Volume 7. Number 7. February 1, 1830, pp. 623-632.

• To Bengelius by Alexander Straith, p. 623.
• Extract of a Letter to the Editor, Dated Bluffdale, Green Co., Illinois, Dec. 5, 1829, pp. 623-624.
• To Mr. T. W. by A Constant Reader (Jacob Creath, Jr.), pp. 624-625.
• Reply to "A Constant Reader" by T. W. (Thomas Campbell), pp. 625-626.
• The Times by Alexander Campbell, pp. 626-627.
• [Letter to the Editor] by Epaphras, pp. 627-628.
• To the Editor of the Christian Baptist by C. F., pp. 628-629.
• Reply to C. F. by Alexander Campbell, pp. 629-632.

      DEAR SIR,--THAT my papers published in the Christian Baptist, if noticed at all, would--among a self-created order of proud, overbearing usurpers, whose predecessors had, for many ages, been accustomed to lord it over the understandings, consciences and purses of their fellow-men, not less than the present race--produce such effects as you mention, was precisely what I calculated on. That, like the approvers and defenders of all existing customs, practices, or systems by which the, profit, no matter how false, unjust, and oppressive they may be, they should, as Demetrius and his workmen formerly did when their craft was in danger, raise a hideous clamor, and, instead of coming forth as honest men and real lovers of truth, attempt to demonstrate the falsehood of my assertions by showing their inconsistency with God's word and human reason, they should, by imputing to them a multitude of frightful, but wholly imaginary consequences, labor to deter their bigoted followers from receiving the truth, is no unexpected occurrence, it being the course and the means which interested impostors have adopted in all ages to maintain their influence. When my essays shall be completed, and the system of religious instruction which I think the Spirit of God has proposed and enjoined in the New Testament, shall be, according to the best of my weak judgment, unfolded, all I shall claim for it is a fair and full trial of its efficiency. Should it prove wretchedly abortive like the present, or paganize the world, as its dreaming opposers predict, cast it out; but if, on a fair trial, it should christianize the world in a much higher degree than the present has done, it will no doubt receive to itself a continuance. At any rate let neither friend nor foe censure and condemn it before it is known. All I have yet attempted is mere assault on a few of the out-works of the clerical castle; against the citadel itself not a shot has been fired--and as to the new edifice, not even the foundation stone has been laid. Did ever mortal man act so foolishly as to proceed to erect a new building on the very site on which an old one stood, before he had pulled down the old fabric and cleared away its rubbish? About preaching, teaching, and exhorting, in the scriptural use and sense of these terms, I have certainly said nothing, at least condemnatory.--What place they are destined to occupy in the system of religious instruction which I intend to propose, and propose merely because I believe it to be the system proposed and enjoined by the great Teacher and Ruler of the church on earth, or into it not one peg of mine shall enter, unless it enter inadvertently, will be seen when my views are exhibited. Till then let fuss and foolish clamor cease.

      But if, in the mean time, the tenants of the old castle be disposed to defend their out-posts, I blame them not. A craft which poured annually so many millions into the clerical purse is not likely to be given up without a struggle; let them, however, confine the means which they employ to the defence which they undertake.

      I have asserted that in my judgment it is an act of gross impiety, of great disrespect to God, to presume to alter in any manner, or by any means, the order, connection, or diction of his instructive message; that the act sets our wisdom above the wisdom of God, and tells that omniscient and all-wise Being, to his face, that his message has not been as well contrived and clearly worded as it might have been, or as we can still render it: in short, that we can ameliorate God's best effort to serve us.

      I have asserted that all that is necessary to render God's message as plain and instructive as he ever intended it to be, or our salvation required it to be, is a correct and perfectly intelligible translation, that is, a translation devoid of all unintelligible words.

      I have asserted that unless a person understand the scriptures perfectly himself, he cannot possibly determine whether the explanations and meanings proposed by others, be correct or not; and that, of course, if he receives such explanations as divine information, he deceives himself, and builds his faith on a human, and not on a divine foundation; on the notions of men about the meaning of scripture, and not on scripture itself. It much concerns, therefore, those who are in the practice of proposing their own explanations or notions about the meaning of scripture, instead of proposing God's own word to either children, servants, or others, to see that their children, servants, and others be not made to build their eternal hopes on the fallacious apprehensions of men, instead of the infallible declarations of God. What! Is the language of men fitter to convey information clearly than the language of God?--Truly I cannot believe it.

