re-sanctioned by the New Testament. This is a position which presented itself to my notice several years ago, and appeared then, as it does now, not as a mere speculation, but as an instrument the most effectual for sweeping off all that rubbish which has been gathered from the old ruins of former establishments, to build withal on christian grounds. But to take the position, that all Old Testament requisitions and laws, not specially repealed in the New, are now binding on christians, appears to be placing us among the tents of the patriarchs and the tabernacles of the Israelites, in the midst of bewildering researches that can have no end.

      It is, as you will observe, with your views of the christian religion, considered as a dispensation, that I have thus the pleasure of expressing my concurrence; and I do hope that upon a more explicit declaration of your sentiments, I may find no cause to disagree with you, as to what more nearly concerns the nature of that religion; the agency, I will say, which produces it in us. I do not wish you to consider me, at this time, as really differing from you on this point: I only desire to be better satisfied. Let me explain myself.

      There are some among us possessed of strong apprehensions, that you are disposed to deny the existence of the regenerating and sanctifying operations of the Holy Spirit on the spirit or the heart of man; and that you would ascribe all the religious effects produced in us, solely to the influence of the written word, or the external revelation of God. And these apprehensions, permit me to add, are not, in all cases, the effect of any prejudice against you.

      For myself, I have said to others, as I now say to you, that I cannot think this of you. I have seen indeed many things in your writings which appear inconsistent with such a sentiment;--a sentiment which obviously goes to the annihilation of all hope for gracious aid in the christian warfare and of course, to the annihilation of prayer for any such aid. A sentiment which would thus cut off communion with God, and let out, (as I may say,) the very life's blood of religion, I cannot think you would maintain. Still, however, I would fain see you more explicit on this point: it appears to be due to yourself, as well as to others; and to a compliance with this wish, I should suppose you can have no objection.

      That the word of God is the instrument of our regeneration and sanctification, I have no doubt; nor would I think of saying it is his usual method, (whatever he may in some cases choose to do,) to operate on the soul, independent of the word. But that there is a living, divine agent, giving life and energy to the word, and actually operating on the soul, is, in my view, a truth which forms one of the glorious peculiarities of the religion of Jesus: and thus I would say, in the language of the apostle, we are "born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God which lives and abides forever." You will not place this matter, I am persuaded, among those unprofitable disquisitions about causation, of which you complain in your answer to Amicus, in the last number of the C. B.

      In commencing my letter I had several other matters in view; but the room I have already occupied forbids any thing more than a passing notice of them, in the present communication.

      It was my wish, not only to express my hearty approbation of your avowed hostility to certain abuses and follies, prevalent in the religious world; but to lend any little aid in my power, towards a correction of these evils. Among the objects here alluded to, let me just mention--the adoption of Creeds and Confessions of Faith;--those fruitful sources of dissention, and stubborn barriers against the admission of divine light from the word of God, and the high pretensions of many amongst the clergy, (so called) together with their pompous human titles;--the food of spiritual pride, and the fetters of free enquiry and decision amongst christians. Here, however, it was my intention to state to you, how I considered you as having suffered yourself to be carried to an extreme, in discarding the office of preacher, and the practice of public preaching, and confining your views of public ministration wholly to teaching and admonition in the church. On this point I can at present only express my wish that you would re-consider the matter, and see whether there be not room for qualifying your sentiments;--whether the work of an evangelist (or gospel preacher) be not proper and requisite, as well as the office of a bishop;--requisite, I will say, not to the order of a gospel church, but to the present state of the new dispensation.

      Another matter (perhaps the most interesting) yet remains to be mentioned: I mean such a reformation in the church as shall restore what you term "the ancient order of things." That some reformation is requisite, I think there can be no doubt: to what extent I do not yet feel myself prepared to say. Some of the things which you insist on are with me (like a certain point with you) matters as yet sub judice. May the great Head of the church direct his people, by whatever means he may see proper.

