Volume 5. Number 4. November 5, 1827, pp. 383-391.

• Review of Dr. Noel's Circular.--No. III. by Alexander Campbell, pp. 383-385.
• Remarks on Tassey's Vindication by Philalethes, pp. 385-387.
• Letters Addressed to A. Campbell.--Letter II. by Spencer Clack, p. 387.
• [Reply to Spencer Clack] by Alexander Campbell, pp. 387-389.
• Attempt at the Restoration of Ancient Order by Alexander Campbell, p. 389.
  • The Church Professing Obedience to the Faith of Jesus Christ by William Ovington, Henry Erritt, Jonathan Hatfield, James Saunders, Benjamin Henrickson, pp. 389-390.
  • The Church of Christ Meeting in Morrison's Court, Glasgow by James Watt and James Buchan, pp. 390-391.
• Obituary Notice (Margaret Campbell), by Alexander Campbell, p. 391.

      I SHOULD much regret if my plainness in this review should incur the displeasure of my friend and brother, Dr. Noel. Had he not given such a direction to his circular as to impose it on me to notice it, I would have let it die a natural death, or if it preferred suicide I should not have disturbed its manes or its ashes. I hope the Doctor will remember that he first took up the tomahawk, (to speak in his own style) and that he fired twenty times at me from behind a tree, while I stood in the open field, and before I began to pick my flint. He built his ramparts, entrenched himself, and tried his cannon before he ever proclaimed hostilities. Nay, he placed the white flag, the flag of peace, at my side, and caused it to wave over my head, while his castles were building and his munitions of war were preparing. These hieroglyphics the Doctor will understand, and as for my other readers it is not necessary that they should understand them.

      I can still fraternize with the Doctor. I make it a rule to enumerate (if I could) how many great and glorious things there are in which we agree. Besides a great many things in the Doctor's creed, we agree in many other things of equal importance which he left out of it. For example, we agree in the hope and belief of the resurrection of the dead--and of a future state of happiness and misery, which capital points, we before saw, were not to be found in the Doctor's summary view of what the Bible teaches. Indeed, we agree in nine hundred and ninety-nine things in every thousand, and why should our difference in the thousandth have such a repulsive power as to burst through almost a thousand attractions. Nay, the Doctor will himself confess, and, were he dead, there are most unexceptionable witnesses to prove that he has repeatedly declared his hearty concurrence with me in almost every single point; that he would travel many miles every week to enjoy membership in such a church or christian society as I would construct on my views of the kingdom of Jesus. He has gone even farther than this. For he has declared to me, viva voce, that the time would come, and at no very distant day, when those views which I inculcated, would universally prevail amongst all Christians. And even now, in the present contest, the Doctor only advocates a creed because there are sects. If there were no heresies the Doctor would have no human creed. Indeed it would be difficult to find persons who agree in more incidents than Doctor Noel and myself. Why then should it be thought strange that we should examine the points of difference with so much plainness and honesty! I am sorry that the Doctor should have made even one digression from the straight forward course, and even that has something of virtue in it. The Doctor has but one failing, (and I wish that I had but one) and that leans to virtues side. It is a weakness incident to Doctors of Divinity more than any other men. It is also a failing that carries its own punishment in its bosom. For when a man is desirous of always being on the popular side, it often gives him a great deal of uneasiness, and in some instances involves him in a very irksome suspense. But this failing I shall not now disclose, as it might appear invidious to expose the only failing of one who has obtained so good a degree and so much boldness in the faith.

      After this round-about apology I resume the circular.--All Christians have faith and therefore must have a creed. The only question then is, Who shall be the author of this creed? The Holy Spirit, or the Philadelphia association? I opine that the former is the most fitting and capable author. And who says that the latter is?--No person will say so in words: it is only in works they say so. The making of a creed out of the inspired volume, or even the attempt to epitomize it, is, in effect, saying that, in the divine shape, or the shape which God has given the volume, it is not so well adapted as in the shape which the Westminster divines or the Philadelphia association have given it. Doctor Noel, and brother Doctor Miller of New-Jersey, represent the church as in the most lamentable condition without a "summary exhibition," as "epitome," or a "human creed;" for if the church had no other standard than the Bible, "every thing that wears the name of Christian" would find admittance. Yes! the Universalist, Socinian, Arian, Episcopalian, Presbyterian and [383] Methodist, would all be in the Baptist church, sitting around brother Noel, were it not for the admirable machinery of the creed, which equally keeps the Universalist and the Presbyterian aloof from the Doctor, and shuts the gates of the kingdom on earth equally against the "damnable" heretic, and the weak Methodist.--This is the omnipotent fact, and who can deny it?

      I have said that Doctors Noel and Miller represent the church as in the most dangerous condition without a creed--liable to receive into her bosom "every thing under the name of Christian." What church?--------! Into whose bosom? --------! Not the church of Christ, my dear friends--For where is she?--Doctor Miller says, With us--Doctor Noel says, With us--and Dr. J. Owen says, With neither. The church in danger. Mark well the phrase. The church in danger means the sect in danger. The bosom of the church here means the bosom of the sect. Here now is a piece of the sophism, a small slice too, which our sagacious Doctors present on their spiritual servers to their guests; but remember they do not taste it themselves. Let us remove the vail, and then it reads, the church of Jesus Christ, that is the Baptist sect is in the most imminent danger of receiving into her bosom the Arian and Presbyterian unless she have a summary exhibition of what the scriptures teach; and the church of Jesus Christ, that is, the Presbyterian sect, is in the most imminent danger of receiving into her bosom the Baptist and the Universalist unless she have her summary exhibition of what the scriptures teach. And so the different churches, that is, sects of Jesus Christ, or pieces of a divided Christ, hand round the spiced and sweetened sophism to one another and to all their guests. I have said all Doctor Noel's letter, and all Doctor Miller's pamphlet is down right sophistry from first to last. I am now proving it by piece meal, and have, in this one instance, I opine, succeeded in stripping one pillar naked, that is the pillar called the church. When the plastering and white-washing is taken off this pillar, it is sect, and not church, within. And while the Doctors are white-washing and painting this pillar with the names church and church of Jesus Christ, it is in reality and fact sect and sect of Jesus Christ. The pillar reads thus--The Baptist sect of Jesus Christ has a divine warrant to draw up a summary exhibition of what the scriptures teach, and by this summary to exclude the Arian, Universalist, Methodist, and Presbyterian from the bosom of the Baptist sect; and the Presbyterian sect of Jesus Christ has a divine right or warrant to draw up her summary exhibition of what the scriptures teach, and by their summary to exclude from her bosom the Arian, Universalist, Baptist, and Methodist. So the naked truth is, that Jesus Christ has, while time endures, established and ordained and appointed sects to exist, make creeds and exclude one another; and calls each of them his church and people!! Now, Doctors, to work again--to your oars--for till time ends you must work in vain to establish the fact that Jesus Christ is on your side of the controversy.

