Volume 5. Number 9. April 7, 1828, pp. 429-436.

• On the Influence of the Holy Spirit in the Salvation of Men.--No. II. by Paulinus, pp. 429-431.
• [On Delayed Reply to Paulinus] by Alexander Campbell, p. 431.
• [Introductory Note on "To Silas M. Noel"] by Alexander Campbell, p. 431.
• To Silas M. Noel by Robert B. Semple, pp. 431-432.
• Reply by Alexander Campbell, pp. 432-433.
• [Letter to the Editor] by A., pp. 433-434.
• [Reply to Letter from A.] by Alexander Campbell, p. 434.
• History of Churches, and Other Incidents Connected with the Spirit of the Age.--Continued by Alexander Campbell, pp. 434-435.
  • Extract of a Letter to the Editor of the Christian Baptist Dated West Port, Ky., 28th Feb. 1828, p. 434.
  • Extract of a Letter to the Editor, Dated Fairfield, Columbiana, O., Feb. 24th, 1828, p. 434.
  • Extract of a Letter, Dated Clinton Co., Ohio, 1828, pp. 434-435.
  • Extract of a Letter to the Editor, Dated Nashville, Tenn., January 10, 1828, p. 435.
• Sorrow for the Dead by W. Irving, pp. 435-436.
• Ancient Gospel.--No. IV.: Immersion by Alexander Campbell, p. 436.

      IN my Essay, No. 1, I endeavored to lay before the reader a plain, concise, and scriptural view of this important subject, so far as it regards the fact, or the reality of a divine influence on the souls of men, in effecting the work of salvation. Deeply impressed with the persuasion that this is a matter of vital consequence, and earnestly hoping that my efforts may be acceptable to those who desire to form "correct views of the office of the Holy Spirit," I cheerfully resume the subject, and proceed to finish the task which I have assigned myself on this occasion.

      Two points remain to be noticed; viz. "Some of the principal effects produced by this divine operation"--and "the high practical import of this truth."

      The effects of divine influence are manifold--according to the manifold need of the sinful subjects of this blessed operation. Man, considered in a moral point of view, is dark in his understanding--perverse in his will--unholy in his affections--impotent in all his spiritual faculties--and ignorant, withal, as to the extent of his own wretchedness. This, it must be acknowledged, is not a comely picture; but a serious view of the state of man as delineated in the Holy Scriptures, will convince us that the coloring is not too gloom for a correct portrait. It would be easy to refer to those parts of the sacred volume which justify this representation; and easy to exemplify the representation to every enlightened mind by an appeal to facts. But this is not the leading object of our present attention; and this matter has been brought to view, by the way, for the purpose of introducing, in an appropriate manner, a notice of those operations and effects which are adapted to meet the case of fallen man. The evidence, however, of this representation will appear, at least indirectly, and by implication, from the effects which are ascribed to the influence of the "spirit of grace." These effects I state as being of the following nature; viz. quickening and--enlightening and convincing--converting--sanctifying--and strengthening. Let us proceed to notice them accordingly.

      The sinner is ignorant of the extent of his own wretchedness, and inattentive to his condition. The spirit of grace, then, is a quickening, awakening spirit. Paul testifies that the quickening influence of God had been experienced by the Ephesian converts, who were once "dead in sins:" Eph. ii. 1-5, and so of the Colossians; ii. 13. It is surely to this divine operation, attending the truth revealed, that we are to ascribe the awakening of a sinner to a sense of his condemned state; while "pierced to the heart," he anxiously inquires, "What must I do to be saved?"

      We next remark, that the unconverted sinner is dark in his understanding; and (suitable to such a condition) the spirit of grace is a spirit of illumination. Conscious of this, David prays, "Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law;"--and Paul, for the Ephesians, that God might give them the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him;--the eyes of their understanding being enlightened, &c. By virtue of this illuminating influence, the mind is given to discover, through the word of truth, the insufficiency of man, and of man's righteousness--"the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus," as "the way, the truth, and the life"--the necessity and beauty of that religion which is held out in the sacred volume.

      The perverseness of the will is another unhappy trait in the character of the unregenerate; and the spirit of grace is a spirit of conversion, to give a new turn to the inclination and choice of the subject. Paul was sent to the Gentiles, "to turn them from the power of Satan to God." The Gentiles, then, needed to be turned, and so do all; for "all have gone out of the way, and there is none that doeth good, no, not one." But we have before seen that Paul was not the efficient cause of their conversion;--for "who is Paul? or who is Apollos?"--'twas God that gave the increase--the desired success to their ministrations. Hence, then, the changing of the perverse will, and turning it to God, is the effect of divine operation on the soul. And this comports with the prayer and the declaration of Ephraim, Jer. xxxi. 18, 19. "Turn thou me, and I shall be turned; for thou art the Lord my God. Surely after that I was turned, I repented," &c. May we not say, with propriety, it comports not only with Ephraim's case, but with that of every converted sinner?

