Volume 5. Number 12. July 7, 1828, pp. 452-459.

• To Bishop R. B. Semple--Letter V. by Alexander Campbell, pp. 452-454.
• Ancient Gospel.--No. VII.: Christian Immersion by Alexander Campbell, pp. 454-455.
• From the New Harmony Gazette--May 14 [Letter to the Editor] by Robert Owen, pp. 455-456.
• To Robert Owen, Esq. by Alexander Campbell, p. 456.
• Extract of a Letter from a Correspondent in Ohio to the Editor: Constitution of a Congregation in Ohio by A Correspondent in Ohio, pp. 456-457.
• Review of the History of Churches.--No. III. by Alexander Campbell, pp. 457-458.
• Conclusion of Volume V. by Alexander Campbell, pp. 458-459.
• The True and Only Standard: Extract of a Letter to the Editor by N. P., p. 459.
• Passing Tidings by [Alexander Campbell], p. 459.

Brother Semple,

      YOU say, "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?" Almost all the Doctors of Divinity, of all denominations, Catholic and Protestant, with all the great men who are aspiring to a good degree in the modern faith, will heartily acquiesce with you in declaring that the Christian Baptist, taken as a whole, has been more mischievous [to them] than even the publications of Volney, Voltaire, and Paine. If such be the book, what shall we think of the author! To the kingdom of the clergy, and to the reign of ignorance and superstition, to false religion, and to all the aids and supports thereof; I have, brother Semple, always intended that my pen should be most mischievous. I was aware, too, that in advocating the cause of him who was to be as the refiner's fire to consume the dross, and as the fuller's soap to purify the filth of professors; I could not hope for an exemption from the fate of himself and his prime ministers. Him they accounted a public pest, a most mischief making spirit, and them they accounted pestilent fellows, and sowers of mischief among the people. It is enough for the disciple that he fare as his Lord. Some of the good people then, as now, joined with the priesthood in opposing him. When I hear Nathaniel, an Israelite indeed, in whom there was no guile, exclaim concerning him, "Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?" I am not so much alarmed to find brother Semple joining with W. L. M'Calla and such spirits in saying of the author and the work, that it is the most "mischievous" publication in the world.

      But, brother Semple, what mischief has the Christian Baptist done? Tell me the christian on earth it has been mischievous to: tell me the sinner whom it has injured. If it has been so mischievous, so extensively mischievous, you can surely tell us of hundreds, if not of thousands, who surely been in inured by it. "Do then condescend to men of low degree," as Paul advises, and explain to us the nature, extent, and malignity of the mischief done, and then I will arise and make an effort to undo it. But how should I act, think you, when I receive one hundred letters for one like thine, asserting that it has done the most good, and been the most useful paper published in this country. How far a large majority of my readers may flatter me, I pretend not to say: but one thing I do say, that if only one tenth of my correspondents speak as they think, and as their own observation warrants, I shall have reason to [452] thank the Lord while I live, that he gave me the heart to commence, and the ability to conduct this work as I have done. And if your charity will permit you to think that one so heterodox as I, can speak the truth at all, I would attempt to assure you that my anticipations of doing good by this work, have been outstripped a hundred fold. But this by the way.

      I must say, however, that your assertion, if it could be documented by unequivocal facts, would be a justifiable reason for your reprobating the work. For I proceed upon the same principles of reasoning with yourself in editing this work. I feel conscious that some of the dogmas taught from the pulpits and the presses in this country, are more mischievous than the writings of Bolingbroke, Herbert, or Paine. Indeed I consider the doctrine of physical operations, and the textuary plan of preaching, to be mischievous beyond all my powers of expression. But I will not deal in assertions only. I will give the proof. First, with regard to the textuary mode of expounding scripture. Look at the ignorance and superstition of the baptist churches, to say nothing of the other sects; are there not many churches in Virginia, in which there are hundreds of members who cannot pray in public; who could not tell the contents, genius, or design of one epistle or section in the New Testament? I have found many congregations both in the East and West, in which not more than ten or a dozen persons seemed to have any taste for even reading or understanding the discourses of Jesus Christ or his Apostles; and if there were a hundred persons in the congregation, a large majority of these did not know their right hand from their left in the sacred writings, and could scarcely tell the names of the different epistles or writings in the two Testaments. I feel ashamed to avow, what I know to be fact, in nine tenths of the Baptist congregations in this country--and still worse is the condition of other sects. To say that I have found old men in the church that could not tell whether Amos wrote before or after the Christian era--or unable to find where in the bible the writings of any specified apostle or prophet lay, would be supposed an exaggeration almost insufferable. But I could wish that thousands could not be found of this standing. But only look over the faces of the members of many congregations who are polished in the ordinary attainments of this life, and who, you know, could not give the meaning of a single chapter of God's Book; and then, with me, can you not deplore the methods of teaching and the teachers of this age?