      Now, gentle reader, how do you think the Doctors will try to get out of this net. I will tell you: They will do as they have done. What is that? They will silently admit the fact, and retort. Well then, Mr. Editor, you have your creed too, you have your explanation, verbal, nuncupative, your meanings of scripture, your sermons; and you do by these what we more honestly do by our written creed. You have a creed too. You have your meaning of what the scriptures teach in another shape, and you make the same use of this as we do of our creed. Avaunt! Mr. Editor. Meet us here if you can. Yes, gentlemen, I will meet you in the face, and not meet you in the back, as, I opine, you have met your opponents. This is as palpable a sophism as the former. This pillar you have plastered and whitewashed again and again. We shall try what is inside of these pretty paintings and whitewashings.

      To meet you in the face: You say I "have two creeds--the bible and my meaning of it." Now you say, "We have no more." We have the bible and our meaning of it. We are more honest than you. We give our meaning in writing. You keep yours in the evanescent form of sound. Here, then, gentlemen, I lay my hand upon your head. I have two creeds, you say. Well, then, according to the way, manner, reasoning, and argument, by which you establish this point, I will most certainly prove you have three creeds. I have the bible--that, you say, is one creed. True. I have also my meaning of the bible--that is, you say, another creed. Now, one and one make two. So, then, Mr. Christian Baptist, you have, by fair arithmetic, two creeds. For the salve of argument, agreed. You, then, dear doctors, have the bible--that is one creed. You have also the Westminster, or the Philadelphia--that is another creed. You have also the meaning of the Westminster--that is precisely the same as my meaning of the bible--this is another creed, if your logic be sound. Now it is just as certain that two and one make three, as that one and one make two. This is not that species of logic which enabled the graduate of Cambridge to prove that two ducks were three; but it is that species of logic by which Drs. Noel and Miller prove that their written creed and my meaning is just one and the same, or that I have two creeds, while I acknowledge the bible only. I will not let you go. You are as much bound by every law in creation to attach a meaning to the words in your Westminster and Philadelphia creeds, as I am to attach a meaning to the bible; and by every law in grammar, logic, and rhetoric, if my meaning of the bible is one creed different from it, so your meaning of the Westminster is a creed different from it. Here, then, I hold you. Now disentangle yourselves if you can. If you make an effort, Dr. Noel, I will turn Dr. Miller against you; for he will join me now. He will tell you there are seven sects of Presbyterians, at least six, who hold the same Westminster Confession, and will not commune with one another. And why will they not? Because they have different meanings attached to the same Westminster. What mean the words Covenanter, Relief, Burgher, Anti-Burgher, &c. &c., in Buck's Theological Dictionary--all Presbyterians, all holding the same creed, the Westminster, and differing in their meaning of it. Some of these have written out their testimony, showing where they differ from others in their meaning of the creed; and it is a fact that they have as much need for a fourth creed or a meaning for their testimony, as I have, to say the least, for a second one. So you go. The Westminster explains the bible; the "Testimony" explains the Westminster; and then you have, in a case of difficulty, to show how you understand the Testimony; and so forth, ad infinitum.

      So, so, gentlemen, it all ends here. While you would place my "explanations" on the same footing with your written creed, you act as sophistically as when you use the word church [384] instead of the word sect; for admitting I have my explanations, you have your bible, your Philadelphia, and your explanations. Such is the inside of your second main pillar. Remember the proof in fact. Count how many sorts of Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and Baptists there are, and talk no more of your little creed being a means of either uniting sects or christians. So much in proof that brother Noel's circular is all sophistry from first to last. I dislike mincing. Brother Clack is going to republish the circular. I could wish he would republish my review of it. Thus he might save me the trouble yet printing the Doctor's circular and my review in one pamphlet, and sending them hand in hand round the country. If the Doctor will say he will take the one half of the number I may print of his circular and my review, and use all his exertions to distribute them, I will publish the whole in one pamphlet, so soon as I shall have brought my review to a close.

EDITOR.      