      Before I conclude, permit me to suggest a query, whether, in opposing what you deem the errors of the day, you ought not to be cautious to preserve a due degree of moderation in your language. In this opposition I do not wish to see you abate "one jot or tittle" of the firmness with which you take your stand, or the keenness with which you make the attack. I am only apprehensive, that the occasional asperity of your language may afford a pretext to your adversaries, to represent you as one of those censorious spirits who take pleasure in dealing out invectives; and thus sour arguments and remarks, though well [267] directed, may to some degree fail of their effect. In some cases, you know, the opposers of truth find a convenient asylum from its shafts, in an affected contempt for their assailant: and when they dare not treat his talents in this way, they will sometimes affect to despise the spirit by which he is actuated: and thus, dreading his weapons, and the skill with which he wields them, they cover themselves with this pretext in order to avoid the battle. Indeed I cannot help suspecting, that there are Editors of religious journals, who, in regard to the Christian Baptist, have betaken themselves to this convenient refuge. But though I would wish to see you "cut off occasion from those who desire occasion," pray observe, I would not wish you to cut off the points of your arrows, whenever they are directed at error or folly.

      That you may steer a straight-forward course,--alike unawed by custom--unprovoked by opposition--unseduced by novelty, is the prayer of,

	Yours in the gospel,
	PAULINUS.
Virginia, July 25th, 1826.

      DEAR SIR,--SINCE the commencement of this work I have not received a letter from any correspondent with more pleasure than that produced by the reception of yours. And there has not, in my judgment, appeared in this work, a letter from any correspondent more evangelical in its scope, more clear and luminous in its object, more unexceptionable in its style, more perfect in its soul, body, and spirit. I am not conscious that there is one point of controversy between us in all the items of practical truth embraced in your letter. Whatever diversity of opinion might possibly exist between us in carrying out some principles to their legitimate issue, I am conscious of none in the premises. We know, owing to causes quite familiar to us both, that it is possible for persons of unquestionable honesty to agree in the premises and differ in the conclusions. I do not, however, make this observation, from a surmise that this would be the fact, or that it is the fact in our case, respecting the premises in your epistle.--Permit me then to glance at the items which it presents to my reflection.

      And first of the Old and New Dispensation.--The position which you say may be "safely taken" embraces every thing for which I contend, viz:--"That the Old Dispensation has passed away, and with it all institutions, ordinances, and obligations, not re-sanctioned by the New Testament," or in the New Dispensation. You will see this position contended for at considerable length in a discourse which I pronounced ten years ago, (a copy of which I herewith transmit you) before an association in the western part of this state. For the heresy of which, I have been persecuted ever since by a small banditti of the orthodox. You will see that I was but a stripling at the time this discourse was delivered; and that I was quite metaphysical upon the atonement. The mists of the river Nile had not then ascended to the tops of the mountains; but were thinly spread and gently reclining upon the sides of the hills. In a series of essays on the Patriarchal, Jewish, and Christian states or ages, now in contemplation, the Divine authority, incalculable importance, and practical use of the Old Testament, will, I hope, be fully developed to all inquisitive minds.

      But to proceed to the next and more interesting item, "the nature" of the christian religion, or what you call the "agency" which produces it in us. Were it not for the pernicious influence of the theories afloat on this subject, I would assert my concurrence in opinion with you. This may appear a strange saying; but it is in accordance with the genius of this work. I have taken a stand which I am determined, by the grace of God, not to abandon. I will lay down no new theories in religion, contend for no old theories, nor aid any theory now in existence. For why! Because no theory is the gospel of Jesus the Messiah. Nor can the preaching or teaching of any theory, be the preaching or teaching of the gospel. And, please mark it well, no man can be saved by the belief of any theory, true or false: no man will be damned for the disbelief of any theory. This position I hold worthy to be printed in majestic capitals. No consumptive body, no chronic disease, not even the dyspepsia, can be cured by adopting any theory of disease or of the modus medendi; else I should have been cured of the latter malady long since.

      Those who ascend in balloons have proved that the higher they approach the thin blue ether, the air becomes clearer, and as it becomes clearer it becomes cooler. They have found that there is a region a good way on this side too, of the azure fields, where mercury itself would freeze on mid summer day at noon. Man could not live in those pure, clear, and lofty regions. He requires an atmosphere highly impregnated with terrene qualities; and it has been long known that the sun's rays give no heat to the etherial regions through which they pass. They must come in contact with the matter or the effluvia of this globe before they possess any vitality, or power to support life. There is a good analogy here. Man has so much of the animal in him and about him that he cannot now mentally, any more than corporally live upon abstract views. Hence, as you have, my dear sir, no doubt frequently observed, the Bible teaches every thing in the concrete, and nothing in the abstract. This is the radical, distinguishing, or most essential differential quality of this book in comparison of all others in the world, and especially of all systems of religion.

