Volume 5. Number 1. August 6, 1827, pp. 355-364.

• Preface to Volume V by Alexander Campbell, pp. 355-356.
• Review of Dr. Noel's Circular.--No. I. by Alexander Campbell, pp. 356-357.
• Deism and the Social System. No. III. by Alexander Campbell, pp. 357-358.
• For the "Christian Baptist" by Querens, pp. 358-359.
• To R. B. Semple, of Virginia by Querens, p. 359.
• Letters Addressed to A. Campbell.--Letter I. by Spencer Clack, pp. 359-360.
• Reply to the Above.--No. I. by Alexander Campbell, pp. 360-361.
• A Restoration of the Ancient Order of Things.-No. XX. by Alexander Campbell, pp. 362-363.
• Extract of a Letter from a Gentleman in Sparta, West Tennessee, to the Editor of the Christian Baptist by A Gentleman in Sparta, p. 363.
• [Reply to a Letter from a Gentleman in Sparta] by Alexander Campbell, pp. 363-364.

      THOUGH opposed by a great variety of character, ways and means, and though opposing the defections and apostacies of this age, the Christian Baptist continues to extend its circulation, and to augment the number of its patrons. From the first number to the last published, it has progressively advanced in public regard and esteem, if a continued increase of friends and advocates may be considered a good omen. The fifth volume we are permitted to commence under circumstances still more propitious than those under which we commenced the last.

      When I say that there is no periodical work of the same character amongst the scores of the day; none conducted on the same principles; none directed to objects perfectly similar; none exhibiting with equal fulness both sides of every subject discussed--I only say what hundreds have already said, and what all who read it, and other publications of the day do know. But when I say, I am interested and disinterested in the further progress and success of the work, I must offer an explanation. I am interested, because I am more and more confidently assured of the truth and importance of the general views which it exhibits, and because I cannot doubt but that a state of things, such as it contemplates, must supplant the carnal, worldly and superstitious establishments, so popular in this day; each of which owes its origin to an ecclesiastical council and its creed. With these views I cannot look around, even as a spectator, without feeling a high and intense interest in its success. I am also disinterested, inasmuch as I have committed it to the patronage of Heaven, and am satisfied to await the result. And I cannot but think it very unbecoming, when we commit any thing to the guidance, control, or blessing of the Lord of All, to feel solicitous about the issue. As to my worldly interest in the work, which the weakness and ill will of some have magnified into a primum mobile, I feel no concern. Sixteen years ago the devil whispered into my ear that I might get a good benefice in one of the honorable sects of the day; or if I would prefer a seat in the bar or in the temple of legal science, I might promise myself a good little fortune in wealth and fame. I will always thank God that, poor and inexperienced as I then was, I had strength to resist the temptation, and to vow allegiance to the bible. But if the contents of the volumes already published will not attest my independence of mind, singleness of object and aim, and disregard of human applause, except that of doing good, I should fear that reason and argument would be offered in vain.

      The policy and the measures adopted both by my open, avowed and determined opponents, and by the masked, double minded, and double tongued, faltering and wavering adversaries, have inspired me with more confidence in my means and resources--with more assurance of the truth and triumphing pretensions of the cause I espouse--with more disdain for error itself, and the low cunning, pusilanimous intrigues and cowardly artifice by which it strives to creep into notice, or to keep fast its unauthorized hold upon the passions and prejudices of those who will not think, and therefore cannot act for, or from themselves.

      Amongst all the combatants who have appeared in their proper name, or under a mask, to the "Baptist Recorder," the "Western Luminary," the "Pittsburgh Recorder," and the other "lights" of the day, who has made good a single position, a charge, accusation, or specification, either against the New Translation or any leading point in this work, by any thing like argument, reason or testimony! The history of my friend Skillman, with his friend Steel, alias "Friend of Truth," alias "Vindex," &c. &c. is the history of them all. The winking and hoodwinking, the insinuating and criminating, the masking and unmasking, the fearing and doubting, and I wish I had no reason to add, the equivocating and misrepresenting, of such opponents, only beget doubts in the bosoms of their friends, deepen the convictions, and confirm the confidence of those who cannot unite nor fraternize with them. Let my opponents name the man who has not retreated from the ground so soon as the troops were marshalled. Let them count how many have even stood till the battle was set in order. How powerful is truth, and how bold too!! How imbecile is error, and how dastardly too!!

      I wish to state it again most distinctly, that not one of the essays on the "Restoration of the Ancient Order of Things," has been impugned or seriously objected to from any quarter whatever. The same, indeed, might be said of almost every leading position in the whole work. The truth is, light is increasing. Many of those who have opposed us in one way or another, have been convinced; and some of those yet opposing would much rather wear the mask than risk their persons. They have not confidence in themselves. Many, too, who have been for years teaching things which they now know they ought not to have taught, are extremely hard pressed between conscience and rabbinical pride. Conscience says, "Confess your error and reform." But the pride that comes from the sacred desk, says, "No; the people will honor me [355] no more." There is a volume here in one sentence. And since the days of John the Immerser until now, the kingdom of heaven is invaded, and invaders take possession by force. The laity have had to invade it, and to raise up captains, and colonels, and generals, from among themselves; for the disciplined, and by law established, captains and commanders would not march at their head. I trust I will make this volume as interesting as any one which has preceded it. I have the means. I never was at anytime in my life more open to conviction than I now am, and I never felt more confident of the cause of which I am the humble advocate--either of its superlative excellency or of its ultimate success. May the Lord grant his blessing, without which, Paul himself might plant, and Apollos, too, might water in vain.

EDITOR.      

      A CIRCULAR letter written for the Franklin Association, Ky., 1826, by the reverend Silas M. Noel, D.D. on the creed question, was republished in the Baptist Recorder, and lately republished in Cincinnati. On my late tour I was often told that it was represented and held by the advocates of human creeds, as an unanswerable performance; as the best thing ever written on the subject; that it settled the controversy forever, &c. &c. Hearing it so highly extolled, and being so well acquainted with the versatile genius of its author, I read it with great attention, and whether it was owing to my expectation being too much elated, or to some other cause, I vouch not; but in truth, it appeared to me much below the ordinary talent of the writer, and extremely imbecile. It is, indeed, as strong in assertion and as weak in argument as any piece I have seen on the subject written in the current century. It is a condensed view of the Princeton pamphlet, in some of its strongest positions; but when apparelled in a new dress it is still more awkward and unsightly than in the full uniform of Doctor Miller.