      SIR:--IN this communication I proceed to close my remarks on Mr. Tassey's Vindication, &c. and, therefore, for this once, crave your indulgence to give it a place, with the former, in your interesting paper. Without further preface, I proceed to observe that Mr. Tassey not only appears to contradict himself, but also the express declaration of Holy Scripture; for he says, (p. 22.) speaking of the Mosaic and Christian dispensations, that "they are in substance and design the same, and are not to be regarded as, in any measure, opposed to each other." I presume it will be readily granted, that the former dispensation was by no means designed to oppose the latter, but the very reverse; for it was manifestly designed to prepare the way for it, and to introduce it with manifold advantage. But as certainly the latter was designed to supersede and annul the former, and therefore most certainly in some measure opposed to it. How, then, could they be in substance and design the same? Moreover, do they not essentially differ both in matter and form? Was not the former a dispensation of laws and institutes, moral, religious, and very many of them also typical, materially and formally differing from the laws and institutes of christianity. Compare the first christian church in Jerusalem, in all these respects, with the temple worship, and with the whole Mosaic constitution; how great, how striking, the dissimilarity! Where, then, I pray this substantial sameness? And as for the alleged sameness of design, how can any christian assert it? Was not the law added because of transgression--until the seed should come, to whom, or in relation to whom, the promise was made? Did not the law enter that the offence might abound? that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful? But was this the design of the gospel dispensation? Or was it intended for any of these purposes? Again, was the legal dispensation designed to give life, or to perfect the worshipers as pertaining to the conscience? But was it not the express design of the gospel dispensation to accomplish these all-important purposes? These things being so, who that believes the New Testament, can assert, that the design of both was the same. But we presently see what drove our otherwise much esteemed author into all these lamentable contradictions. It comes out plainly at the bottom of the page. He tells us that we are not "to regard the kingdom or church of Christ, as different in any of its essential principles, from the church of God under the Old Testament times. In the spirituality of their nature and constitution they are, the same. "Righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost," were the grand constitutional principles of the kingdom of God from the commencement of the world; and faith in Jesus Christ, as the promised Messiah, was as necessary to constitute a man the true subject of this kingdom, in the days of Abraham, as it is at present, Nay, we are bold to affirm, that its regulations were the same, as far as made known to the children of God. But as the church of God was then in its non-age, and its laws were not as yet fully promulgated, so its advantages were not then equal to those now enjoyed; consequently the only differences that can be discovered, consist neither in its nature, its constitution, nor its laws; but in being now more immediately under the personal management of Jesus Christ himself, and in the clearer and more complete regulations it is now under, since the oracles of God were closed." If we leave out this, and the preceding paragraph, Mr. T's declarations and assertions, upon this branch of the subject, appear, for the most part, consistent and just. But how to reconcile this, and the preceding, with that sameness of religion and of church, which he so strongly asserts, with what precedes and follows, and with the truth itself, appears utterly impossible, if language has and determinate meaning. For, after asserting, as above, that we are not to regard the two churches as different in essential principles; that is, in their nature, constitution, or laws; he goes on to assert, that "the great evil into which men have fallen on this subject consists in confounding the typical church of God with the real. For the typical church can never be regarded as the true church of God." If this be so, who has fallen more deeply into this evil than Mr. T.? For what can be more confounding than to assert the above sameness, in their nature, constitution and laws, the spirituality of their privileges, faith, &c.? And what more unintelligible, more confounding to common sense, than, after all this, to assert the essential difference of typical and real existing between them. "For the typical church can never be regarded as the true church of God." Yet we are not to regard them as different in any of their essential principles!!! Strange indeed! But, after all, what are we to understand by this mysterious sameness of the two churches, or kingdoms, under the Old and New Testaments? It cannot consist in the sameness of the subjects or members, for those of the former are all dead and gone. Nor in the laws and ordinances of divine worship, for these the apostle, and Mr. T himself, declares to be abolished. Not in territorial and political regulations; for the latter, that is, the kingdom of Christ, is not like the former, of this world; nor yet in respect of moral regulations, for the subjects of the former were under certain restrictions in relation to their neighbors and enjoyed certain liberties, such as polygamy &c. which do not exist under the gospel dispensation. Neither were the qualifying terms of membership the same; for under the former, a person must be of the stock of Israel, or a proselyte to the faith and worship of the God of Israel; and if a male, to be circumcised, in order to membership under the theocracy; whereas, under the christocracy, no such thing is required or admitted.