      On this point I would wish to be well understood: for if well understood on this point, I cannot be easily misunderstood on many others. I will, therefore, impose on your patience a little longer. And as I sometimes prefer to present a whole broadside of assertions to arrest attention, I now assert that there is not one abstract truth propounded in all the Bible. Where is the position lain down, that the spirit of God, independent of the word, regenerates an unbeliever? And which of the prophets or apostles inculcates that the word of God, independent of the spirit, regenerates an unbeliever? Again, where is the position found in the sacred volume, that the spirit, accompanying the word, regenerates a man? Once more, where does it assert, that men can, without the Holy Spirit, believe, or that they cannot? Some, no doubt, view some of these positions as Bible truths, and fancy that they are abstractly taught in the sacred volume. I ask them, where? For I have never found them there. They are all abstract views, or mere speculative conclusions drawn from the scriptures by each speculator according to his logical implements and prowess.

      There can be no doubt, either, but that there are abstract or speculative views which can be drawn from, or pressed out of the bible. If alcohol was not in corn, no process of distillation could bring it out. If croton oil was not in the croton bean, no press could abstract it from it. But who can [268] live on alcohol!--And who can be saved by abstract views!

      Believe me, my dear sir, that the art of making sermons after the fashion, is the art of making fermented liquors out of the streams of the waters of eternal life. Our great theological writers are gigantic elaborators, their works are immense distilleries, and the systems which they rectify, especially when mellowed with age, like good old cognac, are sought after and swallowed down with a zest peculiar to tiplers. I know some theological tiplers that in all probability have not gone to bed duly sober once in forty years. There is among them, too, some rare instances of longevity. They are, however, generally bloated in youth, and shrivelled in old age. There are, too, some awfully alarming apoplectic explosions; but still ardent spirits are in demand, and the religious retailers are enriched.--Oh, when shall men relish the aliment of nature, and learn to live upon the simple bread of God, and the pure water of life!

      But who can live on essential oils? Or will the act of speculating or inferring; or will the inferences when drawn--that the spirit without the word, or the word without the spirit, or the spirit and word in conjunction regenerates the human soul; I ask, will the act of drawing these inferences, or these inferences when drawn, save the soul? If they will not, why make them essential to christianity, beneficial to be taught. And why, oh why, condemn him as a heretic whose head is too weak to draw or drink them!

      Some boisterous spirits, who have more sail than ballast, who have become confirmed theological tiplers, are ever and anon teaching and preaching up their theory of regeneration. Without it they could not make a sermon any more than a cordwainer could make a shoe without a last. Some of this class say of me--"He is not sound in the faith; see how ambiguously he talks about regeneration; if his views are consistent with ours why does he not come out flat footed; why all this reserve; why does he not roundly assert in so many words, what his theory is--"Yes, says the drunkard; you must drink, "tell me whether you will have cider, strong-beer, wine or brandy; you must drink something, or you are no company for me." But to lay aside an excellent metaphor lest I should allegorize, I will say in plain English, if I were to act politically and dishonestly, I would adopt one theory, and impugn every other. But what then? I would have to be swept off with all my predecessors in Babylon, before the millennium appears, before the temple of the Lord appears in its glory. It is, therefore, that I am at war with all theories both true and false. Because, in addition to what has been said of their inutility, the world is intoxicated with them; men are loving and hating one another on theoretic grounds, they are fighting about their theories, either making them the bond of union or the signal of war. Yes, men hate one another for God's sake, if we may believe them in earnest, or acting consistent with their feelings.

      I have in the second volume of this work, written a series of essays on the work of the Holy Spirit in the salvation of men, without laying down any theory or terminating in any speculative conclusions. At least, I studiously avoided such a speculative result. My aim was to understand and exhibit what the scripture says on this subject, regardless of those theories. But because I would not exclaim Shibboleth, I have been reprimanded as heterodox.