      The Doctor's starting point is this:--"Creeds formed or enforced by the civil authority, are usurpations leading to persecution and to despotism, while those formed by voluntary associations of Christians, enforced by no higher penalty or sanction than exclusion from mere membership in the society, are not only lawful but necessary in the present state of the religious world." This is a mere assertion and a distinction without a difference. Creeds formed by "voluntary associations" whether convened by the state or the church are alike voluntary; alike in their tendency and results. And while the Doctor gravely makes the sanctions of those voluntary civil creeds greater than the sanctions of the voluntary ecclesiastical creeds, they are in fact, and in effect, the same. The sanction of such creeds as the Doctor advocates, he kindly and politely calls "mere exclusion from membership" in the kingdom of heaven, while the sanction of the creed he condemns is worse than mere exclusion from that kingdom; that is, civil pains, such as confiscation of goods, exile, imprisonment, or death. So that exclusion from temporal advantages is much greater in the Doctor's view than exclusion from the kingdom of heaven. The Doctor, I admit, does not speak out so explicitly as he would do in a better cause. He does not like to appear on this occasion, with Peter's girdle and the keys of the kingdom of heaven dangling on his loins. This he knew would illy comport with the leathern girdle of the Harbinger, and would not suit the spirit or taste of this age. But when we draw aside the Doctor's surplice we shall, under the leathern girdle, see the mighty keys, somewhat rusted it is true, but cast in the good old Roman mould, with the sublime initials of P. M. V. I. C. with the good old motto "Procul profanes"--Hence you profane.

      The short metre of the Doctor's music is this: Our church is the church of Jesus Christ, called in the New Testament, "the kingdom of heaven," and all who are worthy members of it shall be worthy members in the kingdom of glory; all who are justly excluded from it, are justly excluded from the kingdom of glory--because we act by the authority of the great King, and we all allow that the great King will not exclude, nor allow to be excluded, from his kingdom on earth, such as he will receive into his kingdom of glory.

      I know how the Doctor would try to save himself here. He would tell us that he does not consider his church as the only church of Christ, and he will very courteously and kindly tell all his orthodox neighboring churches that they are all churches of Jesus Christ, equally with his own; and that by his sanctions to his creed, he means no more than to tell the excluded that he is not quite so good company as he could wish, but that he can be accommodated equally well with a place in some other good natured church of Christ; and that he hopes to meet him in the heavenly kingdom though he has some objections to fraternizing with him "in the present state of the religious world." Here Doctor Miller and Doctor Noel politely and graciously shake hands, and bid each other good bye--and in parting, say, You, dear Doctor, keep your church pure from me by your creed, and I will keep my church pure from you by my creed, but, God bless you, dear brother Doctor, for although "in the present state of the religious world" it is fitting that you should commune under your creed, and I under the banners of mine, I do believe we shall commune in heaven together, and be both welcomed there by the great King as good and faithful servants; I for excluding you, and you for excluding me. The Princeton Doctor says, O dear Doctor Noel! I will receive you into my pure communion, will you not receive me!! The Doctor of Oakley rejoins, farewell, Doctor Miller; I thank you for your assistance in the creed question; but while you rantize these little puklings I do not like to sit by your side--excuse me, dear Doctor, I love you and we will both feast at the same table above.

      In this pithy, polite, and good natured way our Baptist Doctor excuses himself for all the sanctions of his creed--which means neither proscription, nor persecution; tyranny, nor usurpation; but a little good natured chicanery.

      But to quote Horace once more, as I know one Aleph in Kentucky, who has a dictionary of quotations.

let us come to the starting point again. The Doctor begins this puissant circular with a petitio principii, and ends with an argumentum ad verecundiam. But for the present we shall canvass his Alpha or his Aleph, and leave Omega till another day. To tell the naked truth with that candor and simplicity which I desire always to be characteristic of my pen--it is all downright sophistry from first to last. And I did wish never to be called to notice this letter, because of my personal regard for its author. But when solemnly called to the task, we must know no [356] man after the flesh. I will then, as far as in me lies, repress this pen of mine from all irony or satire, and with the utmost gravity examine the capital assumptions of the writer.

      It is assumed that mere exclusion from membership in a society claiming the high title and character of a church of Jesus Christ, is a sanction to a human creed of no such great moment as the persecutions and proscriptions which sanction human creeds framed by civil power. This is obviously a fundamental error. The excluded are generally proscribed to the utmost extent of the excluders. If it be so that the excluded from any church in the government, are not injured in their political character and standing, we have reason to thank the liberality and independence of those who brought about such a state of civil society, and not the creed nor the priest which excludes. But I do most sincerely think that it is no small matter, no "mere" little thing to be solemnly proscribed the kingdom of heaven by those little idols which the sects worship, whether authorized by letters patent from the sceptre or from the mitre. And however we may choose to word it, when we desire to carry our point with guile, to exclude a man from "mere membership" in the church, is an act of the most awful import, and unless sanctioned by the great King and head of all authority and power, it is an usurpation and a tyranny, than which there is not any more heinous.

      Again, the Doctor assumes that "creeds formed and enforced" by a voluntary association are lawful. But he has forgotten to lay before us the law and the testimony. To assert that such are lawful is not enough--we want to see the law. But this cannot be shown, and therefore we cannot see it. It may be lawful in the civil code of Kentucky or of Scotland; but we are not to be satisfied with civil statutes in matters of this sort. Let us have a divine law authorising a voluntary association to form and enforce any religious creed, and we will yield the point at issue. But until this is done we must view the assumption as perfectly gratuitous.

      In the next place the Doctor assumes that churches are "voluntary associations." These terms ought not to pass current until tried. Human establishments of a sectarian character, may, perhaps, be called "voluntary associations," because begotten and born of the will of man. But I am far, very far, from granting that the church of Jesus Christ is a "voluntary association." Men and women, it is true, ought to become members of it with their own consent. But the constitution and laws and institutes of this society are not at our option nor rejection. No man can reject, or new modify, or refuse them obedience, and be guiltless. No man is allowed of his own will and free consent to make a church covenant, to decree church laws, or institute any religious observance. I wish for a definition of the terms voluntary association when applied to the church of Christ. I promise to show that if the Doctor attempts this he either refutes his own circular or directly assails the New Covenant or constitution of the kingdom of heaven.