      Again we remark, that the unrenewed man is unholy in his passions or affections. His love and hatred--his joy and grief--his hopes and fears, are often excited by improper objects; [429] never, as they should be, by those which have the highest claim to their exercise. Now, the spirit of grace is a sanctifying spirit--a spirit of holiness, to inspire his heart with new principles. Thus, christians are said to have "an unction (or anointing) from the Holy One,"--the Holy Spirit is promised to them that ask it of God;--the earnest of the Spirit is "given in our hearts;" and "the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness, and righteousness, and truth." 1 John, ii. 20. Luke xi. 13. 2 Cor. i. 22.Eph. v. 9. The affections are now excited and exercised in a new manner. "The love of God" and hatred of sin--"joy in the Holy Spirit" and "godly sorrow"--"hope that maketh not ashamed" and "the fear of the Lord;"--these are the effects of this holy operation. And thus new modelled, the subject of divine grace answers to the apostle's description, 2 Cor. v. 17; "If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new."

      Once more, let it be observed, that the unregenerate man is impotent in all his spiritual faculties, unable in his own strength, to achieve the victory over those formidable foes within and without, which he has to encounter. But the spirit of grace is a spirit of power; by which the favored subject is enabled effectually to wage the war, and finally to triumph. None are fully sensible of the need of the spirit, but they who are engaged in the conflict; and the more they know of themselves, the more they feel the need of this divine power. Hence Paul prayed for the Ephesian converts--"That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might, by his spirit in the inner man;" and for the Colossians, in like manner, that they might be "strengthened with all might, according to his glorious power." Though conscious of his own weakness, he felt persuaded that he "could do all things through Christ who strengthened him;" nor is he the only one who testifies, that, to them who have no might, the Lord increases strength." Testimonies to this effect, might be brought in abundance, from the Old Testament saints, as well as from the New;--testimonies which clearly evince that spiritual strength is the effect of an operation from God on the soul. Upon the whole (let me add) the effect of Divine influence on the soul, is, a correspondence of views, disposition, and desire, with the dictates of the word of truth--a responding of the heart to the voice of God in his word; and this too may be considered as (in general,) the most abiding and substantial evidence of the work of God within us. The reader will excuse the repetition of several scripture quotations, which were introduced in my first number; and which it has been found requisite to bring forward in illustration of this part of our subject.

      The importance of this truth, in a practical point of view, comes lastly to be considered. And here I remark, in the first place, that all scriptural truth is of practical import. I readily concur in the excellent sentiment, so frequently insisted on in the Christian Baptist, that the truths of our divine religion, as exhibited in the scriptures, are not mere abstract speculations, but practical principles; they are not dead branches, standing forth in their own nakedness, but living boughs, clothed with leaves and bearing fruit. This being the case, it follows that we are interested in the knowledge of all holy truth. But as I take it for granted, that there is a difference in the degrees of importance to be attached to the truths in the system of revelation; that some are of more vital consequence than others; as some parts of the human system are more necessary to life than others; so it will follow, that the more important any given truth, in its nature and effects, the more requisite will it be, that this truth be known and insisted on, in order to its practical bearing. Now, if what has been advanced, on the nature and effects of divine influence be correct, that truth at once commends itself to us, as of high importance to be known and insisted on. This argument, I must think, is to be admitted as a valid one, but as, to some minds, it may appear rather complex, I will condense the substance of it, and say, in a simple and short manner--that this truth (as we have seen) is inculcated in the Bible;--that, from the nature and effects of divine influence, it appears to be a truth of high importance; and therefore, that it is highly requisite we should hold it forth, in order to practical use.

      This argument is intended merely to prove, that the truth under consideration is of high, practical effect, and the consequent propriety that it should be insisted on: it behooves us to shew, in some instances, wherein this appears to be the case. Two important points here present themselves to our notice. First, this truth is requisite to our own personal interest;--secondly, to the glory of divine grace.

      It is requisite to our own personal interest. We are in a spiritual (or if you please, a moral) point of view, weak and needy creatures;--insufficient, with all the mere external means of aids afforded to us to accomplish the work of our salvation. Hence God has graciously promised to work in us: and the promises and declarations to this effect, and the fact that he does so, all go to prove our need of divine influence.

      Now, if this be our case, surely we, ought to know it--to be deeply persuaded that it is so,--that we may see and feel the necessity of applying "to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need" The prayer of faith is an appointed way for obtaining the necessary supply of strength from God: but if we believe that we really do not need this divine supply: or that God will not grant it; then the prayer of faith can have no place;--prayer, in this case, is rendered nugatory and absurd. Here, then, appears a highly important, practical use of the truth under consideration. This is a point of serious consequence, and I ask the readers indulgence and attention a little further. If divine influence be not needed on man's part, nor to be given on God's part--then prayer for spiritual aid from God must be worse than useless--it must be improper;--prayer, in this respect, either for ourselves or for others. And if any public servant in the gospel should attempt to maintain the sentiment, then it is expected we shall no more hear him praying that God would touch the hearts of sinners--that he would awaken them--give them the grace of repentance, &c.

      This truth is important (I add) to the glory of divine grace. This position follows from the above remarks, and a few words here will suffice. A due sense of our dependence, and of the kindness we have received, is necessary to excite our gratitude and praise; and God requires us gratefully to recognize his favor, in the various ways in which he has bestowed it upon us. But if we be persuaded that we do not need this favor, or that God does not grant it to us,--we may say, in this case, of praise, as of prayer, it cannot exist; and the gift of the Spirit's influence [430] must then be dropped from the catalogue of divine favors, when the christian gratefully exclaims, "Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits!" We have then another highly important, practical use of this truth, viz. as it is a memento to remind us of our obligation, and to excite our praise for that divine agency, without which we should have remained in our sins.