      Again, look at the morality, to say nothing about the piety, of many called orthodox churches. I heard that you said of a certain church in Virginia, that so general was the crime of drunkenness amongst the members, that a majority could not be obtained to exclude one of the fraternity who had been beastly drunk on some public occasion. There were so many to sympathize and feel for him, and so many to form excuses for this "remaining corruption;" and because "he was not his own keeper," he ought to be forgiven, even before he had repented!! Again, consider the detractions, evil speakings, surmises; the breach of promises and covenants; the contracting of debts beyond the means to pay, and the many defrauds thus committed with impunity, blaming it too upon the times, and not upon the pride and vanity of the professors. I say, consider all the provisions made for the flesh, for the gratifications thereof, with all the creating a distrust in the public mind of the kindred evils now countenanced, tolerated, and made matters of forbearance in the churches, and think how "mischievous" the systems and their supporters are to the myriads of professors in the present day.

      Again, look at the tendency of the doctrines of special operations and miraculous conversions upon society at large, and especially upon the children of the members of churches, as far as your acquaintance extends. Not being so well acquainted in your vicinity as in many other parts of these States, I cannot say what opportunities you may have to judge of this matter. But I can say with truth, that not only the children of the members of the churches, but of the Bishops, are very generally (there are a few exceptions, and indeed but few,) the most hardened sinners and the most profligate in the country. It is almost proverbial that the "sons of preachers" are the greatest sinners in the congregations where they live, not whither they resort; for many of them are seldom seen, even within the doors of their fathers' meeting houses. O! brother Semple, if Paul were living amongst us, what would he say of our dogmas, and our bishops! If he proscribed from the bishop's office every man who had "not believing children," whose sons and whose daughters could be "accused of riotous living," or of "being unruly"--I say, if he were to act as he directed Timothy and Titus to act, what would become of nine-tenths of our bishops and congregations! Some of the bishops know full well that Paul would not tolerate them at all; and therefore they would rather be styled Doctor, or Rabbi, or Reverend, or any thing that would prevent a comparison of themselves or their families, or congregations, with the instructions given concerning bishops in the New Testament. Now I blame the proverbial profligacy and infidelity of the children of bishops and of members, upon the dogmas taught and the examples given by the teachers and their admirers. So long as a teacher makes the call of Saul to the apostolic office a pattern of conversion, and leads his children and hearers to expect something similar before they can be converted to God; so long will the present order of things continue to exist. I do, then, with these facts and documents before me, and volumes more which I could give, fearlessly assert that some dogmas, and the methods of teaching pursued, are doing more mischief than most of the infidel writers of the present day.

      And when I see a good and wise man, like yourself, lured from the bishop's office, and severed from the flock, the oversight of which you had committed into your hands, and of which you are one day to give an account; I say, when I see one of your high attainments allured from all these sacred relations and this glorious responsibility, to help to build up a college in the city of Washington, which never did promise any spiritual good, and which the Lord Jesus never stood in need of, not even when he commenced with such fearful odds against him, from all the schools of philosophy in Greece and Rome. I again say, when I see you enticed to abandon your flock for this vain project, for the fashion of this world which passes away, I am at a loss to say what greater mischief can be done to the cause of the humble gospel, than the schemes and projects now in fashion are doing, and with the greater effect too, by the good words and fair speeches which make them go down so well with the good people.

      The mischief I have done, namely, that of creating a distrust in the public mind of the divine call and infallibility of the public instructors, [453] of making the laity read with more hopes of understanding the sacred writings; of showing the impropriety of shackling the human conscience, and fettering the human understanding by human creeds, and of placing in their true light some wild and abstract speculations of the scholastic theologies, of enlightening the religious mind on many items in which it was enveloped in ignorance and superstition, is nothing compared with one such occurrence. These, too, constitute the head and front of my offending. For as to the divisions and bickerings amongst members of churches charged upon me, they are as unreasonable as to charge the christian religion itself, its founder and his apostles, with all the divisions and persecutions which occurred in their day, which not themselves, but their enemies and opposers created. It is my opposers that create all the divisions and discords, which they afterwards unjustly charge upon me. I had hopes of finishing my replies to you in this number, but some things yet remain to be noticed. In the mean time I must close, wishing you health of mind and body.

	Your sincere friend,
	THE EDITOR.