      I offer these remarks upon the Doctor's starting point alone. His letter wants method. He ought first to have given his definition of a creed, and then to have given the law and the testimony. But he begins as I have noticed and then gives his definition. His definition I will attend to in my next.

EDITOR.      

      NONE of the gentlemen Free-Thinkers, none of the Deistical Philosophers of the city of "Mental Independence," nor any where else, as far as I have seen, have as yet, either deigned or ventured to meet me on the premises submitted in my last. Gentlemen, this will not do. This will neither comport with the artificial dignity of your profession, with the ground you have assumed, nor with the awful magnitude of the subject. You have erected a temple, in which you have constructed a throne, and on it you have crowned Reason, the arbiter of every question. I approach the altar you have dedicated--I have read the inscription thereon. I will dare to enter barefoot into your sacred edifice, and will make my appeal to your own goddess. Come then, and let us implead one another. In my last I stood at your threshold. I submitted my premises; I propounded the grand interrogatories, against which your sovereign arbitress said not one word. If you are silent here, it augurs badly for your reputation, it comports not with the loftiness of your pretensions, and with your former assurance.

      If I may judge from all the samples I have ever seen of the whole of your resources, gentlemen, I must think your cause the most desperate of all causes ever plead at midnight or at noon. You have no premises, and how can you have any conclusion? If you have premises, let us see them explicitly and definitely laid down. Your friend, the "Inquirer," of whom I have made mention, in all the pieces I have seen from his pen, has given us not so much as an axiom, postulatum, or proposition. The sum of his first number is, that he was once a true believer in revelation, and that he is now a true unbeliever; and the reason he gives for being an unbeliever is, that he "could not help finding traces of ignorance in the scriptures." The only conclusion that I can draw from his first essay is, that he was once a true believer without evidence, and he is now a true unbeliever without reason. My conclusion I contend, is perfectly logical, for he gives no reason why he once believed, and I will show he gives no reason why he now disbelieves. A person who tells us that he was a true believer of a lie, means, I suppose, that he was a sincere believer of a lie, and intends that we should consider him at that time as a dupe of others. Indeed he publicly professes himself to have been once the dupe of others; for he sincerely believed what he now acknowledges to be a lie. This will not prove, either on Aristotle's or Lord Bacon's plan, that he is not now the dupe of others or of himself. For if he once sincerely believed a lie, it is neither absurd nor impossible to suppose that he now sincerely believes a lie. He would have saved himself of many a blunder, and us of a little trouble, if he had told us all the evidences on which he once believed the lie, and had contrasted them with all the evidences on which he now believes what he calls truth. The fact, however, is, that he has now no faith at all, either true or false; for faith without testimony cannot exist. And as he has no testimony that the Bible history is untrue, he cannot believe that it is not true. For a man to say that he believes the Bible is not true, is just as incongruous as for a man to say, I see without light. Now as there is no opposing testimony to that of the Jewish or Christian historians, no man can say that he believes the Bible history to be false. And here let me ask in passing this quagmire, Is there any cotemporary historian with Moses, Matthew [357] Mark, Luke, or John, who contradicts their testimony? If so, produce it.

      But I most not omit to show that this honest "Inquirer" is, in his own sense of the words, and in his own logic, as fully deceived now as he admits he once was. He was once a true believer without evidence. This he declares. Now I say that he is a "true" disbeliever without reason or evidence. And from his own pen I will bring the proof. In his first essay he says he 'could not help finding traces of ignorance in the writers of the Bible.' At this discovery his faith exploded. But what was the ignorance he could not help finding? This is the question. Would you laugh if I told you that it is this? He discovered that Moses was ignorant of the art of steam-boat building!! He does not say so, I admit; but, in effect, he says the same. His starting point is this, (No. 2.) "The ancients had no correct knowledge either of astronomy or natural history, and the writers of the scriptures if they be not inspired may be expected to exhibit such misconceptions on those subjects as we know to have characterized the age in which they lived. In this view of the subject let us examine the account of the creation according to Moses."--Ay, indeed, "in this view of the subject" he examines the account of the creation. Let us now state the counter part of his position in his own style. "The ancients had no correct knowledge either of astronomy or of natural history: and the writers of the scriptures, if they be inspired, must be expected to exhibit such conceptions on these subjects as we know not to have characterized the age in which they lived" And thus have rendered themselves incredible, I say. For should a man pretend to write the history of the first settlement of Virginia, and tell us about their navigating the James river in steamboats, two centuries ago, and pretend that he lived at that time, he would destroy the credibility of his own work. And so Mr. "Inquirer" would have had Moses to have exhibited, "if inspired," conceptions of astronomy and natural history as we know did not characterize the age in which he lived. This is the honest frontispiece of "all the ignorance he could not help finding in the Bible."

      In the first step the "Inquirer" made, the following errors are adopted as axioms of undoubted truth:--

      1. That men inspired to teach religion should be inspired with the knowledge of all natural science.

      2. That to render a witness credible on one subject, it is necessary that he should speak our views on every conceivable topic.

      3. That a writer who wrote three thousand years ago, should adopt a style of writing and exhibit views of things not known or entertained by any people on earth for a thousand years after he died, in order to make his narrative credible.

      That I do no injustice to him will appear from the following question. After telling us the ancient and modern views of the earth's figure, and of the heavenly bodies, he asks "Does Moses, as an inspired writer, discover by preternatural (a blunder--it should have been supernatural) assistance the truth on these subjects; or does he, like an erring unenlightened man, give in to the popular errors of his times?" If not, I will not believe him to have been inspired in astronomy, [legitimate conclusion !]--no, not so reasonable--I will not believe him to have been inspired in any thing he wrote or taught!! No wonder this gentleman ceased to be a true believer in the Bible.

      After all his feeble attempts to caricature the Mosaic account of the creation of this mundane system, he fails to shew that Moses committed one single blunder, Sir Isaac Newton himself being judge. His account of the gradual developement of things during the space of six evenings and mornings is neither contrary to, nor incompatible with, any established truth in the principles of Sir Isaac or of Galileo, But my intention was not to prosecute this subject farther in this essay than to expose the fallacy of the starting point of this true unbeliever. I wished to test the rationale of his system; and if I have not shewn it to his satisfaction, on hearing his complaint I will be more full and copious in the developement. It is the rationale of the system I first attack. I would not give a pin for an arithmetical defence of the size or of the contents of Noah's ark, nor for an astronomical explanation of the Mosaic account of the creation, to confute or refute the puerile cavils of any conceited sceptic; while I can, by a single impulse of my great toe, kick from under him the stool on which he sits, astride the mighty gulf, the fathomless abyss, whence he cannot rise by all the implements and tacklings in the great Magazine of sceptical resources.