      As to the inferences drawn from my papers, if they really be such as you state, they can, with truth, be considered only as the ravings of men who have bid adieu to common sense. To obey the positive commands of their Redeemer, and to perform, in a social manner, every action which he has commanded to be so performed, as well as the commemorative supper, and none else, is not only of great use, but of indispensable use to the followers of their Redeemer. We are told that the primitive christians persevered in the apostles' doctrine, (and where, pray, is it to be found? In the inspired written oracles of God, or in the blundering compositions of men?) and in the performance of an action termed koinonia; and in prayers, as well as in the breaking of bread: and in other places that they met for mutual edification. But where is the command to listen to the harangues of uninspired, fallible, blundering clergymen?

      I am engaged at present in instituting a comparison between the instrument of instruction sent by God to a perishing world, and the clerical inventions, which have bred so much dissension, wasted so much time, and cost more than man's residence in this life would sell for.

A. STRAITH.      

BLUFFDALE, GREEN CO. ILLINOIS, Dec. 5, 1829.      

      "MY opinion is not of sufficient importance to render any one vain, but such as it is, it is warmly in favor of the Christian Baptist. I know of no work in our country so well conducted, and, what will be far more gratifying to your feelings, none that is doing half the good in this state that it is. "Campbellism," and "Campbellites," [623] have become very common terms in Illinois, and they are not unfrequently pronounced with a bitterness that reminds me of the "Christian Dog" of the Turks. Is hostility to pure, undefiled religion found nowhere except among Infidels? It is not; nor is persecution confined to the walls of the inquisition. Public opinion on the subject of religion is however, rapidly undergoing a change: inquiry is abroad, and the time has gone by when religious sentiments are to be adopted merely because they are prescribed by men of high sounding titles. In bringing about this revolution, the fearless numbers of the Christian Baptist have been chiefly instrumental, and I deeply regret that you have felt so much of the persecuting spirit of the middle ages assailing you from almost every section where your work circulates:--but go on; and may you not desist till primitive religion is every where restored. How deeply every sincere christian must regret to hear the boast that a "christian party in politics shall be established." Even in this state religion is too often made an electioneering hobby. We have not yet arrived at the "Free grace candidates," and "Unconditional election candidates," of good old orthodox New England; but we are making some advances towards it. A powerful effort is making at the eastward, to direct and control religion in this state. Ten thousand dollars are raising to establish a college here, and for the support of its faculty. You have seen the speech of Rev. Mr. Ellis, to his employers, in which he so feelingly makes known our profound ignorance, and the deplorable state of our morals. He represents us as but little above the zero of absolute heathenism; as electing to the office of lieutenant governor, a clergyman who solicited our suffrages with "a Bible in one hand, and a bucket of whiskey in the other." This, he tells us, is literally true. Pity that no man should have known it except Mr. Ellis. With the lieutenant governor and Mr. Ellis both, I happen to be acquainted. Of the former, even his political enemies acknowledge him to be an amiable and pious man. Of the latter, more hereafter. Several missionaries have recently been sent here, and more are promised. How kind, how generous, and how benevolent in the eastern people to make us the magnificent present of ten thousand dollars! How great must be the love to us that could have induced them to pass by the tens of thousands in their own section, who are suffering poverty, and "all the ills that flesh is heir to," and to whom this donation would have been like a well of cold water to travellers perishing in the desert! The number of paupers in New England and New-York are as four hundred to one, compared with those of Illinois; this, too, when the relative population of these sections are taken into account. A large majority of the eastern people are compelled to toil incessantly and practise the severest economy to support life on their barren soil. I do not speak unadvisedly when I say that the necessaries of life can be procured in this state in as great abundance by two days' labor in seven, as they can in New-England by six. This is a land of plenty, where want is unknown, and where almost every table is bountifully spread. The great mass of the eastern population feel the reverse of all this; they toil like a western slave, and if their labor is remitted for but a single day;

      "To this class of people, to whom a barrel of flour, or of pork, is of more value than six would be to an Illinois farmer--to this class, their missionaries inform us, we are indebted for a large portion of this magnificent donation. What obligations are we not under to make good use of this donation, wrung, drop by drop, as it has been, from hands barely removed from breaking the bread of charity! But I will pursue this subject no farther, and nothing was more remote from my intentions when I commenced writing, than touching upon it at all.