      It is deemed unnecessary to enlarge on this point: but before I close this essay, my attention is demanded to a query which may here be brought forward: "Of what practical use is this subject, in teaching the unregenerate?"

      In the specimens of public, apostolic preaching, with which we are furnished in the New Testament, there is, I readily acknowledge, but little appearance of a design to inculcate this truth on the minds of the impenitent and unbelieving. In direct addresses to the unconverted, it is admitted that this is not the leading object to be presented; and due reflection may enable us to account for it. God's methods of dealing with man are suited not only to man's nature, but to the nature of the case; and it must surely be owned, that to call upon the impenitent and unbelieving to repent and believe, is more appropriate, and better adapted to the end in view, than to set out with informing them that the influence of the Divine Spirit is requisite to awaken and convince them. True it is that such influence is requisite throughout the whole process of religion, but in this truth a careless sinner feels no interest, and until he shall become, in some measure, sensible of his situation, it will be either rejected, or admitted for the purpose of being abused. The more proper and scriptural method of dealing with the unawakened, appears to be--an exhibition of their state as sinners: of the method devised by Infinite Goodness for man's salvation; and the necessity of repentance towards God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. In addressing sinners, then, in a careless, unawakened state, I am not prepared to say that the subject here treated on would be of any immediate, practical use: but as it forms one important branch of sacred truth, and frequently occurs in the general tenor of apostolic teaching; moreover, as every spiritual requisition involves the necessity of this divine agency, it surely ought to occupy a conspicuous place in our general exhibitions of the economy of divine grace. The awakened sinner, as well as the christian, will thus be furnished with a truth, which, as we have seen, is of deep interest, and of high practical importance.

      The substance of the leading sentiment maintained in these two essays, is, that we are dependant on the influence of the Holy Spirit to render the word of truth effectual to our conversion and final salvation. I am not so sanguine as to imagine that every remark I have made is invulnerable to an attack: or that every quotation from scripture will certainly be found correctly applied, but the great object--the leading point, is, I humbly conceive, satisfactorily established; and this, I would hope, will meet with no opposition from the friends of divine truth.

PAULINUS.      

      P. S. I cannot consent to dismiss this essay, for the press, without dropping a few words further, to guard against any mistaken construction. Be it observed that I am not advocating any of the particular systems of the day; that I have said nothing about irresistible operations; that I am not here contending for a divine influence, of a mere physical nature, detached from revealed truth; though that, in some cases, may be a fact and, though I believe that God, as a free, almighty agent, energizes more in some cases than in others, yet I admit that there dwells in the word of truth a living principle, which, when that word is received, has a never-failing tendency to bring forth the fruit of holiness in heart and life.

      And now, if any part of these essays should be considered materially erroneous, they are open to animadversion. Divine truth is all I seek to establish.

      Note.--I now feel disposed to lend my aid, ere long, in attempting to shake down the mighty Babel of high-toned spiritual authority, to which numbers in the religious world appear to be lamentably subjected. A little volume, which I have lately seen, puts forth claims, which ought to alarm and arouse every friend of the Bible and of religious liberty.

P.      

      [My reply to Paulinus is crowded out of the present number.]

ED. C. B.      

      [The following letter was published in the "Baptist Recorder" in November last. It was copied into the "Star" of December 1st, with some encomiums upon the writer. One which accompanied it was published and animadverted on in this work: but the following I did not publish at that time; and, for the sake of Mr. Semple, I hoped it would never appear in this work. When I proposed a discussion of the points at issue with him, I expected he would write something more pertinent and less objectionable; in which case, my intention was to suffer this piece to die a natural death. But as brother Semple will give us nothing better on the subject, it becomes our duty to be content with such things as we have.]

ED. C. B.      

COLLEGE HILL, D. C. SEPT. 3, 1827.      

      DEAR BROTHER.--YOU took the right ground. Creeds, are good servants, but bad masters. Give them too much authority, and they will tyrannize; but let them, as messengers, carry the digested opinions of one set of men to another, and of one generation to another, and their effect is excellent. The Baptists have been a divided people ever since my knowledge of them, owing (I think) to the want of a proper respect for established opinions, customs, and regulations, whether written or otherwise. Every "novice" thinks he has made discoveries overlooked by his ancients. In a few years he sees his error, that is, if he be honestly in pursuit of truth; and if he has not committed himself too far, he is ready to retrace his steps, and to acknowledge that there were much better reasons for his fathers' opinions and customs than he was aware of. Church government obviously is left by the Bible for the exercise of much discretion. It is the scaffold, and must be adapted to the house, and for this plain reason ought to go through modifications. What suits a country church may not suit a city, and vice versa; what was adapted to the Bereans, might not, and probably did not, comport with the habits of the Cretans. The church is a corporation having a perfect charter--the Bible. Its by-laws are properly subject to regulations; but those who act under the charter must be cautious not to violate its word or spirit by a stretch of power: but, on the other hand, must also not fold their hands and say, The charter is enough, and we want no regulations, no by-laws. To such we would say, the [431] charter itself contemplates such regulations, and cannot be carried into effect without them. The Sandemanians, or Haldanians, pretend to find in the Bible an express warrant for every matter--for every measure; but when pressed, they have to resort to miserable subterfuges to prove various points of church government: and hence their frequent disagreement among themselves, and hence their constant resort to finding fault with the proceedings of others, rather than furnishing any plan of their own. The "Christian Baptist" has doubtless exhibited many valuable pieces and principles; but, taken as a whole, I am persuaded it has been more mischievous than any publication I have ever known. The ability of the editor, joined to the plausibility of his plans or doctrines, has succeeded in sowing the seeds of discord among brethren to an extent in many places alarming. In my address to him a year or two ago, I said if his principles prevailed a new sect started up. Such are my views; and my deliberate judgment tells me that there is much less ground for fellowship with such a sect, than with Presbyterians, Methodists, or even evangelical Episcopalians. In baptism, and the name Baptist, (though that they would change,) we agree, and in very few other matters. In our parts there have been a good many partial converts made, most of whom have retrograded on better acquaintance.