EDITOR.      

      MR. EDITOR.--WILL you please present to the public generally, and to the person addressed particularly, through your columns the following remarks. I conceive them due to you and the public. A responsible person, has now presented himself before the public, in the shape of an opponent, and is bound by every tie that religion or good breeding can offer, either to bear himself out in his assertions, or to recall the remarks he has made. There are multitudes, both in Virginia and Kentucky, as well as elsewhere, deeply interested in the calm and able discussion of those points which now cause so much emotion.

      I have not the pleasure of an acquaintance, personally with the excellent man I now address, but from my youth have heard his praises spoken. If any one be able to examine these matters in a christian-like and able manner, my information leads me to believe that he is the man. He will I doubt not, feel himself bound by the fear of God and the good of men, to avoid that light, ridiculous and unmanly, as welt as un-christian course, that his pupil "Aleph" has thought proper to adopt, for the purpose of bringing odium upon what he cannot confine, and which he has acknowledged to be "a state of things much to be desired."

      I feel myself personally interested in this matter. If you are presenting the christian community with a number of "chimeras," I wish to reject them; and am certain that in thus saying I express the feelings, the sincere feelings of many pious and intelligent professors of the Christian religion in Kentucky. But if this assertion is made without proof, the writer ought to consider himself responsible for circulating that which is without proof.

      I hope, Sir, that I shall not be considered in the light of an intruder in making this address, or as wishing by any means to provoke an unprofitable controversy: but that I shall be believed in saying that I desire, above all things, to see the christian communities united upon the one foundation.

      I humbly conceive, Sir, that our teachers do not go to the root of the matter in this examination. They (that is to say, the Baptists) seem to forget that there are any Christians in the world but themselves, and that their own sect is the [358] only religious community known. And this feeling is too common to all sects. Now, sir, there are other denominations in the world as numerous, as intelligent, and as pious as their own denomination, which they admit to be christians, but for which they will have no fellowship. Sectarianism is either right or wrong. If right, they are right in striving to keep up their own sect, and preventing the influence of any man, who wishes to induce a scepticism as to the divine authority for it. But if sectarianism be wrong, then all efforts of this kind are sinful. This, Sir, is just the hinge, as I conceive, upon which your whole exertions turn. To destroy that which in word all condemn; but which in deed all religionists cherish, ought to be the effort of every man who fears God and loves the peace of society.

      If, Mr. Editor, it should be necessary to present my name hereafter, you are at liberty to do so. I have hitherto been almost silent in the discussions which have for the last year, agitated this state; and am only now induced to present myself for the purpose of eliciting all the light of which the subject is susceptible. I have regarded with perfect indifference all the pusilanimous efforts of our opponents in the papers of the day; but confess that the extract furnished by the Recorder, from Dr. Semple's letter, has, in my estimation, more importance attached to it than the whole of them put together. I am aware of the imposing influence of great names, and know that much reliance will be placed upon the opinions of men celebrated for piety, learning and talents. I therefore wish to obtain, in full, the views of Dr. Semple on these "chimeras."

	I am, Sir, Your brother
	in the hope of eternal life,
	QUERENS.

      P. S.--Do you think it would be at all improper for you to publish in the Christian Baptist some of the letters which have been written you by my friend and brother Doctor Noel, alias "Aleph" approbatory of your course and sentiments? He would not think it improper certainly.

Q.      

      DEAR SIR:--I OBSERVE in the last Recorder an extract from a letter, of which you are the writer. It is couched in the following words: "He (that is, Paulinus) wrote something last year, in which he certainly went too far. He is now convinced (I am persuaded) and is guarded against our friend Campbell's chimeras."

      From the uniformly excellent character you have borne among those who either know you or have heard of you, I presume you are "a man fearing God and eschewing evil." Now if this be the case, you would not (since by our words we shall be justified and condemned) either write or speak any thing against another professing christian, for which you have not good reasons and sufficient authority. But you have pronounced the sentiments which "friend Campbell" and Paulinus have discussed, to be mere "chimeras." Now you must have reasons for so saying, which, perhaps, many intelligent christians in this state have not. There are, too, in this western country, a number of persons who are perpetually abusing brother Campbell, and expressing their fears that "he is no christian." But it is to be remarked that among all the essays that have appeared, there is not one in which argument, or the scriptures, or any correct principles of reasoning have been resorted to for maintaining that he is an errorist. I therefore call upon you, most affectionately, to make good your assertion by proving that the editor of the Christian Baptist is promulgating mere "chimeras." You cannot, as a man of God, refuse this. The whole western community is concerned in it. The whole religious community is concerned in it, and your reputation for piety, learning and talents, lead us to consider you the very fittest person for attempting a refutation of these chimeras. If they are "chimeras," they ought certainly to be exposed, and since you pronounce them such, you must of course be able so to prove.

	Yours, &c.
	QUERENS.

Bloomfield, Ky. May, 1827.      

BROTHER CAMPBELL:--BEING desirous to see in our denomination unity of heart, of sentiment, and exertion, I have thought proper to address you in the loose style of epistolary writing, as one who is eminently qualified to do good. As I have but little leisure for either reading or writing, and withal labor under continual infirmities of body, you will please excuse my inaccuracies of style or expression, and regard me as a friend who approaches you unmasked, undisguised, open and free.

      The church of Christ is compared to a human body. If one member suffer, they all suffer--if one be honored, all are honored. Of this body we all are members; we all have the same rule, the New Testament; the same master, Jesus Christ; the same hope and calling; and we all should be of one mind, and speak the same things. But this is not the case every one has his "doctrine and his psalm;" schism exists, divisions are fomented, and party feeling aroused. I allude to the effect produced by your writings, orations and lectures. To this fact your Christian Baptist bears testimony. Some are for you, others against you; some believe, others reject; some approve, others censure and condemn. Such is the state of affairs; such the effect produced by your writings. But let me ask, What is the great good which such divisions will achieve? Will the disciples become better christians, love each other more fervently, be more humble and faithful? I fear not. A house divided against itself cannot stand; if we bite and devour each other, shall we be more prosperous, more happy, or exhibit a brighter example of christian forbearance, brotherly love, and charity? You will say no. What then is to be done? In what manner shall we fulfil the law of Christ? Have we no bowels of compassion, no sympathies for the church in the wilderness? I hope you have, that you would rejoice to see what I desire, and what constitutes the burden of my message at a throne of grace. Come then, my brother, come bow with me before our God, let us ask forgiveness for all the evils we have ever done; and pray for the future guidance of the Holy Spirit, that we may approve ourselves to God and to the conscience of every man.