      SOME say that we substitute water for the blood of Christ. This is so far from fact, that we give no efficacy to water, but through the blood of the Saviour. Had he not shed his blood, all the waters which once deluged the world would be unavailing. They who say that faith is necessary to salvation, include neither infants nor those who never heard of the Saviour, and argue that faith would be as unavailing as water, were it not for the blood of the Messiah. Yet they make faith necessary. Why then censure us for in making immersion necessary to our enjoyment of forgiveness. We, like them, neither include infants nor those who hear not of the Saviour; and like them we make immersion nothing independent of the blood of the great sacrifice, and of faith in that blood. But we make immersion as necessary to forgiveness as they and we make faith, or as necessary to our being entitled to the blessings that are contained in the New Covenant, as they make sprinkling or immersion necessary to admission into the church. They will not (I mean Baptists and Paidobaptists) receive into the church unbaptized persons. We say that baptism or immersion is just as necessary to our obtaining the forgiveness of our sins, as they make it, to admission into the church. And if they will allow that there is a possibility of salvation without faith, baptism, or admission into the church, why should they object to our remarks upon immersion, which are not more exclusive than their own, seeing they can take so much latitude after laying so much emphasis upon faith, baptism, and admission into the church as to admit the possibility of salvation to infants, idiots, and pagans, remote from christian privileges. I now argue with them upon their own principles.

      In fact, I say no more than the Lord Jesus said, "He that believes and is immersed shall be saved." And he spoke only of them to whom the gospel was preached. I make immersion just as necessary as they make faith, or as the Catholics and Protestants make sprinkling to admission into the church. The only difference is, that I give to immersion with faith the precise import which the New Testament gives it; and they give to immersion or sprinkling, without faith, a significance which it has not. I do earnestly contend that God, through the blood of Christ, forgives our sins through immersion--through the very act, and in the very instant; just as, they say, God receives infants into the covenant or church in the very act, and in the very instant they are sprinkled. Their opinion I have long since shown has no foundation in reason or revelation. We have shown that the truth, of which their views are a perversion, is that when a person believes in Jesus, and is immersed, he has obtained in fact and form, that which they ascribe to an unauthorized tradition. If they have become more ashamed of this human invention than formerly, and will not say of it all that their fathers have said, namely, that a babe in the act of sprinkling "was regenerated to God, and made an inheriter of the kingdom of glory;" if they have degraded this rite to a "mere ceremony;"F and if some Baptists have made it mean no more than "making a profession;" they ought to remember that their ancestors did not do so.

      We do most unequivocally connect immersion and the blessings of the New Covenant, as explained in our former essays. But we object to our objectors, the injustice they do us in representing us as ascribing to immersion the efficacy of Christ's blood; seeing we declare that it is through faith in his blood that we receive remission in the act of immersion. Hence faith and immersion are the media through which these blessings are conveyed to the minds of men as stated in our last. So that the actual enjoyment of forgiveness, acceptance, adoption, and the gift of the Holy Spirit, are by a gracious necessity, made consequent on a believing immersion into the name of the Lord Jesus. But this we presume was explicitly developed in our last essay.