      "I have seen but one copy of your Testament. I set up a large portion of the night in examining it. I think it much truer to the spirit of the original than any other version that I have seen. I have not the presumption to criticise, but you will pardon me for thinking that a passage in John (Evangelist) is not conformable to the Greek of the common copy. Perhaps I shall only display my own ignorance. In John, chap. ii. ver. 4, Ti emoi kai soi gunai; I should have translated, "Woman, what is that to you and me?"

KING AND QUEEN, December 18, 1829.      

      SIR,--While I acknowledge the oversight, for it was an oversight, that a solution of the nineteenth query, published in the Christian Baptist of April last, had been partially given in the latter part of the remarks made on the sixteenth query published in the Christian Baptist of March last; yet I cannot agree with you in opinion in your very positive declarations made in reply to "A Constant Reader," published in November last. In speaking of our popular preachers, (so called in the Christian Baptist) you say--"He styles them living witnesses, who stand as in Christ's stead. Who preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand; repent and believe the gospel. According to these characteristics, we should first conclude, that they are false witnesses; because they never witnessed one single item of what they preach, if so be it is contained in the Bible; for this plain reason, they were born too late." Alas! alas! has "the fine gold become dim?" Now, sir, going much further back than seventeen hundred years, before the editor of the Christian Baptist was born, I would ask you whether, as an individual, you ever witnessed this item, which is contained in the Bible? "They that wait upon the Lord, shall renew their strength; they shall mount up as eagles; they shall run and not be weary; walk and not faint." Again, "To you that fear my name, shall the Sun of Righteousness arise with healing in his wings." And again, coming down to a more recent day; "My yoke is easy and my burden is light." If Mr. T. W. has never witnessed these items, by having the witness in his own breast, I fear that he is, at best, nothing more than a nominal christian. Believe me, there is a difference between belief and knowledge. He that comes to God must believe, that he is, &c. but there is such a thing as knowing him; and not only believing that he is; but of knowing it too. I know, said Job, that my Redeemer lives, &c. Our populars profess to have witnessed those items with many others; having witnessed, in their own persons, the truth contained in them, they stand, being living witnesses, declaring to the church and to the world, that they are such. If any man have not the spirit of Christ, he is none of his! If, then, a man have the spirit of Christ and preach the gospel, he stands as in Christ's stead--God moving in him, both to will and to do of his good pleasure. Should Mr. [624] T. W. have left Bethany, the Editor of the Christian Baptist will please publish the above, (indeed, in any event, I ask of the Editor this favor) and thereby oblige a subscriber who is

"A CONSTANT READER."      

      DEAR SIR,--IT so happened, that, in the course of my peregrinations, I arrived at Bethany just as your critique upon my reply to our communication of May 10th, 1829, was put to press. Not finding the editor at home, as I expected, I take the liberty of correcting the mistake which elicited your criticisms upon said reply. The mistake is simply this: You confound receiving testimony with giving testimony:--"having the witness in one's self," with being one's self the witness; than which no two things can be more distinct. The original and only proper witnesses bore testimony to that which from the beginning "they had heard," had seen, had contemplated, had handled, of the word of life; all which things being external--the proper objects of sense, and consequently of testimony-bearing, the apostles were competent to declare in the character of witnesses. Not so the witness or testimony of which John speaks, general epistle, v. 10. and of which the quotations which you make, as intending the internal experimental efficacy of the truth upon the heart, speak; for this is purely matter of experience. Now, although a man's testimony may be justly credited concerning his feelings, concerning the effects of the word upon his mind; yet it would be an abuse of language--an outrage upon common sense, to call him a witness of the things that passed in his own mind; and still more so, to style him, on this account, a witness of facts, of which he possessed not one item of the certainty of the apostolic evidence, (see said epistle, chap. i. 1. 2. 3.;) but, on the contrary, merely became conscious of the blissful effects of the truth believed through the persuasive evidence of the apostolic testimony above cited.

      You justly say, "There is a difference between belief and knowledge," and I believe you and had you believed yourself in so saying, it would have saved both you and me some trouble;--you the trouble of striving to defend the unfounded and presumptuous pretensions of the "populars," and of laboring to prove me and others destitute of the genuine and blissful effects of the truth believed, by supposing us ignorant of the internal evidence, because we refuse to assume the apostolic character--and me the trouble of endeavoring to rectify those mistakes.