      Grace, mercy, and peace.

R. B. SEMPLE.      

Brother Semple,

      DEAR SIR--IF you and I affix the same ideas to the terms master and servant, you are on my side of the creed question. The church you make master, and the creed the servant; whereas your friend Dr. Noel would make the creed master, and the church its humble servant.--When the creed says, Exclude A B because he believes not in the doctrine of absolute and unconditional reprobation or election, and the church obeys, you would say the creed was master, and the church servant; and then you would enter your protest against the usurper. But Dr. Noel could say to the church, "Well done, good and faithful servant." But suppose when the creed says, Exclude, the church says, "Nay--be silent, creed;" you would say the church acts master now, and keeps the creed in its proper place. You and I, therefore, are on the same side. I don't care if the church buys or brings forth a creed every year, and has as many servants as the wealthiest lord of the soil from the Ohio to the Euphrates, provided only she keeps them all as servants ought to be kept--from dictating to their masters. Had you said no more upon this subject than what you have said in the above comparison, I could find no cause to dissent from you; and if I am to interpret all you have said by this comparison, still we do not disagree. But there is an apparent discrepancy in the following words: "The baptists have been a divided people ever since my knowledge of them, owing (I think) to the want of a proper respect for established opinions, customs, and regulations, whether written or otherwise."--This sentence is somewhat ambiguous: "The Baptists have been, and still are, a divided people." This is a fact on which we shall not differ but respecting the causes of this difference, perhaps we may:

      On the supposition that you trace these divisions to the want of sufficient respect to a creed, then you have made a creed to mean, "established opinions, customs, and regulations," Is this the servant? Surely if the "opinions, customs, and regulations" are established, they are, or must be, masters; and we must submit. To this I have no objections, provided the authority that establishes them be paramount to every other. But what right has one generation to establish "opinions, customs, and regulations" for another? And why should you and I submit to "the opinions, customs, and regulations" established by any human authority? If I must examine for myself, what shall I examine? The creed, or the bible? If I must not take the creed upon trust, but if you say I must go to the bible as well as to the creed, may I not as well go to the bible at first as at last? Say, brother Semple, may I not? Ought I not to go to the bible at first? If I take the creed at all, you will say, Take the creed in one hand, and the bible in the other. And of what use then is the creed? Why, say you, it will help you to understand the bible, or guide you in the examination of it. If so, then, I must make the creed a pair of spectacles instead of a staff, and wear it upon my nose instead of keeping it in my hand. If I must examine the bible through the creed, then the creed is my eyes; my artificial eyes, (for it cannot be my natural eyes)--my spectacles. If my spectacles are green glass, the bible is also green; if blue, the bible is blue; and as is the creed, so is the bible to me. I am a Calvinist, or an Arminian, or a Fullerite, according to my spectacles or my creed, my "established opinions, customs, and regulations."

      Brother Semple, it comes to this--I say, the whole controversy comes to this--It is a plain case; it is all contained in one question: "Is every Christian to examine for himself the book of God." Say Yea, or Nay. If you say Yea, you are a Protestant; the Catholic says Nay. It you say Yea, then it follows--yes, it follows, with power irresistible, that to a man whose duty it is to examine the scriptures, there can be no such a thing as "established opinions, customs, and regulations." For if established, why examine? I am a Protestant. I say Yea. And, therefore, I can never say to any man, When you open the bible, sir, you must pay a proper respect to "established opinions, customs, and regulations." I dare not say so. I say examine and judge for yourself. Pardon me, brother Semple, for saying, that I have never been able to discriminate between the logic of the "mother church" and that of all the daughters who argue for a due respect to "established opinions, customs, and regulations." This was her controversy with the heretics, Luther and Calvin.--They boldly said that her "established opinions, customs, and regulations" were not to be received nor regarded without examination, and that in examining them they disclaimed their being established. She complained and said, "that owing to a want of due respect to established opinions, customs, and regulations," they broke off from her jurisdiction, and divided among themselves.

      But, my dear sir, I am led to suspect your logic from another consideration not yet stated.--You trace the divisions among the Baptists to a want of a due respect to "established opinions, customs, and regulations." The converse of which is, If the Baptists paid a due respect to "established opinions," &c. they would not be a divided people. Now it so happens that the Paido-Baptists are much more divided than the Baptists, and pay a much greater regard to "established opinions," &c. than the Baptists.-- [432] How will your philosophy stand the test of experiment here? There are few religionists on earth who pay a much greater respect to "established opinions" than the Presbyterians. And have they not been a divided people ever since you knew them? In little more than a century they have split into five divisions, and erected five distinct communions. But, perhaps, you mean such a respect to "established opinions" as that shown by the mother church; and here I must own you are right. For if the Baptists paid that due respect to "established opinions" which the Romanists do, they would be as united as the holy Catholic apostolic church. But any thing short of that due respect will cause them so be as divided as their Presbyterian neighbors. Except, then, you mean by the words "proper respect," such a respect as the Catholics show, which precludes all examination of "established opinions," &c. your logic is, in my humble opinion, at variance with reason, as it is with matter of fact.