      To most of us it is impossible to think upon religion, or to talk upon it without running out into mere speculation. For this reason:--Ninety-nine books, and ninety-nine preachers in every hundred are wont to treat religion as a speculative science, in which everything depends upon having right theories. Whereas the bible always represents faith in Jesus, as the Lord Messiah, and obedience thence resulting, as the all in all--"As the twig is bent the tree's inclined."--Hence we have churches of religious speculators. Our congregations are large juries empanneled to sit in judgment on the preacher's orthodoxy: and if theoretically right, he is a brother, a saint, and sound in the faith. Hence, say the people, we go to hear the Rev. Mr. Such-a-one, not to worship God. They are assemblies of critics, from whose tribunal there is no appeal--no Cesar; no Areopagus.

      The preceding remarks will, I hope, my dear brother, afford some satisfaction as far as respects the reason why I do not contend for any one theory of regeneration. But if any man accustomed to speculate on religion as a mere science, should infer from any thing that I have said on these theories, that I contend for a religion in which the Holy Spirit has nothing to do; in which there is no need of prayer for the Holy Spirit; in which there is no communion of the Holy Spirit; in which there is no peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, he does me the greatest injustice; he is ignorant, doting about questions, and strifes of words, from which proceed envy and contention.

      All whom I baptize, I baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. I pray for the love of the Father, the grace of the Son, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, to remain with all the saints. A religion of which the Holy Spirit is not the author, the subject matter, and the perfecter, is sheer Deism. To a man who teaches otherwise, I would say, "are you a teacher of Israel, and know not these things?" And to the speculators I rejoin, "the wind blows where it lists, and you hear the sound thereof; but can not tell whence it comes, nor whither it goes." If he will yet contend, I add, tell me how the human spirit is first formed in the infant man, or how the bones of the human body are first fashioned, and I will tell him how his theory is wrong. One thing we know, that except a child be born it cannot come into this world, and unless a man be born of spirit and water he cannot enter the kingdom of Jesus. When an infant is born into the world it feeds upon no theory, nor does it come into the world by the efficacy of theory. And were we to philosophize till the last trumpet is heard, children will be born into the world in the same old-fashioned way, and so will they enter the kingdom of Jesus in the way ordained and framed by God, the Father of our spirits. The incontrovertible fact is, men must be born from above; and for this purpose the glad tidings are announced. Let us simply promulgate them in all their simplicity and force, unmixed with theory, uncorrupted with philosophy, unsophisticated with speculation, and unfettered by system, and mark the issue. Hitherto shall you come and no farther; and here let all the waves and billows of human passion and human feeling be stayed!

      Whatever the scriptures say, I say, The only question with me is to understand each sentence in the light of its own context. And I will not refrain from any inquirer my views of any passage, without either theorizing or dogmatizing. To make new theories is the way to make new divisions. To contend for the old is to keep up [269] the old divisions; either of which would be in direct opposition to all my efforts, and, what is still worse, in direct opposition to the decisions of the Holy Spirit.

      "That the work of an evangelist or a preacher is requisite, not to the order of a christian church; but to the present state of the new dispensation," is a position which I will not contend with you. The Holy Spirit says, "let him that hears say come;" and why should I say to him that hears, do not say come; hold your tongue. No; forbid it heaven! "Let him that hears say come," is a license which the Holy One gave when he was closing the canon, sealing up the law and the testimony. And thanks be to his name, he left no tribunal on earth to contravene this decision. While then there are any who have not come to the fountain of life, and when any one who has heard and come, and tasted, finds such an opportunity to say come, let him say it in word and deed.

      I thank you most cordially for your hints on moderation. I will attend to them. 'Tis hard, indeed, for anyone to have a quiver full of sharp arrows, well pointed, and well bearded, and not to draw blood. And there is still so much sympathy in human nature, that it will sometimes drop a tear on witnessing the last throes of an expiring foe. Hence when the enemies of truth are sorely wounded, its friends exclaim, refrain a little.

      I appreciate very much, indeed, your christian exhortation; and will always be glad to hear from you. Pray lend a helping hand. It is neither my cause nor yours, but our cause. I have only room to express my unfeigned prayer that your kind wishes for me may be returned manifold into your own bosom. Your brother in the hope of immortality,

EDITOR.      