      Again, the faith and worship under the New Testament, differ essentially, i. e. both in matter and form, from what was required under the Old. [385] For we are commanded to believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the Son of God, and Saviour of the world, whose blood cleanses from all sin; and to worship him accordingly, and to pray to the Father in his name. Not so under the Old. The terms of membership are also essentially different; under the New a confession of this faith, with baptism, is the term of admission. Not so under the Old. In a word, the New Testament church, constitution, or covenant, is established upon better promises than the Old. See Heb. viii. 6. 10. 11. 12. Therefore, neither in this respect, is it the same. These things being so, as Mr. T. in the sequel materially grants, and as every one must see that pays any due attention to the subject; how, then, can he, or any man of candor and common sense, boldly affirm that the revealed regulations under the former, were the same with those under the latter; and, that "the only differences that can be discovered, consist neither is its nature, its constitution, nor its laws," &c. But alas! all these contradictory and absurd inconsistencies, and a thousand more, if necessary, must be retained, rather than abandon a favorite dogma--namely, that baptism is come in the room of circumcision; consequently, that being born after the flesh confers membership in a spiritual kingdom. It is true, our author, in his elaborate and comprehensive treatise, says little directly upon baptism. He observes, (sect. 3. page 226,) when treating of the ordinances, that, "perhaps, of all the ordinances of religion which were instituted by the Redeemer, none have been more abused viz. to the production of discord and disaffection than baptism and the Lord's supper." But, while he labors much, and much to the purpose, to obviate the abuse, and vindicate the proper and legitimate use of the latter; he leaves the former out of view--except in so far as he argues against a sectarian use of it; though it must be confessed that in the order of institution it is the first--the first to be attended by every believer; faith as it were, stands upon its left hand, and salvation upon its right--it is the connecting medium between them. Why, then, should our author in his proposed representation of the different ordinances of religion as instituted by the authority of Christ, and practised by the primitive churches, have passed so slightly over this primary one; with briefly observing that "this ordinance was made the instrument of promoting faction and schism in the church at Corinth." Or why not rather in the preceding section, when ascertaining the proper materials of which a church of Christ ought to be composed, did he not fairly establish from scripture testimony, that it must consist of baptized believers? But, alas! such is the power of prejudice, that even our boasted author himself, notwithstanding his just and animated declamations against it, falls prostrate under its bewitching and bewildering influence! This lamentable prostration is not only apparent from the documents already adduced; but, if possible, still more evidently so by the partial and corrupt paraphrase of Eph. iv. 4, 5, 6. see page 148; not, indeed, formally quoted, but evidently adduced as an argument to prove the existence of a real and substantial union amongst christians, that should hold them united in spite of all corruption or seduction. In the above reference, the apostle's argument to induce christians, to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, is truly catholic and forcible. For, says he, "there is one body and one Spirit, even as you are called in one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, above all, and through all, and in you all." No quotation could have been more pertinent and conclusive to Mr. T's purpose than this, had he fairly stated the subject; but this he has not done; for he declares above, that "the recognition of Jesus Christ was the only indispensable prerequisite in order to admission to the privileges of the children of God." Now this certainly is not true, unless by recognition he means baptism; for admission to the first and great privilege, the remission of sins, was so ordered in the gospel economy as to be only accessible through baptism. Hence, said Peter to his believing auditors, "repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins;" &c. Likewise, said Ananias to believing Saul, "arise and be baptized and wash away your sins," &c. Likewise, the believing audience in the house of Cornelius, who were truly immersed in the Holy Spirit, were afterwards commanded to be immersed in water that so they might be constitutionally admitted to the full enjoyment of all the privileges of the children of God. And Paul, in the connexion before us laboring to restore and preserve the unity of the church of Corinth, next to the unity of Christ the one Lord who was crucified for them, (the belief of which constituted the unity of their faith) puts them in mind of the one baptism, by virtue of which they had all put on Christ; and therefore, of course, ought to wear his name, and not any other's; no, not even Paul's, who had not been crucified for them, and into whose name they had not been baptized. In like manner, in his most pathetic and earnest exhortation to the believing Ephesians to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, next to the one faith, urges upon them the consideration of the one baptism; by which they had all been immersed into one body; for says he, "there is one body and one Spirit, even as you are called into one hope of your calling, one faith, one Lord, one baptism, one God, and one Father of all," &c. Here we have the fundamental and real unity of the true church of God most distinctly and satisfactorily displayed--firmly established on a seven fold unity. "Thus Wisdom has builded her house; she has hewn out her seven pillars;" but alas! Mr. T. with all his professed zeal for the sacred and inviolable prerogatives of Zion's King, and for the rights and privileges of his subjects, has, unhappily, through obstinate prejudice, and at the expense, too, of apparent self contradiction, attempted to bury the sixth of these seven in the apostolic order, under the rubbish and ruins of a party spirit--even that beautiful and highly interesting pillar upon which is inscribed the remission of the church's sins. "Oh, prejudice! Oh, bigotry! what have you done! You cease not to pervert the right ways of the Lord!" So says our author of M'Leod, p. 126, and so say we of him. "It is, (indeed,) of that love of system we complain, (and that justly too,) which grinds down and new-moulds every opposing passage of these holy records, until it is conceived to tally with our acknowledged creed; that blind and unconquerable love of party, which forces the oracles of heaven out of their natural and obvious meaning to support its unhallowed pretensions?" p. 48. To these complaints and lamentations of our author we most heartily subscribe: and most sincerely wish, both for his sake and the truth's sake, and also for the brethren's sakes that are with him, that he had "first cast out the beam out of his own eye." Had he done so, he had not ground down and new modelled the passage under consideration as he has done, by adding [386] to the word; thereby altering its obvious meaning, and making the apostle guilty of a kind of tautology; for he had previously said there is one body and one spirit; and finally destroyed one of his strong and palpable arguments; namely, the one baptism for the remission of sins, of which all from the beginning were made partakers, who believed in, and obeyed, the one Lord. This, however, our author has paraphrased into "one baptism of the Spirit, enjoyed by all who are associated together, and thereby rendered one body with Christ." Now, pray, what does the apostle mean, if not this unity in one body with Christ, through the indwelling of his Spirit, when he says above, "There is one body and one Spirit?" Or is he so loose and verbose in his style, especially on a subject of such deep interest, that, in the course of a few words, he should repeat the same thing over again; and that, too, under the form of a distinct and additional argument? Far be it. The apostle is no such loose declaimer. Moreover it would be unreasonable to suppose that in the exhibition of the great fundamental and uniting topics of Christianity, and for the express purpose, too, of enforcing and maintaining Christian unity, the apostle would have omitted one of such leading importance, with which the present enjoyment of the remission of sins, and the promise of ultimate salvation stand so closely connected; and which, in the preceding epistles, both to the Romans, the Corinthians, and the Galatians, he had introduced, as indicative of the near and intimate relation of believers with Christ, and with each other in him. To the Romans he says, "Know you not, that as many of you as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death," &c. To the Corinthians, "By one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, and have been all made to drink into one Spirit." And to the Galatians "As many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ; you are all one in Christ Jesus," &c.

      But I see I have exceeded due bounds in this communication, and therefore must close it. Oh! presumption! Oh! prejudice! Oh! bigotry! what have ye done. Corrupting the word, changing the ordinances, or rejecting them; blinding the eyes, and steeling the heart; ye have led men away from the truth, and confirmed their apostacy. In the mean time, taking leave of our author and the subject, permit me to remind him, and through him, to admonish the public, in his own words, page 68, that "whatever receives not the sanction of heaven's authority, ought to be rejected as an unauthorised intruder into the service of Jehovah." Consequently, that infant sprinkling ought to be rejected; there being neither precept nor precedent for it of divine authority.

PHILALETHES.      

Bloomfield, Ky. June 1827.      