      With regard to the promise of the gift of the Holy Spirit mentioned in the second of the Acts, we beg the attention of our readers. The promise referred to in that discourse of Peter, was doubtless the promise quoted from Joel the Prophet, viz. "I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy," &c. This promise of the gift of the Holy Spirit, he represents as fulfilled on Pentecost in himself and his associates, who had before known and trusted in the Messiah; and as proposed to the present audience when they should believe, and be immersed into the name of the Lord Jesus. This is what the apostle proposed to his inquiring audience when he said, "Be immersed every one of you into the name of the Lord Jesus for the remission of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit; for the promise of this gift is to you and to your children," &c. This gift of the Holy Spirit was precisely and definitely that which was promised by Joel, and not that which continued in the church after the age of spiritual or miraculous gifts expired. Peter, in the house of Cornelius witnessed the outpouring of it upon the Gentiles, when he was called to call them; thus proving the truth of his own words on Pentecost, when he said this gift was not only promised to the Jews and their children who received the Messiah, but also to such others (the Gentiles) as the Lord the God of the Jews and Gentiles should call. Hence the Gentiles spake with tongues, and glorified God before immersion; for this reason, that God designed to ground their plea, as well as their right, to christian immersion upon the fact that he had bestowed upon them the same gifts he had vouchsafed upon the Jews, and thus established their claims for admission into his family. If, then, we were to suppose [454] that the gift of the Holy Spirit promised to the converts on Pentecost consequent upon their immersion for the remission of sins, was the same as that now expected, it might with propriety be said that the Gentiles were not to be immersed for the purpose of receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit, inasmuch as God bestowed it upon them previous to immersion. But when we understand the gift of the Holy Spirit promised on Pentecost and that bestowed on the first converts from among the Gentiles, as the words import in the New Testament usage, we are perfectly exempted from every difficulty and from any reasonable objection, in proposing to mankind indiscriminately the remission of sins and the Holy Spirit through faith and immersion. For so soon as my person, through faith and immersion, is adopted into the family of God, and becomes one of the sons of God, then he receives the Spirit of Christ: for as says Paul, "Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, causing you to cry Abba, Father." This is the Holy Spirit, which all who are now immersed through faith in Christ's blood for the remission of sins, receive, as we explained in our fifth essay on this subject. It is in this sense only that the phrase "gift of the Holy Spirit" can now be understood. I have always contended for affixing the same ideas to the words used by the Apostles, which they affixed to them, and therefore would prefer, in this instance, to use the words Holy Spirit or Spirit of God, rather than the phrase gift of the Holy Spirit, being aware that this latter phrase is, in the New Testament, appropriated to what we now call "miraculous gifts" such as the gift of healing the sick, of speaking foreign languages, and of prophecy, &c. The phrases "Spirit of his Son" "Spirit of Christ," "Spirit of Holiness," "Spirit of God," "Spirit of Love," "the Spirit," "Holy Spirit," "fruit of the Spirit," and "a Holy Spirit," are never used as equivalent to the phrase "gift of the Holy Spirit." When, then, we mean not "spiritual gifts," but "the fruit of the Spirit," "the peace and joy in the Holy Spirit," "the Spirit of Christ," "the spirit of faith, of meekness, of truth, of a sound mind," we ought to use such terms as were by the Apostles used to express those ideas, and not those which by them always meant something else.¹

      The first disciples, when immersed into the name of the Lord Jesus for the remission of sins, obtained this blessing. Those on Pentecost obtained also the very gifts contained in the promise made by Joel; and also all those communications couched in the above expressions. For they not only possessed miraculous gifts, but were filled with peace and joy, with all the fruit of the Spirit of Holiness.

      How gracious this institution! It gives to the convert a sensible pledge that God, through the blood of Christ, has washed away his sins, has adopted him into his family, and made him an heir of all things through Christ. Thus, having his heart sprinkled from an evil conscience, and his body washed with clean water, he becomes a habitation of God through the Holy Spirit.--Thus, according to the tenor of the New Testament, God dwells in him and he in God, by the Spirit which is imparted to him. Thus he is constituted a christian or a disciple of Jesus Christ.

      We are now prepared to consider any objections made to these essays on immersion.

EDITOR.      

Mr. Alexander Campbell,

      SIR--IN the Christian Baptist of the 7th inst. published at Bethany, Brooke county, Va. there is a letter addressed to you by a correspondent, who signs himself A. in which he requests your aid and assistance to discuss some subjects of general interest relative to religion, with Dr. Underhill; and there is a letter from you in reply, declining to meet Dr. Underhill, but stating your readiness to engage with me in the examination of the whole religious and moral system which I advocate, and which you say appears scattered through the pages of the New Harmony Gazette.²

      I have not the pleasure of a personal acquaintance with you or Dr. Underhill; but from the opinions expressed of the talents and good intentions of both, I have no doubt that if you had consented to meet the Doctor, and to engage in a public or private discussion on subjects so interesting to every human being, much truth would have been elicited, and that you would have separated with cordial friendly feelings, and with an increase of charity for each other and for all your fellow creatures.

      As, however, you have declined the examination of these subjects with Dr. Underhill, and have expressed your desire to discuss them with me, upon certain conditions contained in your letter, I feel myself called upon to notice your proposals; and more particularly as my opinion coincides with yours, "that such a discussion is needed." The time is indeed come, when religion should be proved to be true or false, beneficial or injurious; in order that, if true and beneficial, it may become (as it well deserves to be made) the great business of life, or if it should be demonstrated to be founded in error and injurious, that it may be publicly known and acknowledged to be so.

      The priesthood of all the sects in the world are, as it appears to me, as deeply interested to make this discovery as any portion of the human race.

      An investigation, therefore, of a new character, upon these subjects, is become the one thing needful; an investigation that shall be entered into, not for the purpose of gaining a victory for any individuals, or for any sect or party in any country; but an investigation proceeding from a conviction that truth upon these matters is above all things to be desired, because of the benefits which it may be made to afford to mankind.