      But, again. Perhaps we may agree at last on this very point. I do believe that all the divisions not only among the Baptists, but also among the Paido-Baptists, are to be traced to the want of a proper respect to "established opinions," &c. but these are the "opinions, customs and regulations" established by the holy apostles. If, then, brother Semple, you mean that the want of union among the Baptists is owing to a want of proper respect to the opinions, customs, and regulations established and ordained in the New Testament, I most cordially agree with you, and you and I are again on the same side. But I must cordially avow that I do not think that this was your meaning, and therefore would not flatter myself too far in the hope of your accordance with me on this topic. You mean the opinions, customs, and regulations established by our fathers; and I mean the opinions, &c. established by the apostles. We differ in the conclusion as much as in the premises. But as I do not want to pursue this point farther than necessary to test its claims upon our assent, I would dismiss it with a request to you to reconsider this matter; and if, in any respect, I have done injustice to your remarks, I request you to show it, and I promise to retract them upon conviction of my mistake.

      What you say about novices is perhaps very just; and I give it my full and hearty approbation, with one small exception, and that is, that I do not give it so great a latitude as you do. You say "every novice." I am willing to make a few exceptions in favor of our young converts in the late revivals.

      I am sorry, brother Semple, to find you in the next sentence in company with Cardinal Cajetan and Archbishop Laud. They just said and argued with you, as you have expressed it, viz.--"Church government obviously is left by the bible for the exercise of much discretion." The Erastians, too, in the Westminster Assembly contended for the truth of this position against the Independents and Presbyterians. These argued that there was a form of church government divinely established; whereas the Erastians said, "it was obviously left by the bible for the exercise of much discretion."

      As far as my knowledge of ecclesiastical history extends, you are solus or singular in calling church government "the scaffold," and in making it "go through modifications;" or perhaps it may be owing to my want of discerning the propriety and beauty of these metaphors. However these matters may be, you are not singular in the following sentences; for Archbishop Laud agreed with the Erastians in this one sentence as you have expressed it--"What suits a country church may not suit a city, and vice versa;" and that form of government which "was adapted to the Bereans," who love to read the scriptures, most "probably did not comport with the habits of the Cretans." If you allow that the natural habits of the Cretans and the Bereans continued after their conversion, I would agree with you and other liberal writers upon the subject of church government, that that government which would keep in order the Cretans, who, as Paul said "were always liars, evil beasts, and slow bellies," would be entirely unnecessary at Berea, where the noble folks lived, who searched the scriptures daily whether these things were so.

      But, brother Semple, I do not condemn that sentiment you have uttered, when you say that "church government is obviously left by the bible for the exercise of much discretion," because Cajetan, Archbishop Laud, the Erastians, brother Brantley, and Dr. Noel have approved it. These all may agree on many points which are worthy of universal acceptation, and therefore I shall proceed to examine it in my next upon its own merits. In the mean time I beseech you not to identify my opposition to your views in this letter with an idea that I am not personally attached to yourself. In proportion to my esteem for you will be my opposition to those views which I conceive to be hostile to the bible and to the sentiments of those who Mr. Jones, in his Ecclesiastical History, considers the faithful witnesses against error. Adieu.

A. CAMPBELL.      

CANTON, OHIO, FEBRUARY 22, 1828.      

Mr. Alexander Campbell:

      VERY DEAR BROTHER--THOUGH a personal stranger, I have this while past enjoyed a very useful acquaintance with your writings. I would be very much pleased if you could make it convenient to visit this place, as I desire to become more acquainted with you, for my own benefit. Not only a selfish motive, however, is it that I should wish a personal visit of you in this place; but also the great cause of christianity which you so ably advocate, prompts me to invite you to our neighborhood. You have, perhaps, heard of that co-operative society at Kendal, in this (Stark) county, which has been established on Robert Owen's principles, a year or two ago. To this society an emissary of infidelity, of considerable talents, Doctor Underhill, has been sent, and for two months or more, he has been indefatigably engaged preaching that sort of moral philosophy, which the "New Harmony Gazette" contains. He is going from place to place, and great numbers, I understand, are converted to his new doctrine. Though there is considerable alarm among the preachers about here, none but a Roman priest undertook to contradict him; with very little effect, however. Since that time the Deists and free thinkers of this place are getting quite bold, and even the apprentices in the workshops, and boys in the streets, begin to reason away, and rail at religion. I am ashamed for my brethren, the English preachers, who stand back when that man speaks, and only talk when he is not within hearing. Does not this show as if christianity could not be defended against its enemies, of that its priests were too lukewarm to undertake its defence? It grieves me the more, since Doctor Underhill has challenged, boldly, every one who would be willing to question his views, and [433] has publicly called for opposition to his sentiments. I see well enough, that it is not easy for those who have yet so much of the leaven of the pharisees to defend their cause; and willingly I should step forward to show, at least, that there are some very good reasons why we christians still revere the bible as the revealed word of God. But what can I do? I feel myself, in every respect, especially in the knowledge of the English language, too weak for a debate in that language. I wish you would be willing to enter the list with this man. What do you say? Will you come?