      DEAR SIR,--YOU will, no doubt, be surprised at receiving a letter from a boy; and one who is entirely unknown to you;--nothing but considerations of the deepest interest to myself, could have induced me to address you in this manner: I do it to obtain information from you on the subject of christianity; and I anxiously hope, if time will permit you, that you will have the kindness to comply with my request. That you may understand my case rightly, I will state it as fully and clearly as I can.

      Impelled by the death-bed injunctions of a beloved mother, and the necessity I saw for living a religious life, I seriously determined on leaving my evil habits, while young, and endeavoring to have religion firmly seated in my heart; fearful that if I deferred it until a later period of life, vice might attract my affections, and I would end my life in sorrow; I therefore strove against any improper desires; avoided bad company and bad books; read my bible and such books as I thought beneficial; attended public worship; and sought for divine aid in private devotion. I had been irresistibly led on, by the importance of religion, in my endeavors to attain it, although I had never experienced one feeling of repentance. This made me unhappy. I saw some rejoicing in religion, who had once trembled in despair; I envied their feelings, but could not enjoy them; a coldness and apathy made me insensible to both the threatenings and promises of the gospel; all my endeavors to shake off this lethargy from my mind, were either unavailing, or if successful, it was but for a moment--despair, or any thing to have excited my feelings, would have been a relief from this unhappy situation of mind. I at last concluded to avail myself of the advice and encouragement of the pious. I had examined the principles of several sects, and settled in a preference of the Methodist church, of which I became a member. I had continued in that for nearly a year, seeking the Divine favor and anxiously desiring that my stubborn heart might be changed; but still I remained unrelieved. I was not alarmed for my safety--nor was I panting for the river of life; but yet, was most anxious that I should be. I now began to conclude there was some radical defect in the grounds of my faith, and determined to look again at the evidences by which the bible was supported as a revelation from heaven. While reflecting one day on the subject of the truth of revealed religion, a thought occurred to me with peculiar force, it was, Whether the Deity would have created any being and placed him in such a situation in which it was possible for him to make himself deserving of eternal torment. My view of the character of Deity induced me to believe he would not; and from this I was led strongly to doubt the divinity of the bible. From further reflections on the prescience of Deity, many considerations of like nature were urged upon my mind. I thought that as the greatest degree of happiness was the only object of creation, the design of the Almighty would have failed, if, as the scriptures authorize us to believe, a majority of mankind will be forever damned; that his goodness would not have rested the decision of such an inconceivably important question, with so weak and corrupt a being as man, and who was, moreover, placed in circumstances which so strangely nourished a distaste for the duties which the bible enjoins. I thought that as the Deity was the first cause of all things, he was responsible for all things, especially for evil, as he possessed a greater power to prevent it than the immediate cause, and if so, he could not punish any of his creatures with eternal misery; that if man was accountable for his actions to the awful extent mentioned in the bible, free will would be a curse instead of a blessing; that if our Maker was ALMIGHTY he could have created universal happiness, and to this end I conceived every thing in nature had a direct tendency--I could reconcile the evils we felt here, as necessary to our peculiar state of existence; but could not satisfy myself of the necessity or justice of God's punishing a being, eternally, for the effects of a weakness in which he was born. Punishment, I thought, should be proportioned to criminality: but in inflicting eternal punishment for temporal crimes, this principle of justice is violated. Could the God of compassion have sat on his throne of untroubled felicity, whilst a being whom he had called into existence, who would never have been liable to pain but for him, was enduring the pains of hell fire! And besides these it appeared to me inconsistent with the Deity to require from us, on pain of damnation if we failed, implicit belief in an account of transactions which occurred several thousand years ago, (and considering the imperfect medium through which information was communicated from one age to another,) and of which it required the utmost stretch of intelligence to comprehend even the probability. I have thought that if there is a place of reward and punishment, my destiny is foreseen by the Omniscient eye, and nothing which I can do, will alter it.

      If these thoughts are correct, I will be obliged to abandon the book I was taught to love, and the profession I felt bound to make; I must draw [270] down upon my head both the pity and the censure of society, and the tears of afflicted friends. If they are erroneous, I beg you to explain them, for my satisfaction, as soon as it is convenient for you to attend to it. If convinced of the truth of the Bible, I feel desirous to take up the cross and bear the burden and heat of the day. More than myself may be benefited by an answer to this.--And I shall ever remain

	Your grateful friend,
	D.