      In fact, no object can be brought before the population of the world, of equal interest to a right decision upon these great questions.

      Such a decision is required in the present advanced stage of human knowledge, as a foundation for an improved state of society. It cannot be effectually obtained by any two individuals nor except by the agreement of numbers whir feel interested for the happiness of their fellow beings.

      Under this view of the subject, if the leading ministers of the religious sects in this western country will agree among themselves to enter with me and my friends into a friendly discussion upon these subjects either in Cincinnati or any other central place in the western country, this great object may be obtained.

      From such a course it is impossible to say what extent of good may arise; and if you will engage to induce the leading ministers of religion in the western states and their friends to [455] meet me in that city or elsewhere, I will engage to muster those, who at present, are conscientiously opposed to all religions: and in that case, nothing on my part shall be wanting to infuse a genuine spirit of peace, good will, and charity, throughout the whole proceedings.

      Our party would meet under such circumstances, solely with a desire to elicit truth, regardless of all personal considerations; and I hope that all would separate with a very improved knowledge of human nature, and in consequence, with real charity and affection for each other. That, which the friends who think with me, wish to have discussed and decided, is--

      1st. Whether all religions are, or are not opposed to facts?

      2d. Whether all religions do or do not virtually destroy all charity, except for one sect, in thought, word and action?

      3d. Whether religion does or does not render it necessary that the great mass of mankind, in all countries, should be kept in ignorance and poverty?

      4th. Whether all religions do or do not require that infants and children should be taught to think that there is merit in believing that the doctrines of their own religion are true, and that all other religions are false; and that there is demerit in believing otherwise?

      5th. Whether all religions do or do not teach that there is merit and demerit in loving and hating, liking and disliking, according to their doctrines, whether in unison with man's natural feelings or in opposition to them?

      6th. Whether almost all bad passions, vices, and moral evils, do or do not emanate from the instructions given in infancy and childhood, that there is merit and demerit in belief and in liking and disliking?

      7th. And lastly, whether mankind can be trained to become more happy, more intelligent, independent, charitable, and kind to each other, with or without religion?

	I remain yours,
	ROBERT OWEN.

      SIR,--ALTHOUGH I cannot agree with you, that christianity is yet to be proved true or false, I have no hesitation in saying that such a discussion is necessary, as I contemplated in my letter to Mr. A., a correspondent in Ohio, and as I have agreed to undertake in my acceptance of your challenge to the clergy. Had you seen my acceptance of your challenge, before you wrote the above epistle, it would have appeared to you, I think, unnecessary, to have made the proposals which I see in your letter before me. By this time you are, no doubt, informed that I have accepted your challenge in ipsissimis verbis, in the identical terms you proposed it in New Orleans. I take the negative of every position embraced in your challenge--And now I stand pledged to the public, to show that you cannot establish the positions which you have so repeatedly proposed, and attempted to do. I, as a logician, wish to have tangible positions definitely and unambiguously expressed, and I find those in your challenge are sufficiently so.

      As to calling in a conference of all the clergy and such of your sceptical friends as you please, for the purpose of a sort of general confabulation, I have to remark, as this was no part of the challenge which I have accepted, I can say nothing about it. I may, indeed, remark that I have no objection to your assembling all your brethren sceptics, from Harmony to Lanark, if any place could be found large enough to hold them. But as only one person can speak at once to be understood and regarded, I see no good reason of calling such an assemblage--For my part, however, I can cordially agree to your assembling with you in the debate as many of your sceptical friends as you may think proper. For my own part, although always willing to receive counsel well intended, and ably tendered, I am of opinion that it is never to be solicited until we have some misgivings as to our own judgment, and feel our confidence in ourselves somewhat shaken.

      When our debate is fairly brought to an issue, and published, by a faithful stenographer, every object is gained which could be gained from any discussion. I admit that all christendom is not pledged to the consequences of my argument with you; neither are all the sceptics on the continent obliged to yield to your fate in this discussion. All that can be promised from such a discussion, is, that all the arguments and gleanings of two persons, who have espoused the contrary sides in this momentous question, shall be fully exhibited; one of which has devoted all his energies to supplant the present order of society, and to introduce another--the other who has calmly and dispassionately, without any earthly emolument, office, or bribe, to prepossess him in favor of christianity, or to labor for its spread and prosperity. One of which, has felt so much assurance that all religion is false and injurious to society, as to embolden him to challenge the teachers of religion to maintain it if they can--the other, confident of its truth and divine excellence, impelled by its precepts, animated by its hopes, and emboldened by its promises, is willing to hazard every thing dear to him as a man, as a mortal, and an immortal being, in support of its truth, and in aid of its extension throughout the world.--Such a discussion cannot fail to be pleasing and profitable to all concerned, and the perusal of it, faithfully exhibited, cannot fail to be of some consequence to posterity. You will therefore please to remember, Mr. Owen, that I have accepted of your challenge, and all that remains, is to settle the preliminaries as soon as possible. I have, from a little experience in public discussions, no doubt, but that I shall be able to maintain perfect good humor throughout the whole; and I have reason to believe that your philosophy has improved your good nature so far as to make you an acceptable disputant.