      BROTHER CAMPBELL--IT is only by a free, unreserved correspondence either viva voce or by writing, that we can come to a proper understanding on subjects of a supposed difference. You are aware that it is foreign from my design to enter into a polemical combat. I wish by the help of the Lord, to lead you to a serious consideration of the importance of cultivating love and union with your brethren. From the many communications over different and anonymous signatures published in our paper, you see that many of our brethren are exceedingly opposed to what they suppose to be your sentiments. Have they mistaken your real views? are they fighting against shadows? Do you indeed hold the sentiments and opinions which your brethren have charged upon you? I have no doubt you will answer in the negative; you will say they were mistaken. If so, what can be the cause of so many erroneous conceptions of your real views? Why is it that your brethren do not understand precisely what you mean? Can you ascribe it to the dullness of their intellection, to malignity of heart, or to an unjustifiable and illiberal prejudice? Surely not. Some who oppose your views are men of strong intellectual power--of fervent piety, and who are very justly esteemed your best friends. You remember a worthy bishop of Virginia, whom some time since you had occasion to praise; he is your friend; he loves you, but does not approve of your opinions. Hear what he says. Of Paulinus he speaks thus:--

      "He 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."

      Concerning yourself he remarks:--"What shall we do with Campbell? He is certainly wise, but not with the wisdom of God, at least not often. He seems to be misled by an ambition to be thought a reformer; but he will fail, or I shall miss my guess (as the Yankees say.) He may be as learned as Luther, or Calvin, or Melancthon, but they fell on other days than our friend Alexander. It is one thing to reform Popery, and another to reform the Reformation." And though he cannot approve of your opinions, "yet, after all," says he, "I can't throw him away as a good man, nor am I without hope of his veering about until he gets to the right point of the compass and his last days be his best days." Such is the opinion of this excellent bishop.--Consider what he says.

      Our beloved "Paulinus" will not, though he much loves you, be found an advocate for your opinions. He is not disposed to rend the churches for the sake of establishing your constructions and interpretations of the only rule. In the western country you have friends, but who oppose your doctrine, perhaps because they misunderstand you. As a man, they love you; but as a teacher, you do not possess their confidence.

      Now, brother Campbell, let me suggest to you the propriety and expediency of making out a summary of your faith. This is easily done. I can, on one half sheet of paper, give a summary view of my faith; or, if you choose, a synopsis of the leading and most prominent truths of the scriptures. By this means we can set down and compare your views with our own; and if any real difference exists, it will be seen at once. Will you be so kind as to let me hear from you on this subject. Believe me to be sincere, when I express for you my best wishes and prayers.

	Yours, in very great haste,
	SPENCER CLACK.

BETHANY, OCTOBER 12, 1827.      

      BROTHER CLACK--I am fully aware of the purity of your motives, and of the excellency of the object of your address to me concerning "the importance of cultivating love and union with my brethren." I thank you for calling up the subject again to my recollection; and be assured every feeling of my heart, as a man, and as a Christian, is on the side of love and union with my brethren. And if I would boast of any attainment I have made through the favor of [387] God, my boasting should be this--that I am willing to go the whole length taught and recommended by the holy apostles in maintaining the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. I feel myself strong on this point. I can go farther in bearing with the infirmities of the weak than ninety-nine in a hundred of my brethren will approve. As I said before, so say I again: If I thought there was a man upon this continent who would go farther than I to unite all Christians in the bonds of love and christian union, I would travel on foot a hundred miles to see him.

      What you say about "the many brethren who are opposed to my views," weighs not a feather in my estimation. I grant, indeed, that their concurrence in sentiment and co-operation with me would afford me much pleasure, and that I regret that there should be any to oppose, knowing, or walking in, the way of the Lord more perfectly. But what good cause does history record which has not had many opponents, both open and clandestine? And have not good men often opposed a good cause? Strong as the intellectual powers of some who oppose me are; fervent as their piety, and great as their erudition may be--(and I do not wish to derogate an iota from their merits)--I have the satisfaction to know that they have not studied the subjects on which they oppose me as I have done. They have either wanted the means, the opportunity, or the patience and perseverance necessary to such investigations. Of this I have the same proof which I would have when a professed linguist reads me an ode in Horace, or a passage in Pindar, that he had not studied it so well, or better, than I. A mechanic who inspects a clock or a watch, knows what sort of mechanical attainments its architect possessed, whether better or worse than his own. This is a very trite method of determining such matters; which are of little importance when decided. But yet it is a suitable reply to your remark. For if you intended to have caused me to doubt of any sentiments advanced by me because of these many avowed and clandestine opponents, I can assure you that, so far from this being the fact, if not one in a hundred of those who do concur in sentiment with me, did concur, I should be as firmly persuaded as I am: or, in other words, if my success had been ten times less than it has been, I should just be as certain as I am of the firmness and correctness of the ground on which I stand. And if you intended rather than myself, to make others doubt of my sentiments, (which a majority will likely say was the fact,) then I ask them, on whom you intended to operate, Of how much weight would be your remarks to a Baptist who firmly opposed infant sprinkling? You would tell him to consider how many good, and intelligent, and erudite Christians, differed from him and opposed him; some in one way and some in another. He would say, if all the people in the state, or if an overwhelming majority of all the professors of Christianity upon earth, should oppose me for opposing infant sprinkling, I would still say, and believe in my heart, that it is a human tradition. Think of this, brother Clack, and make use of stronger arguments in your next letter.

      Your quotations from brother Bishop Semple's letter to Dr. Noel come next to be noticed. Without a single censorious remark on the means by which brother Noel obtained this morsel, or on his sending it to you for publication without the knowledge and consent of Bishop Semple; I say, passing by these and some other little things, which I hope not to he under the necessity of exposing, I proceed to remark, first. That as far as respects Paulinus, he has since spoken for himself in the "Christian Baptist;" and as for my "chimeras," brother Semple has already been called upon for an explanation, which he cannot, consistently with his high standing, avoid presenting to the public.