      You, if you have examined the editorial articles of the Recorder, are aware that I have used mildness in almost every thing which I have written either of you or your opinions. Except on the subject of experimental religion, I have neither censured, condemned, or approved any particular notion advanced by you or your correspondents; and even on that subject I spoke with caution; I was not certain that I understood your views, and therefore requested an explanation. This you did not think proper to give; and hence, our correspondence was closed. I now [359] resume it under a different form, and on my own personal responsibility.

      You object to creeds and confessions; and for the very same reason I could object to your "ancient order of things." You object to creeds because they are not the bible--are not the only rule.--Your ancient order is not the bible; is not the rule, and merits the same exceptions. Are creeds unnecessary? So is your ancient order, and your expositions. Do creeds influence the conduct of men? So does your ancient order. If creeds are unnecessary and injurious to the welfare of society; so is your Baptist; so your essays and expositions. But in this you differ from me in opinion. You think and believe that your Baptist is to produce great good in the world; that it will correct the errors of the times; will induce a pure speech--will bring the church out of Babylon--place her on Mount Zion--and rebuild the walls, the broken walls of Jerusalem. But I fear you are mistaken; it appears to me you have added to the confusion of tongues; you have introduced a new dialect--in some phrases somewhat different from the former. To be plain, you have, in part, formed a new creed; not a lifeless inefficient one--no, not so; but one which as effectually influences the conduct of your abettors as any confession of faith. Your creed, I mean your writings, is not the bible--is not the rule of conduct prescribed by Jesus Christ and his apostles: and yet it is manifest that those who embrace your views of divine truth and conduct, are governed by them. On this subject I shall enlarge in my next; in the mean time think on what I say. Though I may not possess your talents, leisure, or acquisitions, yet I hope to show you in the sequel that your brethren who reject your opinions, deserve your love and respect. Consider me not an enemy, but a friend, a brother.

      Observe, between you and your Baptist brethren there is no difference of opinion as to the rule of faith and practice. On this subject we all speak the same language; we all acknowledge the same authority; all profess to be governed by it. What, then, is the difference between us? Simply this: We cannot agree as to what the bible teaches. The Baptists think the bible teaches the doctrine contained in their creeds; you think it teaches what you have written and published, and what you will hereafter write and publish. But more of this at another time.

      As brother Waller has affixed his name to every article written by him and published in this paper, permit me to request you not to render him responsible for any errors committed by myself, and for what he has written he is personally responsible.

	I subscribe myself yours, &c.
	SPENCER CLACK.

      We have inserted several of your essays. As an act of justice this letter claims a place in the Baptist.

      BROTHER CLACK--I CANNOT but express my astonishment at the greatness of your charity in saluting me "brother." Having been for more than one year the constant object of vituperation and detraction, of obloquy and misrepresentation in your paper; to be addressed by you as brother, sounded as wild in my ear as did cousin in the ears of the fox when seized by the dog. 'Tis true your editorial articles were extremely mild; but while you gave free and full scope to every anonymous reviler, while your columns were surcharged with the very lowest scurrility and personal abuse, and by those too who dare not shew their face; your editorial moderation only served as a little seasoning to the dish; and your dexterity in selecting and extracting from every source such matter as would amalgamate on the doctrine of affinities with your original cavillers, only served to evince the sincerity of your intentions and the firmness of your efforts to put me down and the cause which I advocate in the estimation of your readers. You have certainly learned that I am extremely good-natured, or else you have sincerely repented of your way. If the latter be the fact, and you are determined to reform; and as you seem determined to pray for the forgiveness of the evils you have committed against the cause of God and truth, my religion teaches me to forgive; and therefore, so long as you evince sorrow for the past, and promise to do better for the future, I will call you Brother Clack.

      Well, then, brother Clack, what is all the evil I have done in my "writings, orations, and lectures," for which you would have me join you in your prayers for remission? You tell me "divisions and schisms" exist: This is true; but whether my "writings, orations, and lectures," are to praise or blame, or neither, for these divisions and schisms, is a question not so easily decided. The gospel of the Lord Jesus, his preachings and teachings, or his orations and lectures, together with those of his apostles, caused much division, schism, and persecution. But whether they who proclaimed liberty to the captives, the opening of prisons to them in chains, the recovering of sight to the blind, and the year of acceptance with the Lord--were to blame for these evils; or whether the opposing party who contradicted and blasphemed, who slandered and persecuted the Lord and his apostles, is a question that would not, I think, puzzle you a long time to decide. And if any of the Pharisees or other praying people of that age had requested the apostles to join them in prayer for the forgiveness of the evils they had done, referring to schisms and divisions, it is a question whether any of them would have bowed the knee, which would not require me long to decide.

      That my "writings, orations, and lectures," have produced some effect, is, on all hands, admitted; but whether these effects are to be more general, whether they are to be permanent, or whether good or evil, are questions on which every man will think for himself according to the bent of his feelings, prejudices, passions, interest, and conscience. One thing I do know, that if I were to put the question to vote with regard to the course I pursue in my "writings, orations, and lectures," in any convention of the clergy in the union, whether I ought to stop, say no more, and write no more, l would have their permission to spend the remnant of my days in inglorious ease. Or were I to submit the question to all the religious editors of religious newspapers, I would expect a similar decision. But were I to await the vote of all those who have diligently read the volumes now extant of this work, I do think I would have ten to one, saying, proceed. One thing I do know, that I have the concurrence, approbation, and prayers of many teachers in our Israel, and of very many of the most, intelligent, experienced, and pious of our own denomination; and, indeed, of many in other denominations. And if I were to be moved, excited, or guided by commendations from men, I do sincerely think that I can produce as many written commendations, and high encomiums upon this work, from as many respectable [360] names and judges, as can be adduced in commendation of any religious paper of the same age on this continent. I am not to be guided, however, by such admonitions or commendations. I always approve the motives which urged me to undertake this work and to continue it, and I will persevere until the Lord says, stop. When I understand him thus signifying I will pause.