      Now, my dear sir, as you assert with earnestness, that there is a difference between faith and knowledge, let me ask you upon which of these do you say,--do the populars say,--they found their testimony, when they style themselves, when you style them--living witnesses? If they are such in the true apostolic sense, they can justly claim apostolic certainty--they can justly say, "That which was from the beginning, which we have seen," &c. and prove the truth of their testimony as the apostles did. In this way they will ask no favors; they will make no unreasonable demands upon our faith. But every body knows, the populars claim no such certainty; they pretend to no such proofs; they differ nothing from the weakest of their brethren in these respects. They have received and learned all at second hand, upon the testimony of others; and like others, in so far as they have believed the truth, they have felt its influence; and, like others, they can testify what they feel, and this is all they know; and all the rest is faith: and between knowledge and faith you declare there is a difference--and so do I. I, therefore, boldly affirm, that these, so called, "living witnesses," never witnessed one item of what they preach, in so far as it is contained in the bible; and this for the plain reason before assigned--"they were born too late." They may, however, preach their own experiences, and these may correspond with what is written; and, in so far be to themselves a matter of fact evidence of the truth believed; but, of which truth they themselves have been first, persuaded, upon the evidence of the divine testimony, and is therefore neither designed to produce faith in themselves nor in any body else--not in themselves, for it is the effect of faith--"He that believes has the witness in himself." Not in others, for they have it not. This witness or evidence of the truth of the divine testimony, is the property only of him that believes, (John v. 10.) consequently, has nothing to do with the unbeliever, nor he with it. Nor is this given to be preached for the conviction and conversion of sinners; Christ, and him crucified, is to be preached for these purposes: but this internal evidence is for the comfort and support of the believer.

      Again, though the witness or testimony which the believer possesses, is to him divine, being the result of his belief in the divine testimony; yet his declaration of it, being that of an uninspired man, cannot produce a divine faith, his testimony being merely human: whereas, every thing that is necessary to be taught or believed for the salvation and perfection of the believing and obedient subject, was published, confirmed, and recorded in the divine oracles seventeen hundred years ago.

      By this time, sir, I hope you see the striking difference between having a witness, and being a witness;--of having a thing duly certified to me, and my duly certifying the same thing to others. Let us apply this to the subject under consideration. I, for instance, have been convinced of the truth of the gospel testimony by the divine evidence, as exhibited in the holy scriptures, and consequently have the witness in myself according to John v. 16. the truth of the gospel being thus first duly certified to me. I now feel disposed to become a preacher for the purpose of bringing others to enjoy, with me, the same happy privilege, of which I feel conscious in myself; of the truth of which I also thus feel able to bear a certain testimony.

      Shall I now reverse the order of things, substitute my testimony instead of the apostles, preach my happy feelings instead of the gospel, or attempt to prove the truth of it by its effects upon my heart? and thus attempt to convince others that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, the Saviour, because I feel so happy since I believed in him, and seek to persuade them to believe by promising them like happiness? Now if I preach my own experience, and bear testimony as a living witness, I must confine myself to what I thus feel and know. And even suppose this were sufficient to prove the truth of the gospel, and recommend the Saviour, who knows whether I tell the truth, or be a deceiver? or whether I may not be under the power of delusion myself? Ought I not rather, if I mean to be useful, to lay hold on the divine testimony that convinced myself; namely, that of the holy apostles and prophets, with all their arguments and demonstrations, urging these home upon the understandings and hearts of the people, [625] according to the scriptures--being fully persuaded that, if they hear not Moses and the Prophets, Christ and the Apostles, they would not be persuaded though one rose from the dead. These things duly considered, no reasonable person, I presume, could hesitate a moment which of these courses to take; whether to avail himself of the testimony of the primary witnesses as confirmed by God, with all its evidence and authority; or make use of his own experience,--the witness in himself, to accomplish his object. Nor is it supposable, these things duly considered, that there can remain any difficulty to discern between having a witness in one's self, and being one's self the witness of the same thing. Twelve men, eye and ear witnesses to any fact, may be able to produce a certainty in one's mind, which certainty, the person thus duly certified, may not be able to produce in the mind of another by his own testimony of the fact, and effect of his conviction, without referring to, and producing the primary and proper witnesses, that convinced himself. Nor, indeed, in the very nature of things can we conceive how it could possibly be otherwise; he being in the mean time no witness at all to the truth of the things which produced the conviction and its effects in himself. I therefore hope my good friend, the "Constant Reader," will, upon due consideration, feel convinced of the justice and, propriety of my former conclusions, respecting the pretensions of his "living witnesses."