      I am sorry to see two sentences in this extract: Sorry, because of the regard and almost veneration I have for the author. The one is--"He is certainly wise, but not with the wisdom of God, at least not often." With what wisdom, if not the wisdom of God? Is it of the Devil? The other is, "He seems to be misled by an ambition to be thought a reformer." Where now that charity which thinks no evil? And where is the proof? But I push this matter no farther, waiting for brother Semple's explanations. I hope what Solomon says about him that separates chief friends, may not be applicable to either the tattler or the publisher of this garbled extract. I do hope that the cause I plead may never stand in need of such subterfuges or of such auxiliaries. I thank you upon the whole, brother Clack for letting out so much of the secret. I am willing to gather honey from every flower. But my motto is,

      "To reform the Reformation" is indeed a hard matter--and why? Because many think the Reformation was complete. But what man skilled in ecclesiastical history does not know that the reformers themselves were veering about from point to point till the day of their death, and that not one of them finished the work he had begun? The greatest moral calamity that has befallen the Protestants is this, that they imagined the Reformation was finished when Luther and Calvin died. The history of that Reformation, like that of Bonaparte, will never be fairly given. The Reformation was a mixture of ten grains in one cup, nine of which were political and one religious. The pope's chair is found in almost every sect. All synods and councils have need of it. And half or three-fourths of all our religious controversies is about who shall sit in the pope's chair. If the virtuous and good, along with the crafty and designing, join hands in opposing, it will be hard indeed to reform the Reformation. But it is not the less necessary on this account.

      But so soon as brother Semple gives an account of my chimeras, I will shew, from good authority, that these chimeras have been favorites amongst the Baptists for ten centuries before the Reformation, and that every grand point for which I contend has been espoused and either directly or indirectly acknowledged by the church in the wilderness for nearly twelve hundred years. We shall have the imposing weight of great names on both sides.

      What to think of your "suggestions about making out a summary of my faith," I know not. It looks about as queer as if I should say to you, Brother Clack, well now do burn your little half sheet summary when you have made it, and let not any infant see it. Your faith is small, if a summary view of it could be given on one half sheet. Half a quire would not give a summary of my faith. For my faith is as summarily comprehended in the New Testament as the wisest head in Christendom could compendize it.

      But what use have you for my summary? To compare your summary by mine, and to decide my christian fate according to the points of resemblance between your summary and mine.--You have no right to demand it of me, and I am under no moral, religious, or political obligation [388] to give you such a summary statement; but if you wish to know for any useful and benevolent purpose my belief in any point or my views of any passage in scripture; or my opinion of any doubtful topic, I am at your command. It shall be given you. I understand you published only a part of my first letter as yet to your paper. I do not think so well of this. I would rather see a little more justice and kindness amongst our modern professors, than a new summary for every new moon in the year, Your faithful and honest friend,

A. CAMPBELL.      

      WE have promised our readers some historical notices of some churches which, in late years, have attempted to remove out of Babylon. We now endeavor to redeem this pledge.--The following sketches were drawn up by the churches themselves, in answer to a request from a church in New York, which published, in 1818, a circular to these societies in general, soliciting from them a statement of their views and practices, &c. We begin with the letter sent from New York, and will furnish a few of the narratives received in reply to it. We reserve our own remarks, approbatory and disapprobatory, until the documents are before our readers. Such information we deem of much importance to all who are desirous of understanding the will of the Great King. The faults and blemishes of those who have attempted a better order of things, are not without benefit to us who enquire after the ancient order of things. Many of these societies have progressed well, all things considered; and their attempts and efforts, however they may be disapprobated, are of more real importance to be known than the doings of Luther and Calvin, and other reformers from ancient popery.--The time must arrive, if there be any truth in prophecy, or any knowledge of it in the world, and that before many years too, when those who have been forward in reforming modern popery, will be as much esteemed as those who reformed ancient popery.

ED. C. B.      

Dearly Beloved,

      THAT you may be better informed concerning those who thus address you, we have deemed it requisite to give the following brief sketch of our public worship--soliciting, at the same time, that wherein you may differ from us in any matter, faithfulness will dispose you to refer us to apostolic practice, plain and intelligible to the capacity of the plain and simple followers of the Lamb--as we have not much of this world's learning, and are disposed to admit that alone as obligatory which can be clearly adduced from the New Testament, without the aid of sophistry or allusion to the practices of man. And we trust it may be given us from above, to receive with meekness whatever of this nature your love and concern for our welfare may dispose you to communicate.

      The order, which we derive from the law of Christ, is as follows:

      We require that all whom we receive into fellowship should believe in their heart, and confess with their mouth, that Jesus is the Christ; that he died for our sins, according to the scriptures; and that upon such confession, and such alone, they should be baptized.

      We hold it to be the duty and privilege of the disciples of Jesus to come together into one place, on every first day of the week, rejoicing in the recollections which that day revives--whereon the Lord Jesus destroyed the power both of hell and death, by his resurrection from the dead, and gave sure hope to his people of being raised also. When thus assembled, we proceed to attend to all the ordinances which we can discover to be enjoined by the practice of the first churches, and the commandments of the Lord and his apostles.

      1st. Our elders presiding, and the brethren all together, (having no fellowship in sacred things with those who confess and obey not the faith,) in obedience to the command, 1 Tim. ii. 1, &c.--we commence our public worship by kneeling down and offering the supplications, prayers, &c. directed in that passage--the elders by themselves, or one of the brethren selected by them as competent, speaking as the mouth of the body.

      2d. One of the elders selects a suitable hymn or psalm, expressive of praise; in the singing of which all the members stand up and join.

      3d. A portion of the word of God is read by one of the elders relative to the subject or institution of the Lord's Supper; upon which thanks are given, by one of the elders or brethren, for the bread;--and after the breaking of bread--thanks for the cup; and after taking the cup a suitable hymn or psalm is sung.

      4th. A passage relative to the fellowship or contribution for the poor saints is read; then prayer for suitable dispositions, and thanksgiving for ability and privilege to contribute in this way. The collection for the saints follows.