      That God, with his Holy Spirit, may guide you to do that which will best promote the kingdom of our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ, is the prayer of your poor fellow laborer in the vineyard of the Lord.

A.      

Mr. A.----------

      DEAR BROTHER--YOUR favor of the 22d ultimo lies before me--I am always glad to co-operate with the household of faith in support of our common cause. As to this Doctor Underhill, he is too obscure to merit any attention from me on the Atheism or Deism of his philosophy. If I lived in the neighborhood with him, and should he throw himself in my way, I might find it my duty either to kill him, or to break a lance over his steel cap. But to go out of my way to meet such a gentleman would be rather incompatible with my views of propriety. If his great master, Mr. Robert Owen, will engage to debate the whole system of his moral and religious philosophy with me, if he will pledge himself to prove any position affirmative of his atheistical sentiments as they lie scattered over the pages of the New Harmony Gazette--if he will engage to do this coolly and dispassionately in a regular and systematic debate, to be moderated by a competent tribunal, I will engage to take the negative and disprove all his affirmative positions, in a public debate to be holden any place equi-distant from him and me. I think such a discussion is needed, and in the armor of the bible, I feel prepared to meet the sage philosopher of New Harmony at a proper time and place. But in the mean time I will not draw a bow, save against the king of the sceptics of the city of Mental Independence.

      My dear sir, you are doubtless more than able to drive off to the wilderness this wild boar who lies under your hills and sheep folds, seeking whom he may devour.

      Your neighboring clergy are true to the character the Saviour gave of such folks in his time--The hireling flees because he is a hireling, when the wolf comes; but the good shepherd endangers his life for the sheep. With every benevolent wish, I am your fellow-laborer in the Lord's vineyard.

A. CAMPBELL.      

      WE intend commencing our Review of the History of Churches, already offered, in our next number.

WEST PORT, KY, 28th Feb. 1828.      

      "In the counties of Fayette, Clark, Jessamine, Bourbon and Madison, there is a great revival of religion. There has been from the best information had, upwards of six hundred immersed into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in the course of three months. This revival seems, too, to be under the preaching of the ancient gospel, by brothers J. Creath, W. Morton, J. Vardeman, George Boon, and J. Hewett. May the Lord's kingdom continue to increase!"

"FAIRFIELD, COLUMBIANA CO. O. Feb. 24th, 1828.      

      "We held a quarterly meeting at this place from the 1st to the 4th of this month inclusive, and we declared to the people that the plan instituted by the Lord Jesus Christ and his apostles for the salvation of men, was accomplished in the exercise of faith in the Messiah, by repentance and baptism, or immersion; and that on these conditions they should receive the remission of their sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit, and that if they continued steadfast in the apostles, doctrine and fellowship, and breaking of bread, and in prayers, they should ultimately be saved.--Thus rehearsing the plain scripture doctrine held forth by the apostle Peter on the day of Pentecost. And the effects were very striking, and truly astonishing; for, in the short space of about three weeks, about forty persons have been immersed, and the church has seemed to be at peace."

"CLINTON CO., OHIO, 1828.      

      "We reside as a church, five miles east of Wilmington. Our meeting house is called Antioch. We commenced our march towards Jerusalem last spring, and we have been slowly progressing ever since. We have met with some opposition, but we still are moving on, and many of the people have a mind to work, notwithstanding the scoffs of the Tobiahs and the threats of the Sanballats. We feel awake to the imperious command of our Lord, Come out of her (Babylon) my people, that ye be not partakers of her plagues. The church met, and concluded she was not in gospel order, and that we search the New Testament to find that order and get into it; and we have come to the following conclusions. That the word church, when used in the New Testament, is with reference, in a general sense, to the whole congregation of believers habitually assembling at one place for the purpose of worshipping God; and that this term is used in the New Testament in this sense and no other; consequently when we hear of the methodist church, we say it is the language of Babylon, and so with the baptist church, &c. And also when we use the term church of Christ, or christian church, with reference to the widely dispersed congregations that bear that name in the United States, we convert the language of Canaan into the language of Babylon. In the second place we have agreed that the first day of the week is the only day set apart by divine appointment for the public worship of God. And 3d, that each congregation acting on the authority of the New Testament, has a right to a plurality of bishops or elders, and deacons. And 4th, that she has a right, acting with the New Testament in her hand, to judge of the qualifications of her officers, and to appoint or induct them into office, without calling for any form, bishop, or conference of elders, to assist in their ordination; and that the term ordination, in the New Testament sense of that word, never meant to lay hands on any body, but simply meant to appoint or set apart by a decree of the church. This far we have travelled together, at least all those who have felt themselves interested into our discussions. Further, some of us [434] believe, from the New Testament, that it is the duty of the church to break bread every Lord's day, but the larger number think this discretionary with themselves, and have agreed, as a church, to have a general communion, so called; for we that believed in the weekly breaking of bread, had previously obtained liberty to go forward in it without hurting the feelings of those who did not see with us. Accordingly we commenced the third Lord's day of January last, and have observed it stedfastly ever since. We invite all those who really believe in our Lord the King, and whose conduct corresponds with that profession, to partake with us, irrespective of their private views or tenets, or their sectarian names; and those who have not been baptized, who bring forth the fruits of a Holy Spirit, are made welcome; and a spirit of brotherly love and forbearance, with a very small exception, has attended all our deliberations, and an earnest desire to know our Master's will that we may do it."