      DEAR SIR,--ALTHOUGH I saw the word "private" at the head of your communication, I have made it public in one sense. I shall however, keep it private as far as respects the author until the injunction is removed. The reason why I give publicity to a private letter is, because it may be of much use to others, and can be of no injury to the author, while the injunction is virtually regarded by me. I conceive the difficulties, however you may have been entrammelled with them, as not peculiarly your own, and whether I may succeed in removing them, I doubt not but the very effort may be of general use. I can easily conceive of your difficulties before you joined, and while you were in connexion with the Methodistic society. You were too rational to become a downright enthusiast, and not rational enough to begin at the right place in examining the evidences of the christian religion. You are not to imagine that I suppose that all Methodists are enthusiasts, very far from it. I would be glad, however, that there were no Calvinistic enthusiasts. But I know there are many "seeking for religion" who find a sort of religion that does not wear well; a whole suit of it will become thread-bare in a few months. I have seen the elbows looking out of some new suits in less than the regular wear of seven days. I know also that there is a possibility of keeping a suit of this sort decent for a good while; but then it must be worn only on Sundays, and only while at meeting. It must be hung up in the ward robe all week and brushed on Sunday morning in time for meeting.

      But I have said that you were too rational to become an enthusiast. Weak minds, like gun powder, are easily blown up. And like phosphorus some of them take fire without a single spark. Animal heat alone has set a housefull all in a blaze: but it was an innocent sort of a flame, it did not singe a single hair--The smell of fire was not left on them.

      The method of teaching those "who seek for religion" among the Methodists is no better than that practised by other religious sectaries. The New Testament is not, neither can it be developed on any such a system. The Divine attestations to the truth of christianity, the miracles and the prophecies, with all the thousands of internal evidences are not opened to the minds of the hearers. Hence there is more religion in the blood than in the heart or head of those who begin in the flesh and think to end in the spirit.

      But I cannot see how your difficulties could make you a Deist. This would be a most irrational conclusion. I can easily see how you might become an Universalist; but there is no connexion between your difficulties and Deism. Do you ask me, why? I will tell you: your difficulties never could have existed but for the belief of the truths revealed in the bible--Do you say, what truths? I answer, you believe,

      1st. That there is one self existent independent eternal God.

      2d. That the world was created by Him.

      3d. That you have within you an immortal spirit.

      4th. That there will be an end or termination of this present state of things.

      5th. That there will be a future state of rewards, if not of punishments.

      You admit all these to be unquestionable truths. I ask; upon what evidence? Not by the testimony of your five senses--for they give no revelation of this kind; all they can tell you is that all nature concurs in attesting these truths. But, remember well, they do not originate in your mind these truths--else all nations, all tribes and tongues would be in possession of them, which you know, if you know any thing of history, is not at all the fact. All the ideas you have by the five senses are the mere images of sensible objects, or objects of sense; but on subjects that are not objects of sense they give you no information. Hence the deaf know nothing of sounds--Hence the blind know nothing of colors. The reason is, the other senses give no information of any kind but what belongs to them, consequently all the senses are limited by things material and mundane; consequently can give no information on things spiritual, such as God, human spirits, heaven, &c. These truths then, however Deists may boast, are all borrowed from the bible. Hence there is not a rational Deist in the universe. Of this subject I am master; if of no other. I have, therefore, found them skulking off into Egypt or Hindostan and calling upon the mountains and hills to cover them, when they have been sensibly attacked upon the principles of reason which they so unmeritoriously glory in. They are the poorest drivelling philosophers that ever assumed the name. And, like lord Herbert, while they declaim against enthusiasm, they are the veriest enthusiasts. For they pretend to hold principles which have no foundation at all, which is sublimated enthusiasm. They boast in the belief of one God, of the immortality of the soul, and a future state--but ask them, how they came by it, they will tell you, by the use of their reason! Reasoning on what? the things that are made--but who made them? Thus it goes in a circle; they prove that there is a creator, from the things created; and they prove that things are created, because there is a creator. Sagacious doctors! But pray, good doctors, where is the archetype or original of a human spirit from which you were put in possession of the idea, where did you see any thing created by a mere exertion of Almighty power? Tell me, why cannot the dumb speak, who have tongues? because they have no archetype of sounds! Are not all our simple ideas the result of sensation and reflection! And how is it that you can see things which are invisible, and hear sounds which are made beyond the regions of air!