      Our files are full of invectives, slanders, falsehoods, caricatures, &c. &c. accumulated during the last four months, and laid up for my inspection. There are from the orthodox supporters of the fashions of the religious age, in opposition to our efforts. In glancing over a few of them, and only a few of them as yet, I discover that the adversary, called in Hebrew, Satan, is exceeding wroth. I hope it is because his time is short! No person ever was more misrepresented, or more diversely and incongruously characterized than the humble editor of the Christian Baptist. After the reasoning and reasonable opponents had generally gone to repose, a new set of scribblers, for whom I can find no generic name comprehending either their characters or productions, have awakened as from wine, and have raised a frightful and dolorous cry of every note and key against the Restoration. Antinomianism, Arminianism, Calvinism, Arianism, Deism, and every other ism, are ascribed to me from some one or other of this new race of belligerents. "The church is in danger," and "damnable heresy" is the chorus of every verse in these new lamentations of these weeping prophets. They are not dumb dogs: but they bark at something which they cannot bite. I cannot honor them all with due attention, and shall not now select any one of them; but I have one word for all of them--Can your cause be defended, gentlemen? If so; defend it. Show your scriptural authority, show your strong reasons, show your unanswerable proofs. There is no danger you can apprehend from me, if you have scripture or reason on your side. I will not hurt a hair upon your head, nor endanger a penny in your pocket, if you have reasons an ounce weight--if you have a "Thus says the Lord" for it. I will help you if help is in me; and if you build upon the One Foundation, upon the apostles and prophets, I will love you, pray for you, write for you, when you fight for my Lord. I will aid and abet, I will counsel and assist, I will hold up the arms or carry water for every one who stands up for the King. I cannot oppose you, only as you oppose him. I say, I cannot. I have vowed to serve the King to the end of the war, or as long as he gives me a post in the Army of the Faith. You cannot affright me while I remember the deeds of the worthies, nor the impotence of the King's enemies--while I remember the words of him who commands us to fight, to be valiant for the truth, and who holds out crowns to all the victors. Could Noah, Daniel, Elijah, John, Peter, Paul, be terrified by an army of epithets, when they could not be moved from their purpose by all the vengeance of the King's enemies? Lord inspire all thy servants with a courage and boldness like theirs!! Fear not the loaves and the fishes; if you serve the Lord your bread and your water shall be secure. The Lord will not, for he cannot lie. But let me ask you for your proofs--for your thus says the Lord. I bow to this authority. Let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth, and my right hand forget its cunning, if either shall be wittingly employed against the truth. I have for a few months past had many interviews with the leaders of the people. I have heard them, reasoned with them, and have canvassed their opinions. They of the present order, they of the sects, of the different streets of the great city, deepened my convictions that all sects have drunk of the wine of the cup of the mother of abominations. They are not yet sobered. They have taken up on implicit faith, the cup out of her hands. When asked for the why they do this, and the wherefore they teach that, they show that they are led not by the apostles, but by great modern names. They have their Fuller or their Gill, or their Chrysostom or their Jerome, or their Wesley or their Calvin. They have not studied the Oracle with their own eyes, nor heard it with their own ears. They can string texts as the Romanists sort beads of the same color upon the same necklace. They have been taught to quote them thus, and thus to apply them. Hence each sectary gives you the same texts differently assorted. Some preach Calvinism and others Arminianism from the same text. Truly, we are yet in the smoke of Babylon. Lord, turn the people to a pure speech!! "They have itching ears; they have heaped to themselves teachers, after their own taste; and they have turned the people's ears from the truth to fables." These are the signs of the times, and is not this "a perilous age?"

      I speak what I do know, and I testify what I have seen. And now shall I hold my peace, and suffer the taunts of the captivators? Shall I not rather lift up my voice like a trumpet, and show Israel their sins and their errors. And this will we do, if the Lord permit. "For Zion's sake I will not rest, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not hold my peace until the righteousness thereof go forth as brightness, and the salvation thereof as a lamp that burns, and the Gentiles your righteousness and all kings your glory."--The spirit that breathes in these words is that spirit with which I hope ever to be inspired. And when I look around me on the ignorance, stupidity, superstition, enthusiasm, and immoralities of many who have assumed the christian name, I feel myself called and impelled to exert every nerve, and to put forth every energy in this holy enterprize. "Like people like priest," is an old and a true adage. Great has been the success of those who have preached and taught the schismatical dogmas of the times [626] in which we live. The distracted and alienated state of the religious world is more than sufficient proof of the unhallowed influences which are abroad in the earth. Many spirits, indeed, have gone forth into the world. The paper walls of opinions which separate the fractions of the professing world, though inscribed with the essential doctrines of salvation, are, when pasted over and over again, but mere religious phantoms of mystic imaginations. On these topics it is not now my task to dilate; but to say that while this is the order of the day, I will feel it my duty, as I shall answer to the King in his own person, to essay to overturn, to overturn, to overturn, until moths and worms shall have fattened upon the fruits of metaphysical mysteries registered in the forms of creeds, rubrics, and commentaries. Men may ridicule, may taunt, may laugh or cry, as the whim, the interest or the prejudice of the day may move them; but so long as it is written, "It is better to obey God rather than man," I will, relying on the once traduced and persecuted, but now triumphant King of saints, continue in the course which I have commenced. To him I owe a debt which I can never repay; but the homage of a grateful heart is, in his sight, more acceptable than the most costly incense, than the richest oblations which the earth affords.