      5th. Previous to reading the holy scriptures; prayer for the Holy Spirit to open the understanding of all present, to understand and receive the sacred word. The reading consists of a chapter in the Law, one in the Prophets, and one in the New Testament. After each, a pause is made to allow opportunity to any of the brethren to make remarks by way of illustration as the subject might require.

      6th. Exhortation from the word of God, by the elders or brethren.

      7th. Praise.

      8th. Prayer and separate.

      In the evening, the church assembles for worship; after which the elders in their turn, and some other of the brethren, approved by the church, declare the gospel to those without.

      A love feast is also attended to--and a meeting on a week evening--but those not appearing to be of the same strict obligation with the duties of the Lord's day, are sometimes made to give way to circumstances.

      The kiss of charity, the washing of the feet, and the entertainment of the disciples, being things the performance of which arises from special occasions exemplified in the New Testament, we deem of importance to be attended to on such occasions.

      Discipline is also a duty which will sometimes fall to the lot of the disciples on the Lord's day.

      It may be necessary to observe, that our elders labor at their respective callings, for their support, and are not burdensome to the church; but in case of need, or that the duties of their office render aid necessary, the church deem it their duty and privilege to communicate liberally to them, as "the laborer is worthy of his hire."

      As to our intercourse with the world, we require [389] strict uprightness in walk and in dealing, I sobriety in spirit and behaviour--kindness towards all, even enemies--no evil speaking of any--but zeal for every good work--whether it respect the bodies or souls of men. In a word, that righteousness of character before all men, which the word enjoins as the evidence of being in Christ, and as the recommendation of his religion to mankind. We believe also, that according to the word of God, Christians should be subject to "the powers that be" in every nation, unless where any of their commands might require a breach of the law of Christ. Consequently, that disciples should have no lot or part in any combinations for the overthrow or disturbance of governments--it being injurious to the cause of Jesus our Lord, that any of his people should suffer justly in this world as evil doers. 1 Pet. 2.

      In our relationship to each other as christians, we are all brethren, having no distinction in the church, except what gifts necessarily create--but we do not therefore seek to abolish, nor interfere with those earthly distinctions which our respective stations in the world may require, unless where, and so far as these might clash with the authority of the divine word.

      We view it as our duty to be subject to, and to forbear each other, to please our brethren, and not wound their weak conscience; but to deny ourselves, and in all things seek the peace and comfort of the church, where such compliance would not countenance error. We esteem it also to be our duty to love our brethren in deed as well as in word; holding our substance (which we have as the stewards of God) in readiness to supply their necessities: showing by our willingness to contribute, that we walk by faith and not by sight, and are laying up our treasure where no moth can corrupt, nor thief break through and steal.

      The questions and disputations that generally prevail among professing Christians have no place among us: their reasonings and speculations occupy no part of our time. The knowledge of the simple truth, declared by the Lord Jesus and his apostles--and the practical godliness arising from that knowledge, are the things whereon we desire to bestow our attention.

      It should not be omitted, that in all our measures and decisions, unanimity, and not majority, is deemed the scriptural rule.

      There are scattered over this continent, a few small societies who have conformed in part to the simplicity of the apostolic faith and practice.--We also address to such a similar epistle, and should you favor us with your correspondence, we purpose, if the Lord will, to make known the result of this our communication, to all whom we shall have reason to esteem disciples of the Lord Jesus.

      The date of your coming together--the number of members--whether you have elders and deacons--together with any additional information, will be very acceptable to the church that thus addresses you.

      Now may He who was dead, and is alive, and lives--over all, God blessed forever, preserve you blameless--to Him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

      Approved and adopted by the church, and signed in their behalf, by

	WILLIAM OVINGTON, HENRY ERRITT,	}	Elders.
	JONATHAN HATFIELD, JAMES SAUNDERS, BENJ. HENDRICKSON,	}	Deacons.

      New York, March 1, 1818.

      DEARLY BELOVED,--Your epistle of March the 1st came duly to us, and our joy and gratitude to the Father of mercies, have been excited by this instance of a society of believers in Christ, meeting together among themselves, and separating from the world and from false professors, in order to walk according to the dictates of the kingdom of Zion, directed by his word and spirit in the exhibition of his kingdom. We are glad to observe also your zeal for ancient brotherly intercourse between churches holding the same faith and observing the same practices--an attainment too much neglected in our days. In apostolic times, a member of one Christian church had access to fellowship in another, on the footing of his membership in the former alone. Thus Phebe is commended to the church at Rome, as being a member of the church at Cenchrea, Rom. xvi. 1, 2, and it appears that such recommendations were usual in those times. 2 Cor. iii. 1, 2, 3.

      To maintain such brotherly intercourse, both in a church and between different churches, it is necessary to guard both against too much and too little forbearance; and especially in respect to the external order of the society. Accordingly, any shades of difference from your practices which are among us, we think should not affect or mar our relation as sister churches.

      We, as well as you, require such as we receive into our fellowship to believe in their hearts, and confess with their mouths, that "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." We think the scriptural meaning of this expression includes the belief of the character of God manifest in the flesh, and of the all-perfect and all-efficacious atonement which he has made by shedding his blood: it includes also the belief of the promise, that whosoever believes the testimony of God respecting the efficacy of the atonement, shall be saved. The profession that Jesus is the Christ, includes also the acknowledgement of the dominion of the Redeemer, and the authority of his laws; that he is both "Lord and Christ." With regard to both faith and practice, we hold the meaning of a passage to be the word of God, rather than any form of speech. Hence, when a person professes to believe that "Jesus is the Christ," we satisfy ourselves that he understands and believes those words in the scriptural sense; for whilst we know that "no man can call Jesus Lord, but by the Spirit of God," we know also that many say to Jesus, "Lord, Lord," who have no part in his kingdom. The gospel contains the testimony of God respecting the Saviour and the salvation, the dignity of the Saviour's character and the efficacy and satisfactory nature of the atonement, and the completeness of the glorious redemption. It contains also the divine promise, that whosoever is illuminated to believe the divine testimony shall be saved, and is by this faith justified. Such as make a credible profession of this faith we baptize and receive into fellowship with the church.