"NASHVILLE, TEN. January 10, 1828.      

      "Our church affairs go on smoothly and quietly thus far. We don't hear of as many things being said against us as at first. Whether our peaceable and inoffensive conduct towards our brethren, has put them to shame, or whether they have given us over as lost, is the cause of our present quietude, I cannot say. But whatever may be thought of our views, we have reason to hope our conduct is such as to afford no ground to others to speak evil, justly, of us--at least so far as I know. Those amongst us who have set out to do our Master's will, so far as we know it, with full purpose of heart, have no cause to repent in consequence of any departure from Baptist customs, or opinions, which has taken place. The breaking of bread, as a part of the worship of every Lord's day, does not, thus far, seem to lose any virtue in consequence of its frequency--but contrarywise. Nor have we discovered any evil in meeting early on the Lord's day morning, for the purpose of praying, and praising and blessing him for his continued mercies. Nor do we, as yet, find evil to grow out of any service we perform on that day, either in attending to the fellowship of the saints, the discipline of the church, or any thing else we are called upon to do. We have lately commenced our meetings on the Lord's day evening, for the purpose of reading the scriptures--commenting thereon, &c. when all speak, one by one, for our mutual instruction and edification. It is a kind of familiar conversation--from which I hope we may all derive much benefit.

      "We have lately received a brother who had been excluded from a baptist church--not on account of misconduct: but because he would not, or could not conscientiously stay with those who retained disorderly persons amongst them. This is a new case in our days.

      "Another novel and uncommon circumstance in these parts took place on last Lord's day. When the church had all broken bread, an unimmersed person, who was sitting on a separate seat, moved with the love of God through the heavenly institution, I suppose, came forward, and, without ceremony, broke off a part of the same loaf, and eat! No one forbade. And I do believe every member present experienced a glow of joy on the occasion. The wine was, then, first handed this same person, who drank thereof. And strange as it may appear, there were many of us who felt considerable solicitude lest it should not be offered by the deacon. That all God's children would put on Christ in being immersed into his death, and then walk as he has given commandment! What a glorious body would the christian church be!

      "Can you ask us, why did we suffer this thing to take place?

      "May the Lord bless you, and make you more and more useful in your day, and to your generation."

      "THE sorrow for the dead is the only sorrow from which we refuse to be divorced. Every other wound we seek to heal--every other affliction to forget: but this wound we consider it a duty to keep open--this affliction we cherish and brood over in solitude. Where is the mother that would willingly forget the infant that perished like a blossom from her arms, though every recollection is a pang? Where is the child that would willingly forget the most tender parents, though to remember be but to lament? Who, even in the hour of agony, would forget the friend over whom he mourns? Who, even when the tomb is closed upon the remains of her he most loved, and he feels his heart, as it were, crushed in the closing of its portal, would accept consolation that was to be bought by forgetfulness? No! the love which survives the tomb is one of the noblest attributes of the soul! If it has its woes, it has likewise its delights; and when the overwhelming burst of grief is calmed into the gentle tear of recollection; when the sudden anguish and the convulsive agony over the present ruins of all that we most loved, is softened away into pensive meditation on all that it was in the days of its loveliness--who would root out such a sorrow from the heart? Though it may sometimes throw a passing cloud even over the bright hour of gaiety, or spread a deeper sadness over the hour of gloom, yet who would exchange it even for the song of pleasure, or the burst of revelry? No! there is a voice from the tomb sweeter than song! There is a recollection of the dead, to which we turn even from the charms of the living. Oh the grave! the grave! It buries every error--covers every defect--extinguishes every resentment. From its peaceful bosom spring none but fond regrets and tender recollections. Who can look down upon the grave even of an enemy, and not feel a compunctious throb that ever he should have warred with the poor handful of earth that lies mouldering before him!"

      "But the grave of those we loved--what a place for meditation! Then it is that we call up in long review the whole history of virtue and gentleness, and the thousand endearments lavished upon us almost unheeded in the daily intercourse of intimacy; then it is that we dwell upon the tenderness, the solemn, awful tenderness of the parting scene--the bed of death, with all its stifled griefs, its noiseless attendance, its mute, watchful assiduities--the last testimonies of expiring love--the feeble, fluttering thrilling, O how thrilling! pressure of the hand--the last fond look at the gazing eye, turning upon us, even from the threshold of existence--the faint, faltering accents, struggling in death to give one more assurance of affection!