	Yours respectfully,
	A. CAMPBELL.

      "WINDHAM, May 27th, 1828, was constituted the Church of Christ in Windham, upon the declared and manifest faith and obedience of the ancient apostolic gospel, as delivered by the Apostle Peter to the Jews on the day of Pentecost, Acts ii. and afterwards by the same Apostle to the Gentiles, assembled in the house of Cornelius, Acts x. and by the Apostle Paul, to both Jews and Gentiles in Antioch in Pisidia, xiii. and as declared by all the Apostles in the apostolic writings: which writings, taken in their due connexion with the Old Testament, and the preceding books of the New, this church assumes as the only, and all-sufficient rule of faith and obedience; withal, assuming the New Testament as being as perfect a rule, directory, and formula for the faith, worship, discipline, and government of the New Testament [456] church, and the particular duties of its members; as the Old Testament was, for the faith, worship, discipline, and government of the Old Testament church, and the particular duties of its members. Compare Mal. iv. 4. with Math. xxviii. 18-20. It is farther declared that this church, fully recognizing the constitutional unity of the body of Christ, and determined by the grace of God, in obedience to the apostolic doctrine, to maintain and promote this unity, both within itself, and with all the declared and obedient disciples of the Lord Jesus, extends its fellowship to all such as have obeyed the gospel according to the above scriptures, by immersion into the one faith once delivered to the saints, as the same is expressly declared in the portions above cited; and who continue to justify their profession of said faith by a life of practical holiness, (according to the law of Christ.) Under the profession of the faith and obedience specified and provided for, in the above declaration, the undernamed disciples, in obedience to the Great Head of the church, and for the performance of the duties which, under him, they owe to each other, and to all men, have unanimously agreed to form themselves into a church to be designated as above. Done in presence of Bishops Thomas Campbell and Marcus Bosworth, invited to preside and assist for said purpose. After the enrolment of the members, Reuben Ferguson, lately an exhorter and preacher of the Methodist order, was duly and unanimously chosen a Bishop of said church; and ordained by the imposition of the hands of the said bishops and others, elderly members of said church, or assisting with it, by request, upon the occasion."

      WHILE all of the above churches manifest a scrupulous regard to the grand constitutional principles of the kingdom of Jesus Christ, they seem to differ from each other in their views of the ordinance of the Great King on the subject of naturalization. Some of them receive unnaturalized persons into his realm on the ground of forbearance. On this subject I write with great caution, for I know this question of forbearance has in it some perplexities of no easy solution, and is at least of as difficult solution as that concerning the amalgamation of the Jews and Gentiles in the christian church, decided by the apostles and elders in the city of Jerusalem. On the scriptural propriety of receiving unnaturalized or unimmersed persons into the kingdom into which the Saviour said none can enter but by being born of water and of Spirit, little can be said either from precept or example. For it is exceedingly plain, that from the day on which Peter opened the reign of the Messiah, on the ever memorable Pentecost, no man entered the realm but by being born of water. Jew and Gentile, Barbarian, Scythian, bond and free, could find but one gate into the empire of Immanuel, and with joy they enter in at this door. As yet there was no breach in the walls, no scaling ladders, no battering rams, to find an easier way. Jesus was yet recognized as the living way; and as he came by water and by blood, so he ordained that through faith in his blood and through water, the soldiers of the cross must follow him. There were even in those hale and undegenerate days, matters on which patience and endurance must be exercised; but they were all within the constituted realms. There was none without the gates demanding recognition from those within, on the grounds of charity. But now the walls of this city of refuge, the ramparts of Zion have been broken through; and while the inhabitants of the city of God have gone out and trafficked with the world, the world has come in and trafficked with them. And now they sue for a treaty offensive and defensive. Well they urge their plea with an embassy of weeping mothers and screaming infants, and who is proof against such importunities? But the question of the greatest difficulty to decide, is, whether there should be any laws or rules adopted by the churches relating to the practice of receiving persons unimmersed in the assemblies of the saints. Whether on the ground of forbearance, as it is called, such persons as have been once sprinkled, or not at all, but who are satisfied with their sprinkling, or without any, are, on their solicitation, to be received into any particular congregation, and to be treated in all respects as those who have, by their own voluntary act and deed, been naturalized and constitutionally admitted into the kingdom. To make a law that such should be received, appears to me, after long and close deliberation, a usurpation of the legislative authority vested in the holy apostles, and of dangerous tendency in the administration of the Reign of Heaven. Again, to say that no weak brother, however honest in his professions, excellent in his deportment and amiable in his character, who cannot be convinced but that his infant sprinkling is christian baptism, and who solicits a participation with us in the festivities of Zion: I say, to say by a stern decree that none such shall on any account be received, appears to be illiberal, unkind, censorious, and opposite to that benevolence which is one of the primary virtues of christianity.