      But I have not to do with a sceptic in the truth of revelation: for you, my friend, do admit of many revealed truths--Truths too which are supernatural, which are spiritual; truths which no man without a revelation, either oral or written, ever knew. Either Atheism, unqualified Atheism, or faith in Jesus as the Son of God are the legitimate stopping places on the principles of sound reason and good logic. All that halt between these extremes, are besotted with a brutish stupidity. The ox and the ass are their reprovers.

      Nor can you rationally, from your statement of difficulties become an Universalist. If one point were conceded to you perhaps you might. But then this is a point which no man can ever [271] concede as a man. I can sympathize with you here, because I was once embarrassed between this Scylla and Charybdis. I shall first state your capital difficult, and then this point. Your capital difficulty is, "Whether the Deity would have created any being, and placed him in such a situation, in which it was possible for him to make himself deserving of eternal torment." This difficulty arose in your mind, as you state, from your views of the character of Deity. Now the question is, whether a being perfectly righteous himself; suppose for example, a seraph of greater capacity than you, and of uncontaminated purity, might not, from his view of the Divine character, find a greater difficulty to reconcile than yours, upon the hypothesis that God rewarded the wicked with endless felicity: or in other words, that he should originate a system in which it was possible for any rational creature to become corrupt, and yet this corruption be no barrier in the way of his rising to eternal glory and felicity. You will readily perceive that this supposed difficulty of a seraph, and your real difficulty, have to encounter one and the same fact, viz. that God has created rational beings which some way or another have become corrupt. This you must admit or identify virtue and vice, truth and falsehood, benevolence and malevolence, in one word, moral good and moral evil--We all know that, to a criminal, mercy is the most darling attribute in his judge: but to a sinless being, justice, inflexible justice, is the most delightful perfection. And here another question arises, whether the government of God (for God is a governor as well as a creator) should be conducted on such principles as to meet the difficulties of those creatures lowest in intellect and immersed in crime; or the difficulties of those most exalted in capacity and of unsullied purity.

      But this question is out of my way, for this is not the point to which I had reference. We all know from experience that a system of government which is based upon rewards and punishments is the most beneficial to the present state of society. Now it must be decided, before we proceed to your difficulty as a real one; whether future rewards and punishments may not be most beneficial to the future state of society. But if this question is to be decided without our observation and experience it must be decided upon mere theory, and such a decision, we know from experience, is, until tested by experience, unsafe. But your difficulty rests upon what is not proved to be a fact, and which cannot by any mortal man be proved to be a fact, viz. that punishment will not be beneficial to society in a future state. Your difficulty then is a purely theoretic one, and not one predicated upon any known fact. Consequently can be of no real importance in deciding either upon the evidences of revelation nor upon its meaning.

      But still I am not come to the point which I had proposed. I will now state it. For the sake of argument, then, I will admit that before any creature was made, the result, or final termination of all things, on the present plan of things, was as perfectly well known to the Creator as it will be in any future period, and also that any other possible result on any other plan, was just as well known. The question then was with the Creator, if we dare suppose him either in deliberation, or in suspense on the question, which plan was best to adopt; which plan of creation shall I adopt. If any, the plan which was actually adopted, as the fact proves. But it might have been proposed as a difficulty, if the plan adopted, with perfect prescience, was the best which possibly could be adopted, then a final question might occur, whether it was better to create or not to create, admitting the result to have been clearly foreseen? The fact proves that to the Omniscient One it appeared most advisable to create. Now you will observe upon the premises before us that it is conceded that the actual state of things now existing was the best possible state in which they could exist with a reference to all final results. It may, then, in the spirit of true devotion, and genuine humility be affirmed that God could not, with a reference to all final results, give birth to a more perfect system of things than the present. In other words, God could not make an infallible fallible creature. Now before your difficulty becomes too heavy for the strength of an ordinary mind, it must be proved that God could have given birth to a system in which moral evil could find no place, and in which there would be no need of a governor, and that he did not. But no living man can show that this is the fact, consequently your difficulty is one in which imagination is solely or chiefly concerned, and not reason nor fact. It must then be conceded that God could, in reference to all results, have given birth to a better system, or to one in which moral evil could have no place, and that he did not, before you have any grounds on which to constitute a plea. Again, such a system would have forever precluded the possibility of any creature being happy: because the knowledge of God is essential to the happiness of a rational creature, and if God had given birth to a system which in its very nature excluded the possibility of evil, it would have also excluded the possibility of his being a governor. A creator he might have been, but a governor he could not have been; and unless exhibited as a governor, no rational creature ever could have known him in that way essential to happiness. These principles being apprehended it follows, that if God had not given birth to a system in which it was possible for some to be miserable hereafter, it would have been impossible to have given birth to a system in which any could have been eternally and perfectly happy.