      "Aye, go to the grave of buried love and meditate! There settle the account with thy conscience for every past benefit unrequited--every past endearment unregarded, of that departed being who can never--never--return to be soothed by thy contrition! [435] If thou art a child, and hast ever added a sorrow to the soul, or a furrow to the silvered brow of an affectionate parent--if thou art a husband, and hast ever caused the fond bosom that ventured its whole happiness in thy arms, to doubt one moment of thy kindness or thy truth--if thou art a friend, and hast ever wronged, in thought, or word, or deed, the spirit that generously confided to thee--if thou art a lover, and hast ever given one unmerited pang to that true heart that now lies cold and still beneath thy feet; then be sure that every unkind look, every ungracious word, every ungentle action, will come thronging back upon thy memory, and knocking dolefully at thy soul--then be sure that thou wilt lie down sorrowing and repentant on the grave, and utter the unheard groan, and pour the unavailing tear, more deep, more bitter, because unheard and unavailing. "Then weave thy chaplet of flowers, and strew the beauties of nature about the grave; console thy broken spirit, if thou canst, with these tender, yet futile tributes of regret; but take warning by the bitterness of this thy contrite affliction over the dead, and be more faithful and affectionate in the discharge of thy duties to the living."--W. Irving.

      IN shunning one extreme, we are wont to run into the contrary. The Papists in former times made the mere act of immersion or of sprinkling, irrespective of the sentiments, faith, or feelings, of the subject, wash away all sins. They used the naive of the "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost," or of "the Trinity," as they termed it, just as conjurors use the words of a charm. They supposed that the mere pronunciation of the names constituting "the Holy Trinity," together with two or three drops of water from the baptized finger of an ignorant priest, forgave all sins, whether "original or actual," and therefore contended, "no baptism, no salvation." Because they terminated in this abominable delusion and carried their notions to this immense extreme, the Protestants ran to an equal extreme on the other side of the equator of truth; and therefore gave to baptism, however administered, no connexion with the remission of sins. So much did they hate the errors of popery, that they did scarcely name "the forgiveness of sins" on the same day on which they "administered baptism." This is not the only instance in which the Protestants were driven entirely to neglect their duty, because the Catholics ran into some absurdity. Thus, as the Romanists laid so much stress upon fasting, as to make it almost more than "a sacrament," the Protestants will not fast at all, lest they should become Papists; and therefore, although they have some days called "fast days," they take good care to eat as abundantly on those holy days as upon other occasions.

      Now, methinks we are not to be scared out of our duty or privilege because of the errors or follies of others. Nor do we lose sight of the forgiveness of our sins in immersion, because Papists have made a saviour of a mere ceremony. We connect faith with immersion as essential to forgiveness--and therefore, as was said of old, "According to your faith, so be it to you," so say we of immersion. He that goes down into the water to put on Christ, in the faith that the blood of Jesus cleanses from all sin, and that he has appointed immersion as the medium, and the act of ours, through and in which he actually and formally remits our sins, has when immersed the actual remission of his sins. So that he is dead by sin, buried with Jesus, and is born again, or raised to life again, a life new and divine, in and through the act of immersion. This we have seen in the preceding essays is the Bible import of the one immersion. In it we put on Christ, are buried with him, rise with him, have our sins remitted, enter upon a new life, receive the Holy Spirit, and begin to rejoice in the Lord.

      Infidels and skeptics in general, as well as some weak minded christians, object to this doctrine because it is not complex or mysterious enough. It is too easy, too cheap, too simple to have such immense advantages attached thereto. What! say they, is a man to put on Christ, to be born again, to begin a new life, to rise with Christ to a heavenly inheritance, to have all his sins remitted, to receive the Holy Spirit, to be filled with joy and peace, through the mere act of a believing immersion in water into the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I say yea--most assuredly; and request the weak christian who objects to all this goodness and mercy, obtained so easily, so simply, so cheaply, to consider that it is just "thus and so," that God has always dealt with man in things natural and supernatural. Does not a man enjoy life itself and all its thousand joys, by the simple, cheap, and easy method of breathing atmospheric air? and is not this done with so much ease as never to interfere with eating, talking, sleeping, &c.? What so common and so accessible as the oxygen, which is the pabula vitæ, the very food of animal life. Are not all heavens best blessings the cheapest, the most common, the most accessible of all others? And who from natural analogies can object to the communication of so many heavenly blessings through the medium of a believing immersion in water into the sacred name of the Holies? But is not this also analogous to every thing in the Bible? What, says the sceptic, can the Deity, so wise and benevolent, doom mankind to temporal, and, in some instances, to perpetual miseries, because Adam took a bite of an apple in Eden! Tell me, Mr. Sceptic, why should one drop of Prussic acid, or a simple inhalation of a few mouthfuls of mephitic gas, be able to deprive the strongest man on this continent of temporal or animal life for ever and ever! Tell me why a puncture from the point of a needle should deprive the wife of a beloved husband, and the children of a kind and useful parent for ever and ever:--tell me this, and I will tell you why the "eating of one apple," to speak in your own style, should entail so many calamities on the human race. You weak christians, who object to the import of immersion as here taught, remind me of Naaman, the Syrian, who you know was a leper. When told to dip in Jordan seven times and he should be healed of his leprosy, he replied as you--"Are not any of the streams of Damascus or of Egypt as good as the waters of Jordan?" Yes, says his servant, if the Lord had required you to do some great thing, would you not have done it? But he has offered his cure too cheap. It is too easy, too simple. Go, Naaman, and try, but go in faith. He went, he dipped himself in Jordan, and came up from its waters sound and cleansed. The divine appointment and faith gave all this efficacy to the waters of Jordan. Why then should it be thought incredible that the divine appointment should give such efficacy to believing immersion? But I have not yet done with the subject. I must resume it in my next, and shew why the Holy Spirit is promised through immersion.

EDITOR.      

[TCB 429-436]