      Yet some will urge that if such a person is very solicitous for the enjoyment of the benefits of the church, it is no very difficult or hazardous thing for him to be immersed on his own profession, and for the objects contemplated therein. And that if his love of the christian institution will not make him forbear with himself, or in other words, sacrifice his own partialities, we are not warranted, nor warrantable, in receiving him. Now, although I could feel myself at perfect liberty, in full accordance with the requirements of the Great King, to receive into the most cordial fellowship every one which I have reason to recognize as a disciple of Jesus Christ, with all his weaknesses, as I would call them; yet I could not, and dare not, say to all the members of a christian congregation, that they must do so too; and as I have no right to dispense with any of the institutions of Jesus Christ, I could not approve the adoption of a rule to receive such persons, which, in its direct tendency, aims at the abolition of one of the fundamental laws of the empire. Again, if we are to fritter down the christian institution to suit the prejudices and weaknesses of disciples, it would soon be divested of every prominent feature characteristic of its grand original. There are, indeed, many matters on which there is full scope given for the display of moderation, condescension, and forbearance, without infringing upon the constitutional provisions of the kingdom. We may shew all courtesy, kindness, and hospitality to strangers, but to invest them with the rights and immunities of citizens, without their voluntary submission to the constitutional requirements in order to naturalization, would neither be beneficial to them, nor safe to the empire. Christians were called a sect in the times of the apostles. They had their peculiarities then; and although there [457] were no sects tolerated amongst them, they were a sect as regarded all other religious communities. In divesting christianity of its sectarian character, we must not divest it of the peculiarities which made it a sect in its best days, and which will keep it a sect until all the kingdoms and religions in the world shall bow to our King.

      I know that there is something called charity in the world, which is very much flattered; but when dissected, is a hideous thing. To please the taste of any body and every body, it will administer to all their requirements. If medicine or poison is sought after, with equal liberality it bestows on all. Like a too indulgent mother, it defeats itself. If it would be cruel to give a scorpion when a fish is asked, it is no better to give a scorpion when a scorpion is desired, especially if he who desires to obtain it sues for it through mistake. On the same principles, it is not charity, in its true import, to gratify the vitiated humor, or caprice, or prejudice, or weakness of every body. While we are willing to go more than half way, where it is optional with us to go at all, to meet the doubting and the weak, there are certain occurrences and circumstances which compel us not to move at all, and the same charity, properly so called, governs us in both cases. But here we do not argue the merits of this question at all; but only state the result of much examination and reflection on the subject.

      We have stated our reasons long since why we do not consider either the holy kiss, or the washing of the saints' feet, ordinances of the church, or public acts, to be habitually and statedly practised. If christians are to salute one another with a holy kiss in the public assemblies, reason would say that it should be when they first see each other in the morning of the Lord's day, and not after they have shook hands and asked one another how they fare. To see them first salute one another in the usual way, and then afterwards introduce the holy kiss as a religious ordinance, and attend upon it with a stiff formality as such, is neither accordant with scripture nor reason. But of this we have said enough on a former occasion.

      In the preceding page we gave, in lieu of the history of another church, the constituting of one among the new converts in the state of Ohio. We have had no room for remarks upon it in the present volume, and as every thing of importance in it has been so often canvassed in the preceding volumes, we do not think it so necessary to dilate on it at this time.

EDITOR.      