      What good effects are to result to society from the many religious newspapers now in circulation, I know not. Most of them seem to be designed to sell so many reams of paper and kegs of ink per annum, and to furnish business for mechanics. The trash which they crowd upon the public ear and the public mind neither feeds body, soul, nor spirit.

      As to what you say concerning the evils of division amongst Christians, I have nothing to object. I sincerely deplore every division and every sectarian feeling which now exists; and if I thought there was any man on this continent who would go farther than 1 to heal all divisions and to unite all Christians on constitutional grounds, I would travel on foot a hundred miles to see him and to confess my faults to him.

      The intelligence, purity, and union of all who acknowledge the mission of Jesus our Lord, and the conversion of sinners to him, are, with me, the magnum bonum, the grand ultimatum of all my "writings, orations, lectures," and social prayers. On this ground I object to all your little human creed books, which yourself and your friend Dr. Noel advocate with so much warmth. I say Dr. Noel, as he is generally acknowledged to be the chief writer for the last year in your paper, under different masks, on this subject. I attribute the boyish, waggish, and theatrical style of those essays attributed to him, rather to the poverty of the subject than to any other cause. No man who fears God and reverences the Bible, can admire the frivolous, light, and fantastic style, which characterizes the incubations of your "Aleph." Wit and humor have their admirers--satire, and even declamation will not always disgust; but there is a style which is destitute of all these, and pleases none but the vitiated taste of those who never had, or have lost a true standard of appreciation. I reserve my remarks upon your, and the Doctor's definition of creeds, until my next on his circular; in which I will show that you both have abandoned the cause which you think and profess to advocate.

      I have advanced many arguments in this work against creeds: which none of your writers have even noticed, and which I am sure none of them can set aside. And I have solid and substantial objections to them, which, I presume, no man living can remove. But it is creeds, in the legitimate and established sense of the word in ecclesiastical usage; and your not defending them, but changing the use and acceptation of the term, proves to the intelligent and discerning reader your embarrassment and impotency; but amongst those who cannot distinguish argument from declamation, whose passions and prejudices are strong, and whose judgment and powers of reflection are imbecile, any thing that pleases their taste passes for logic profound and unanswerable.

      I do attribute to creeds, in the proper acceptation of the term, all the divisions and strifes, partyism, and sectarian feeling, of the present day; all the persecutions and proscription, all the havoc of human life, and all the horrors of the inquisition in the cause of religion, during many centuries before we were born. I attribute to them and the councils which gave birth to them, the greater part of the ignorance and superstition, enthusiasm and debates, and even the schisms and divisions of which you lament in the present day. I have yet to meet with the first church which holds a human creed with inflexible rigidity, and which is enlightened in the Holy Scriptures. The stronger the faith in human creeds the weaker the attachment to the Bible, and the greater the ignorance of its contents. This is, at least, in truth and fact, the result of my experience and observation.

      But the peace, the harmony, the union, and love of Christians, the purity and joy of the household of faith, can only be promoted by a devout, spiritual, and unwearied attention to the lively oracles--no dry bones, no lifeless skeleton, no abstract miniature of doctrine, no cold formula of discipline, ever, brother Clack, promoted peace with God, conversion to God, harmony, union, and love amongst Christians. Search the records of time and you will find ignorance, superstition, tyranny, division, and schism, on the one side. Humility and Christian affection, spirituality and true charity amongst the leaders, expired in the Council of Nice, when the first creed received the imperial subscription.

      You will find the Lord Jesus at the head of those who have opposed human creeds. Ever since the day that he lifted up his voice and inveighed against those who in vain worshipped God, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men--who set aside and rendered void the revelation of God, by their dogmatisms and traditions--who, by their glosses and dogmas, gave a different meaning to the commandments of God. From that day to this, creeds and creed-makers are anathematized from Heaven. Innocent and harmless as you suppose them, they are a root of bitterness, and justly condemned by all in Heaven. The prayers of the martyrs under the altar, the blood and tears of those who refused subscription to Pagan, Jewish, Papal, and Protestant creeds, cry aloud for vengeance on those who framed them, and on those who executed them. Many thought they did God service when they made them, and that they were necessary for the unity and purity of their church; yea, they thought they did God service when they killed them that opposed them, and stoned and gibbeted them who would not subscribe them. But you see their error, and cannot see your own, brother Clack I would not be found in your ranks, neither as a commander nor a private, for all the fertile soil of your state--for all the honor which all your population could bestow. I would rather be in the ranks of the martyrs, at the head of which stands the illustrious chief who was crucified rather than subscribe. Yes, I desire to be with them living and dying. And when the hour of his indignation comes, when the awful day comes when he will answer the prayer from under the altar, may the thoughtless and inconsiderate advocates and abettors of a system essentially the same, find pardon and refuge in him.

      I have only to request you to reciprocate the favor or the act of justice demanded in your first letter. In due time I shall attend to every item you have presented in your letters to me, and believe me to be most sincerely attached to every one who loves my Lord and Master, whether Baptist or Paido-Baptist, New Light or Old Light: and firmly determined to advocate the restoration of the ancient order of things to my last breath.

A. CAMPBELL. [361]      

      THERE is no trait in the character of the Saviour more clearly marked, more forcibly exhibited in the memoirs of his life, than his unreserved devotion to the will of his Father and his God. How often do we hear him say, "I came not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me." "It is my meat and my drink to do the will of him that sent me, and to accomplish his work." The motto of his life was sung by David in these words: "To do thy will, O God, I delight." An unfeigned and unreserved submission to, a perfect acquiescence in, and a fixed unalterable determination to do, the will of the Most High, is the standard of true devotion, and the rule and measure of true happiness.--Whence, let me ask, arose this devotion to the will of the Father in our Lord and Saviour? We answer, Because he knew the Father. He knew that God is, and was, and ever shall be love, and he received every expression of his will, whether pleasing or displeasing to flesh and blood, as an exhibition of God's love. He knew too, that there was no love like the love of God, either in nature or degree. The love of God is a love emanating from, incorporated with, and measured by, an infinite wisdom, and omniscience. Human affection is often misplaced and misdirected, because of human ignorance and human weakness. The love of some men is much greater than that of others, because of the strength of their natural endowments. But as the wisdom and knowledge of God are unsearchable, so his love never can be misplaced, misdirected, never can be measured, nor circumscribed. It is perfect in nature, and in nature it is wisdom, power, and goodness combined. In degree, it cannot be conceived of by a finite mind, nor expressed in our imperfect vehicles of thought. It passes all created understanding. It has a height without top, and a depth without bottom. Every oracle of God, is a manifestation of it. As the electric fluid pervades the earth and all bodies upon it, but is invisible to the eye and imperceptible to the touch; but when drawn to a focus in a cloud by its law of attraction, and when it is discharged to another body which requires more of it than the point from which it emanated, it assumes a new form, and a new name, and becomes visible to the eye, and its voice is heard. Every expression of the will of God, every commandment of God, is only drawing to a certain point, and giving form and efficacy to his love. It then becomes visible--it is then audible--We see it--we hear it--we feel it.