      Avaunt! then, you who laugh at every one who dares question your divinity. Your power, your influence, though great over the mass of your admirers, is not omnipotent. Greater and mightier still is the truth, and will prevail. You make void the revelation of mercy by your traditions, God will make void your power over the people. Tell me not that you can prove your doctrines from the bible--The Romanist can prove his Ave Maria, and his purgatory after death, from the bible too. The bible will prove any thing if bribed by your rules of interpretation. You can prove the jus divinum, the divine right of synods, conferences, and associations, as St. James, of the English throne, could prove the jus divinum of his family to reign forever over the British Isles. You can prove that creeds are necessary to unite the church, or divide christians; that one man ought to be the archbishop of four churches, or of the commonwealth of Virginia, as it may happen to suit your education. You can prove semi-annual sacraments, and all the religious idols of the age--the holy enterprizes which Messrs. Beecher, Ely, and Brantly eulogize as having fallen down from heaven since the ascent of John from Patmos.--You can pipe and the people will dance; you may sing mournful songs and the people will cry for as many of them as have been baptized into your systems have put you on.

      But say not this is egotism, and that your course is pointed out by the Star of Bethlehem. If you say so, prove it--not by the traditions of the elders, but by the apostles, and then I will help you. Till then, however, as long as life endures, I shall pray--Lord teach my hands to war, and my fingers to fight with the weapons of truth and goodness; from love, good will, and a zeal according to knowledge.

EDITOR.      

Dear Brother,

      IF I can judge from the signs of the times, you have chosen a very appropriate title to your new periodical, (Millennial Harbinger.) The rights of men, both natural and acquired, are better understood at this day among us than they ever were since my memory. The rights of conscience, too, seem to be better understood. Those who have so long lorded it over the consciences of men are obliged to resort to underhand measures to keep in subjection the free-born sons of God: yes, they are compelled to make use of some tools to work with, lest the cloven foot should be too visible. There are in several of our congregations one or two individuals who are willing to engage in the antichristian work of suppressing the rights of conscience, and preventing all improvement, or approach to the happy millennial state. The standing of these individuals in christian society, or their success for popularity, depends principally upon the service they render to the popular preachers. If they can keep the people tied down to the dogmas of their teachers, they may calculate on being honored with a seat in the Association! These men are of great value with the priesthood--caressed, and honored with many honors. This makes them as tyrannical and dogmatical as the Jewish Sanhedrim. I cannot discover any difference in their spirits. Some have gone so far as to pass resolutions to prohibit those who are advocates for the Ancient Gospel from the privilege of proclaiming the gospel in their meeting houses, to the people, that they might be saved!!! The priesthood who have so long kept the people in darkness, are apprehensive they will lose their influence over their congregations. Some of them are lazy men, and depend upon their flocks for the fleece to support them. They are obliged to keep a watch out lest the people learn too fast, and there would be no need of their sermonizing to them. This is one of the reasons why the populars will not come out with the whole armor of God, like christian soldiers, and confute your views of the gospel, which they pretend to say are errors of a serious nature. They find it easier to keep the people's conscience under their control by their silence, than if they were to reason the points at issue with you.--This is the principal cause of their aversion to controversy.