      "ALL things are full of labor" was no new discovery in the days of king Solomon. Yet all things are regularly and incessantly tending to certain ends and beginnings. The ceaseless changes in the face of nature, the varied year, are but the symbols of that spiritual and moral variety which characterize the world of minds; and every thing in the empire of thought is either beginning or ending some new condition or circumstance in the joys or sorrows of human beings. For all the rivers do not more certainly run into the ocean than all our actions tend to make us happy or miserable either in the present state or in the future. Men often do, but never should forget that all their actions, which are the result of their own volitions, have a tendency necessary and unavoidable to promote their own joy or sorrow. And as nothing is final on earth, but only tending to eternity, we ought to know and bear in mind that we can neither enjoy nor suffer the full result of our conduct while in the first act, in the mere prelude of the great drama of human existence. Our own happiness or misery is so intimately connected with that of others, that few, if any, of our actions terminate wholly upon ourselves. The good or ill of human conduct is seldom or never individual in its, character or termination. All these reflections ought to admonish us of our great responsibilities, and should teach us that there is nothing more unworthy of us as rational beings than to act without deliberation and proper motives. We are only so far rational as we act in subordination to truth; and nothing is truth, but what is real. All the actions which are prompted by mere appetite, animal passion, or caprice, are purely animal, and belong to us in common with other animals of inferior endowments. We only act the man when we act under the influence of motives drawn from the high relations in which we stand to the Creator and our fellow immortals. Private and public good, mental and corporal, temporal and eternal, fill up the whole range of commendable actions. To lose sight of either, is folly--to keep the whole before our minds, is wisdom. Efforts designed and well directed to promote the more lasting enjoyments of rational beings, are of the highest order; and amongst the wise and good, are most highly appreciated. But it so happens, that, in consequence of the common blindness of men to their true interest, the imposing influence of present fascinations, and the consequent error thereby introduced into the mind, there is nothing more generally disparaged than those efforts which are intended to put men in the legitimate course to real enjoyment. Hence the opposition with which we have to conflict in attempting to direct the public in the acquisition of the true and lasting enjoyment of truth. For although truth is opposed to the happiness of no man, there are many to oppose truth. But they oppose it thro' mistake, imagining it to be at variance with their honor, interest, or something identified with their happiness. I have long thought that truth is recommended merely because it necessarily tends to happiness, and I do not know any thing in the volume of supernatural truth which is not in its very nature promotive of the true happiness of all who know and obey it. Being aware of this, and being assured that all error ends in misery, we have occupied ourselves now for five years in directing the public attention to what we have learned to be the most important truths bearing upon the actual condition of our cotemporaries. And in closing this fifth volume of our labors, we cannot refrain from reminding our readers that all their happiness consists in knowing and obeying truth. Error is the most unprofitable commodity in the whole universe--and the sooner it is detected, the better.

      We oppose error because it opposes happiness. We are opposed by the same sort of characters who have always opposed reformation; and for the same reasons. There have been millions of the human family kept in vassalage, religious, moral, and political; and myriads have fattened upon them, merely through the influence of error. And now, even now, if error was detected, how many who are lording it over the consciences of men and rioting in insolent ease, would be divested of their influence and livings, and would sink down to their proper level in society. How many useful persons would arise and diffuse the blessings of light and liberty far and wide. But so long as the popular errors of the day are patronized and triumphant, both the proper [458] development of the human mind and the enlargement of human happiness, must continue impracticable. And until men's ears are turned from theological fables to the oracles of God, we cannot expect better times or a greater augmentation of human enjoyment.

      We intend continuing our exertions, with increased energy, in this cause; and hope never to be less deserving of public patronage than we have hitherto been.

EDITOR.      

      "ONE thing, however, I was more than a little surprised at--to hear so many, and of so many, talking about the church coming out of Babylon, and the restoration of primitive christianity and order; and to see and hear of so little exertion made to bring it about; and even its warmest advocates stating that it would not do to emerge suddenly. It brought fresh into my mind a circumstance that transpired when I was a little boy, that I have often thought of when viewing the christian church receding from the right rule (the Scriptures) in measuring themselves by themselves: An old uncle of mine, who had use for a number of wooden pins, set me to sawing up tough rails into blocks for that purpose. He sawed off one as a measure for me to saw by, and went away. I commenced. I put the measure on for the first block. After starting the saw I threw down the measure, and held the block I was sawing with one hand till I cut it off; then made use of it to measure the next, and so on until I had sawed a great many. My uncle returned and told me I was spoiling his timber. I told him I did not know how that could be. Where is the measure I gave you? He said. I replied, I measured the first block by it, the next by the last one, and so on, and when I took a good look, I found I had about as many lengths as blocks. He recommended the propriety of hunting up the first block that he gave me, and requested me to preserve it as a measure."

N. P.      

      ONE Methodist and two Universalist teacher or "ministers," as they are called, in Ohio, of good standing and respectable attainments, have recently renounced their favorite isms, and have been immersed into the belief of the ancient gospel.

[TCB 452-459]