      The very term devotion has respect to the will of another. A devoted or devout man is a man who has respect to the will of God. When a person is given up to the will of any person, or to his own will, he is devoted to that person or to himself. But as the term devout is used in religion, we may say that every man is more or less devout, according to his regard to the will of God expressed in his holy oracles. The Saviour was perfectly so, and he is and ever shall be, the standard of perfect devotion. Not an item of the will of God found in the volume of the old book written concerning him, that he did not do, or submit to; not a single commandment did he receive in person from his Father which he did not perfectly acquiesce in, and obey. He was then perfectly devout.

      Now, in proportion as men are regenerated, they are like him. Faith always purifies the heart. A pure, is an unmixed heart, that is, a heart singly fixed upon the will of God. The regenerated are therefore devout, or devoted to the will of God, and the unregenerate care nothing about it. Now every one that is devout, or devoted to the will of God, will continually be inquiring into the will of God. Hence his oracles will always be their meditation. Every regenerated man will therefore be devout, devoted to the revealed will of God, will seek to know, and understand, and practice it; therefore every regenerated man will be a friend and advocate of the ancient order of things, in the church of the Living God, because that order was according to the will of God, and every departure from it is according to the will of man. There is not a proposition in Euclid susceptible of a clearer or fuller demonstration than this: Every regenerated man must be devoted to the ancient order of things in the church of God--Provided it be granted as a postulatum, that the ancient order of things was consonant to the will of the Most High. A mind not devoted to the whole will of God, revealed in the New Book, is unregenerate. He that does not obey God in every thing, obeys him in nothing. Hearken to this similitude--

      A householder who had one son and many servants, was about to depart on a long journey to a distant country; he called his son into his presence, and said to him, My son, I am about to be absent for a long time; you know I have a vineyard, and an olive-yard, and an orchard of various kinds of fruit. These I have cultivated with great care, and have kept my servants employed to fencing, and in cultivating each of them with equal labor and care. I now give them and my servants into your care and management until my return, and I now command you to have each of them fenced, and pruned, and cultivated as you have seen me do, and at my return I will reward you for your fidelity. He departed. His son calls all the servants together, and having a predilection to the grape above every other fruit, he assembles them all in the vineyard. He improves the fences, he erects his wine vat, and bestows great labor and attention on the pruning and cultivating the vines. They bring forth abundantly; but his attention and the labor of the servants is so much engrossed in the vineyard, that the olive-yard and orchard are forgotten and neglected. In process of time his father returns. He finds his vineyard well enclosed, highly cultivated, and richly laden with the choicest grapes. But on visiting his orchard and olive-yard, he finds the enclosures broken down, the trees undressed and browsed upon by all the beasts of the field. He calls his son. He hangs his head in his presence. His father asks, Why is it, my son, that my olive-yard and orchard are so neglected, and destroyed, while my vineyard flourishes, and is laden with fruit? Father, said he, I have always thought the grape was the most delicious of all fruit, the most salutary, as it cheered the heart of God and man, and therefore the most worthy of constant care and cultivation--I therefore bestowed all my attention upon it. His father rejoined, Unfaithful child, it was not my pleasure, my mind, nor my will, then which guided you; but your own inclination. Had you preferred any thing else to the vineyard, for the same reason that you neglected my orchard and my olive-yard, you would have neglected it. I thank you not for the cultivation of the vine, because, in doing this, you consulted not my pleasure, but your own. Undutiful son, depart from my presence--I will disinherit you, and give my possessions to a stranger. So it is with every one who is zealous for keeping [362] up one institution of the King of kings, while he is regardless of the others.

      Some Baptists are extremely devoted to immersion. They have read all the baptisms on record in the New Testament, and beginning at the Jordan they end at the city of Philippi, in the bath in the Roman prison. The ancient mode and nothing else will please their taste. Away with your sprinkling and pouring, and babyism! The authority of the Great King is described in glowing colors. The importance of implicit obedience is extolled, and the great utility of keeping his commands is set forth in language which cannot be mistaken. But when the ancient mode of observing the Lord's day or of breaking bread is called up to their attention, they fall asleep. The authority of the Great King will scarcely make them raise their heads or open their eyes. Implicit obedience now has no charms, and the utility of keeping his commands has no attractions for them. Such Baptists are not regenerated, that is, they are not devout--not devoted to the will of God. They seek to please themselves. Let such compare themselves with the son of the householder in the preceding parable. They have got a Baptist conscience, and not the conscience of the regenerate. A Baptist conscience hears the voice of God and regards his authority only where there is much water. But a regenerated mind and a Christian conscience, hears the voice of God and regards his authority as much on every Lord's day, or at the Lord's table, as on the monthly meeting, as at Enon or in the desert of Gaza. Many, we fear, think they are pleasing and serving God, while they are pleasing and serving themselves. They think they are devout, but they are devoted to their own will. So is every one who acknowledges any thing to be the will of God, and yet refuses to do it.

      Ah! remember, my friends, that all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man, rabbinical, clerical, regal, is as the flower of the grass: the grass withers, and the flower falls down, but he that does the will of God abides forever.--Ye Doctors of Divinity, who are doting about questions, and fighting about straws; ye Editors of religious journals, who are surfeiting, the religious mind with your fulsome panegyrics upon those who second your views, and directing the public mind to objects lighter than vanity--remember that the will of Jehovah will stand forever, and that when "gems and monuments and crowns are mouldered down to dust," he that does the will of God shall flourish in immortal youth. Go to work, then, and use your influence to restore the ancient order of things.