      The light that we have enjoyed from the Christian Baptist has produced a shaking among the dry bones. I do hope the breath of life will soon enter into them. They seem to want an acquaintance with the testimony of Jesus, which is the spirit of prophecy--sinews and flesh, (courage and knowledge,) to enable them to stand up together. I find it a more difficult task to get some sectarians to attend to the ancient apostolic gospel, than those that are without. The spirit imparted by the teachers of some of the sects seems to be both dumb and deaf. Except when these teachers speak, then there is a kind of enchantment, which makes them halloo and squall as if the spirit of the sons of Sceva was in the neighborhoods.¹ How different are the effects of the spirit of the gospel! It was "good tidings, which should prove matter of great joy to all the people." But this hallooing and squalling, then shouting and rejoicing, all at the same time, by the same individual, savors of hypocrisy. Some seem to think there is no religion unless they strike fire and set every thing on fire around them. This is an evil much to be lamented, and savors too much of Samson's trick, when he tied his three hundred foxes, and put firebrands to them. No good came from it.--They burnt up the "Philistines' corn, with the vineyards and olives," and they in return "burnt [627] up his wife and her father." It appears from the language of some, that those who can make the loudest noise are the most pious men and women, though they cannot tell us the contents or genius of one epistle or chapter in the New Testament, nor never were known to read one chapter. I was at a meeting where one of those noisy men was. (He refused to let a brother Baptist commune with him because he was an advocate for the Ancient Gospel. No other fault or charge could be laid against him.) After his communion was over, he strained every nerve to make the people halloo. Quere--Is there no sin to opposing a man in the discharge of his duty to God, when he has become a regular, orderly, naturalized subject of his kingdom? It is the opinion of some that this devout man to his own spirit, (which he labors to make the people believe is the Spirit of God,) has been instrumental in putting out more members of the church than he ever was in getting in! He is ever and anon making discoveries to his hearers, and not one of them have made any improvement from him, but that of prejudice and bigotry against the ancient apostolic gospel. If the conduct of such men proceeds from ignorance, they have a claim upon our pity, and should have an interest in our prayers. But if they know better, and act thus, they are not fit for teachers; and we dare not say such are good conscientious men. What makes our charity fail with such, they will not examine impartially the religious views of others; they make no improvement, nor will they suffer others to do so if they can prevent it.--This is the true cause of some having charged the "Christian Baptist" with being "more mischievous than any publication ever known."

      I find that the intelligent part of the christian congregations are persuaded [they say so] that sectarianism is a curse to the peace of christian societies, and a barrier to their union. I find in the debates of the Virginia Convention, that the wisest and best politicians admit that there is a species of property in that state a curse to them, and they have spent nearly two months laboring to entail that curse upon their posterity!!! I cannot discover any difference in the spirit of the sectaries and the worldly politicians; neither appear to act from principle, but from policy. I always understood honesty was the best policy. When we hear men acknowledge that such an evil does exist among them, and yet reproach end condemn those who are truly desirous of aiding them to free themselves from the curse, how can we reconcile such a course of conduct? Is not this the very same spirit that moved the Jewish Sanhedrim to persecute, condemn, and put to death the Messiah and his apostles? And may we not truly say to those sectaries, You know not what manner of spirit you are of?

      These sectarians call themselves the Church of Christ. Is not this one of those "unlearned sayings and unsound words which gender strife?" that is, the title Baptist, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, or Methodist Church. Can any unprejudiced in an calmly sit down and examine into the state of the congregation of worshippers, the manner in which the gospel is taught them, and the claims their teachers set up over them, and not feel like the Prophet Jeremiah? ch. ix. 1-8. The prayers of all truly pious and benevolent men will (if not now) sooner or later be offered up for the blessing of God upon the labors of those who are trying to destroy the spirit of sectarianism, and introduce the primitive state of the church which all good men desire to see.

EPAPHRAS.      

      DEAR BROTHER,--I have read your book on the subject of immersion, until I find that you arrive at the following conclusion concerning this ordinance, viz.--That faith and immersion are equally necessary to the forgiveness of sins; or that the blood of Christ is the cause, and immersion the agent or medium through which the effect comes, or, in other words, that, under the administration of the Spirit, sin is not forgiven until this ordinance is complied with:--that no acceptable worship, prior to it, can be rendered; or that immersion stands between the sacrifice of Christ and all acceptable worship. Although I admire your zeal and talents as a defender of the truth, and have, on many occasions been much edified by your writings, yet I must differ from you on this subject. I do not do this hastily, but after mature examination of that only standard, the word of God, on this subject, and from which I am brought to this conclusion--That Jehovah, in all ages and at all times, under all dispensations, appointed but one way of redeeming guilty man, to wit, the sacrifice of his own Son. He, though pointed out in various manners, was to all, by faith, the only sovereign relief. Abel, and all the descendants of Adam down to John the Baptist, were directed to look forward to the blood of Christ which was to be shed, and the Bible gives the assurance that whoever understood this subject and cordially believed God's testimony concerning it, had their sins pardoned, and all who shall live upon the earth from the day of the resurrection until the last trumpet shall sound to call the dead to life and the living to immortality, who shall believe God's testimony concerning this fact, shall receive the remission of all their sins, peace with God, and the hope of eternal glory. This all without the performance of any work, or without the loss of a moment of time.