      I am decidedly of the opinion that there is not one rational objection can be adduced against any thing in the Bible. All those objections which have a show of reason are but evidences of the weakness of the objector, and of the influence of prejudice and evil habits. It is very hard to convince a person against his will, and it requires no great ingenuity to propose such difficulties upon any subject as no wise man could answer. Yet this will not prove that the difficulties or objections are reasonable. It only shows that no man knows every thing--It may be necessary for me to state that I do not conceive that you are actuated by any other than the most sincere intentions in your communication, and that I feel a sanguine hope of being able to remove your objections; for I feel as able to prove that the Bible is from God, as that the sun is the workmanship of his hands. A sceptic might as successfully attempt to convince me that men made the sun, as that they invented the Bible.

      I will hear any other difficulties you have to propose, when I shall have finished my reply to your communication before me, which I intend to prosecute farther in my next.

	Your obedient servant,
	EDITOR.

      IN a straggling number of the Baptist Recorder, which is dated May 27; but came to hands only a few days ago--I perceive the editors of that Journal have virtually declined the discussion proposed on the subject of "experimental religion." [272] It appears their papers are either missent to me, directed to Buffaloe, Mason Co. Va. instead of Brooke Co. or else not regularly mailed at the time of publication. The following remarks, in the aforesaid number, show how the subject is evaded.

      "As to the proposed plan for a discussion of this subject we would say to the Editor--Dear Sir, what need is there for the discussion of this subject? Is it not as yet understood? Has not God taught every christian by his Spirit to know the import of the thing signified by the term? But if the discussion be deemed necessary, will it not be best in the first place, to ascertain wherein we differ, and in what we agree? In order to this we will propose a few questions--we do it in the spirit of christian love, not with the intention to produce debate and altercation.

      1. "Will you be so kind as to tell us your own experience? You have read Bunyan--you have heard experiences related in the church, by candidates for admission--you know our meaning.

      2. "Do you, or do you not hear the experiences of persons before you baptise them.

      3. "And since you know what the Baptists mean when they speak of experimental religion, will you be so kind as to tell us, whether according to the known and common acceptation of the term, you agree with them or not. If you do not agree with them, please to inform us in what respects you differ and the reasons why.

      "A candid, honest answer to these interrogations is very desirable; it may at once remove the necessity of a further discussion. We design to give you "fair play"--if in any thing your ideas have been misrepresented by us, we hold ourselves responsible for the correction, when informed of it. We present your views entire--by copying the above into your paper you will reciprocate the favor.

      "Wishing you health of body end experimental religion in the heart,

	We subscribe ourselves yours, &c.
	THE EDITORS."

      So I must tell Messrs. Waller and Clack my "experience," which the three past volumes of the C. B. would not hold, before they will enter on the discussion. In the next place I must inform them in what manner I baptize, as preparatory. And, in the third place, I must argue their side for them, and my own side too.--Their method of getting off from the discussion reminds me of a priest and a layman who once agreed to arbitrate a question on which they differed. The layman, confident that he would have a decision in his favor, agreed that any three men might be chosen by the priest. Whereupon the priest chose Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and referred the case to their decision. In this way the matter was postponed sine die.

      The objection which these gentlemen offer against the discussion should, (were they to act consistently) lead them to be silent on every topic of the christian religion, viz.--"Has not God taught every christian by his Spirit the import of the thing signified by the term?" Why then, Messrs. Editors, do you presume to teach them any thing, since the spirit teaches them every thing? Again, if I must yet tell these brethren wherein we differ, why did they pretend to tell others how heterodox I am. This would be a work of supererogation.

EDITOR.      

[TCB 265-273]