      On the first day of the week we count it our duty and privilege to meet, and joyfully commemorate the death of Christ as an atonement for sin, and his resurrection as the pledge of our justification, as that by virtue of which we are raised to the "newness of life," and as the sample and the earnest of our deliverance from the power of the grave at the last day. In these [390] exercises we think it our duty to promote the glory of God and our mutual edification.

      In our social observances on the Lord's day, we judge worshipping "in spirit and in truth," to be chiefly important, rather than any particular arrangement of observances, or any particular bodily exercises in them.

      Except that we begin with praise and prayer, and interpose these exercises between the other observances, our general arrangement is taken from the words, Acts ii. "they continued in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in the breaking of bread, and in prayers." In the forenoon we commence with praise and prayer, each twice; the first referring to the Lord's day, the second before reading the word. Then we read in the historical part of the Old Testament, from the beginning to the end of either. We read also in those books called Hagiographa, i. e. Job, and to the end of Canticles; and we read also in the historical part of the New Testament, i. e. from the beginning to the end of the Acts of the Apostles. We next sing and pray with a view to the exercise, and attend to mutual exhortation and instruction; and then conclude with prayer, praise, and the dismission. In the middle of the day, as many of the members as find it convenient meet to a temporal repast, where we think it right to enquire after each other's welfare, and to cultivate familiarity with each other. This is our love feast. In the afternoon we commence, as in the forenoon, with praise and prayer, each twice. Then we again attend to the apostles' doctrine by reading the prophets and apostles. We next praise and pray with a view to the collection or fellowship. We next attend to the Lord's supper, the observance being preceded by praise, and a reference to the institution, and thanksgiving preceding both the bread and the cup. After the supper a hymn is sung, and then (for some time past) prayer, and a discourse by one of the pastors or preachers, and conclude as in the forenoon. In the forenoon the members of the church sit generally apart from others; in the afternoon, almost universally so. And we are advancing more and more in this, whilst we still forbear on it. Such is our ordinary procedure; but we don't think it essential. Until lately the Lord's supper was our last observance, except praise and prayer. We stand at prayer and praise. In our "measures and decisions," the voice of the church is fairly taken, and the minority generally fall in with the majority. The difference generally arises from a misunderstanding, and is removed by explanation; or the difference may relate to a point not settled by the scriptures, and then it ought to be matter of forbearance. To exact a greater unanimity than this, leads, we think, to tyranny on one part and hypocrisy on the other, and to endless divisions of churches. Such is our mode, and we think it warranted by the word of God. But we do not blame you for commencing with prayer, though we think the words "first of all," 1 Tim. ii.1.1 and "first," 1 Tim. i. 16. mean "principally" and "principal," or chiefly and chief. And we read, "Enter into his gates and courts with praise." We will not blame you for kneeling at prayer, and we expect you will not blame us for standing at this exercise. We do not blame you for reading your warrant regularly before the Lord's supper and the collection; nor would we blame you though you should read a similar warrant regularly before prayers and praises, and the readings and exhortations; though we do not think this necessary. We expect you will not blame us though we sometimes read these warrants, Sometimes refer to them, and sometimes suppose them understood and admitted.

      Such differences as subsist between us, we think, should not be grounds of separation not matters of dispute among churches. "We must contend earnestly for the faith;" but unlearned questions, i. e. questions to which the word affords no decided answer, we must "avoid." If we do not avoid such disputes, they are sure to "engender strifes," and are the great cause of division, both among disciples and churches.

      Regarding brotherly intercourse, and our conduct in the world both to men in general, and to rulers, your letter expresses our sentiments, and those of the churches with which we have fellowship.

      Such churches as ours have existed in Scotland, at Edinburgh and Glasgow, from thirty to forty years. Of late (1812) a division took place on the question of small societies, without pastors, having a right to use the Lord's supper.--We took the affirmative of this question. We differ from some other Baptists also in receiving only baptized believers, whilst they plead for admitting all true believers to their fellowship. We differ from others who forbid the brotherly exhortations on the Lord's day in the public meetings of the church. Our members are about one hundred and eighty. Those of our sister church at Paisley about the same. There are besides a number of churches, as at Perth, London, Liverpool, &c. &c. and many societies without pastors, with whom we are in the habit of Christian intercourse.

      We are, on behalf of the church here, who wish you grace, mercy, and peace, in Christ Jesus, yours for the gospel's sake,

JAMES WATT, JAMES BUCHAN.

      Glasgow, May 10, 1818.

      AFTER the first form of this number was in type, on Monday, the 22d ult. at nearly 11 o'clock A. M. after a tedious and painful illness of a consumptive character, which she bore with the utmost fortitude, patience, and resignation--departed this life, MRS. MARGARET CAMPBELL, consort of the editor of this paper, aged thirty-six years. The deceased was a Christian in profession and practice, and did in her life and deportment for many years recommend the excellency of the Christian profession to all her acquaintance; and during her long illness, and in her death, she did exhibit to her numerous connexions and friends, how tranquilly and cheerfully a Christian can meet death and resign the spirit into the hands of a gracious and divine Redeemer. "I die," she said, "without an anxiety about any thing upon the earth, having committed all that interests me into the hands of my faithful and gracious Heavenly Father, and in the confident expectation of a glorious resurrection when the Lord Jesus appears unto the salvation of all who trust in him." Without an effort towards a eulogy or an encomium--without a single bias from the most endearing relation--we simply announce the above event for the information of a numerous acquaintance, widely extended, and as an apology for the delay of the present number beyond the usual time. Her dying address to her five surviving little daughters, we may, for their benefit and that of others, shortly lay before our readers in a subsequent number. "The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away. Blessed be the name of the Lord."

EDITOR.      

[TCB 383-391]