EDITOR.      

      "UPON the supposition that I John v. 7. is genuine, I make the following remarks. Observe, John does not speak of this subject as being unknown previous to his writing this epistle; but rather offers it as a narration of things attendant on the life and baptism of the Saviour. That this epistle is a narration of past events, appears from the first chapter and first verse of this epistle. This, I presume, none will deny. "For there are three that bear record in heaven," &c. I cannot believe that this record or testimony had no object, neither that Jesus was the object, and at the same time a witness in the case himself. Believing him to be the object of said record or testimony, but not a witness in the case, I therefore conclude that he is not implicated by the term "Word" in this passage, though be is in others; yet this is no direct proof that he is implicated in the above one. Observe again, John says, verse 6th, "This is he that came by water." When did Jesus come by water, if not at his baptism? Yes, at that very juncture said record or testimony was completed in heaven, while Jesus, the object, was on the earth--on the river side. Now if Jesus is the Word, then the passage should read thus: For there are two that bear record in heaven, and one on the earth, or river side. In the 9th verse, he says, "For this is the witness of God which he has testified of his Son." I would ask, With what degree of propriety do men speak, when they say, God has testified this witness of his Son, and add, at the same time, that the Son is a testifier in the case himself? I speak as to wise men. Judge you what I say. Was the business of the Saviour into the world to bear witness to himself, or to the truth? John xviii. 37. Hear his own words: "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true." John v. 31. And again, in the 10th verse he says, "Because he believes not the record that God gave of his Son." Here the same record is said to be given by God himself. Now admitting that the Son bears a part of this record, can we speak the language of Canaan with reason, and say, This is the record God gave of his Son? From these and many other considerations of a similar nature, I am led to believe that the Son is not implicated by the term "Word" in this verse. Now you would ask me, What composed said record? To which I will answer in the following manner. Here let me observe, that this record is composed of three manners of attesting the same truth, viz. that Christ is the Son of God:--

      First manner--The Father, by Isaiah xi. 2. And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him," &c. From this it is plain that the people were to see the Spirit rest upon him; and sure enough it was seen, (Mark i. 10.) Observe the term upon. Isaiah xlii. 1. "I have put my Spirit upon him, and he shall bring forth judgment to the gentiles." Here is another scripture that in my opinion, has reference to the descent of the Holy Spirit on Christ at his baptism. John i. 33. "And I knew him not, but he (the Father) that sent me to baptize with water, said to me, Upon whom you shall see the Spirit descending and remaining on him," &c. Through these scriptures, or in this manner, the Father bore record of his Son.

      Second manner--The Holy Spirit descended upon Christ when he came up out of the water; or, in the language of verse first, "this is he that came by water." "And John saw and bare record that this is the Son of God." John i. 34.

      Third manner--Matt. iii. 17. "And lo! a voice (the Word) from heaven saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Thus we see these three are one as to their origin and design, being given by one being, who by these three manners of attestation, designed to prove the heavenly, the heart-reviving and the soul-saving truth that Jesus Christ is his well beloved Son."

      DEAR BROTHER:--I CAN neither admit the genuineness of the reading of 1st John v. 7. nor your interpretation thereof if genuine. The true reading, in my judgment, is the following, verse 6: "This is he who came (or was coming or was to come) by water and blood, Jesus the Christ; not by the water only, but by the water and the blood, and it is the Spirit which attested this, because the Spirit is the truth. Farther [363] there are three that testify this--the Spirit, and the Water, and the Blood--and these three are one," or to one amount. Thus I literally translate the Greek text of Griesbach, which reading is moreover approved and confirmed by Michaelis, and other great critics and collators of ancient MSS.

      That the common reading, if genuine, makes nothing in favor of the Trinitarians is admitted by both Calvin, Beza, Macknight, &c. &c. That it is not genuine was admitted at the era of the Reformation by Luther, Zuinglius, Bullinger and Erasmus, and by many eminent critics since that time. That it is wanting in all the ancient manuscripts, save one, and that of doubtful authority, is generally admitted; and that it is not found in any of the very ancient versions is indisputable, such as the old Syraic, the Coptic, Arabic, and Ethiopic. That it is not quoted by any of the primitive fathers, and scarcely referred to before the era of the Council of Nice, is also admitted. It was by Robert Stephens introduced into the common Greek text from some of the most ancient of the Vatican Greek Testaments, from which the Spanish theologians formed the Complutensian edition of the Greek Testament, and which Pope Leo X. gave them. Mill, in his note on the common reading, lays considerable stress upon its having been quoted by Tertullian and Cyprian before the middle of the third century; but the objections against these quotations render them of very doubtful authority; and it is most worthy of note that in the fierce controversies about the Trinity immediately subsequent to the Nicene Council and Creed, it is not once quoted by any writer, which shows it not to have been in the copies then generally read.

      As in the judgment of Calvin, Beza, and the most learned Trinitarians, it makes nothing in favor of three persons in one God: and as neither the adoption of it as genuine, nor the rejection of it as spurious, favors the conceits of the Arians; neither sect should contend about it beyond the evidence which antiquity and the scope of the passage furnishes.

      The translation I have above given of Griesbach is in the spirit and scope of the context; and as I understand the passage, it imports that Jesus was proved to be the Messiah or the Christ, supereminently at his baptism and death. He was, according to ancient type and prophecy, to come by water and blood--and according to these he did come fully attested at his baptism and death. Now there are three evidences of this truth that Jesus is the Christ, and that all who believe in him have eternal life. These three concur in one and the same thing. These are the spirit, not the Holy Spirit particularly, but the doctrine which Jesus taught. Thus John defines it in the passage itself: "The spirit is THE TRUTH." The article is overlooked in the common version. The truth, then, or the spirit, or the doctrine which Jesus taught, proves his mission and his claims. The water, or his baptism, and the baptism of the first christians, which was generally accompanied by some spiritual gift, is another proof of the same. His death inseparably connected with his resurrection, consummates the whole, and the ordinance that commemorates it is a standing monument of his mission. So that these three, the doctrine, the baptism, and the death of Jesus, all attested and accompanied by the most signal demonstrations of the Holy Spirit, constitute a summary view of the infallible evidence of the Messiahship of Jesus, and of the truth of God's promise of eternal life to all who believe in and obey him. Farther than this your friend and brother cannot at present go.

EDITOR.      

[TCB 357-364]