      The wisdom of God is wonderful in this, that the same remedy stood good to all men, during various dispensations, proving itself effectual to all who should receive it, in accordance with the different methods by which God was pleased to make it known. Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness, and just by the same means the Roman and the Galatian believers were saved, and had their sins pardoned, without any kind of works evangelical or Levitical. The terms always run thus, "That God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes on him should not perish, but have eternal life?" John iii. 16. and the following statements to the same effect, viz. Rom. iii. 21, 22, 25, 28, 30. and iv. 5. and v. 1. Gal. ii. 16-21. and 1 John v. 1. The apostle, in the above statements, clearly declares that the gospel, or good news taught by himself and his fellows, when believed with the heart, gave to all who received it immediate peace, without a moment's delay, or a single work of any kind.

      But, it may be asked, why did Peter connect immersion with faith, (or reformation,) when preaching to the Jews on Pentecost, in order to the forgiveness of sins? I answer, that had Peter considered immersion indispensable, and that sins could not be taken away without it, in this or any other statement delivered to men in order to their forgiveness, it would have been criminal in any of the apostles, at any time while preaching, to have left their audience without it. If forgiveness and all acceptable worship depend on obedience to this, then surely the way to be saved must always have included it. But if [628] acceptance and the forgiveness of sins hung on this thing, how, I would ask, did this same apostle, in his next address to these same Jews, omit including it in his statement? Acts iii. 19. Verily if immersion were indispensable to the blotting out of sins, and all acceptable worship, then the first preachers of the glad tidings were deficient in not mentioning it in a great majority of their statements delivered for the salvation of guilty men. See Acts xiii. 38, 39. yet Paul in this, and Peter to the Gentiles, Acts x. 43. scruple not to declare the forgiveness of sins through faith in Jesus alone. If it be true that immersion, or any other ordinance, is the agent, or absolute medium, by which the blood of Christ is to purify the conscience, or wash away sin, surely such an agent or medium is of the utmost importance to the sons of men. If it be true that there is no way of escape without it, then nothing in heaven or on earth can be of more value to the sinner. If the atonement, in this way, can alone cure me, then, to me this and the atonement are of equal value. Suppose, for example, I owed you a million of dollars, and was unable to pay you one, and that you were generous enough to forgive the all; but in one way, and by an unalterable rule which you had adopted for yourself in all cases, that, in order to my relief, I must wait on, and obtain the consent of a third person--would not the consent and concurrence of the third person be equally valuable to me as yours? I think it would, equally so. Think you then that God would have, or has placed the way of salvation in such a plight as in its effects to the sons of men be dependent on the action of the man himself, much less on the action of another? Think you, would not the apostle Paul have called such another gospel? or think you that he would be any better pleased with having immersion a partner with the blood of Christ than he would circumcision in this great work? Gal. i. 6-9, and ii. 15, 18. Make immersion the pivot on which justification turns, and, with one sweep, you unjustify the larger portion of the Old and New Testament worthies. If my safety rests on this, that of all men does the same. I must then look for the same evidence that all others are saved by attending to this ordinance. But on examination I find that I have no testimony in favor of the Old Testament saints. Abraham with Lazarus in his bosom, and on the other side of this new set up gulf the cloud of witnesses must be shut out. Peter, James, John, Jude, Andrew, &c. gives me no confidence for them on this score; and the one hundred and twenty who waited for the Spirit at Jerusalem, give no evidence of their safety in this way. O! no, my friend, the salvation of God stands on better ground than this! It is placed on a Rock which man cannot touch, which no ordinance or any dispensation can add to, or take from, no matter however divinely appointed. God has declared this fact to the sons of men: That he gave his only beloved Son; that this Son was born of a woman; that he was every way qualified to be a ransom for sin; that he was put to death; that he was buried; that he rose from the dead; and all this in accordance with what the holy prophets said since the world began. The facts presented here to the sinner, believed and understood, never failed, and never will fail, to give the man or the woman who thus receives it, immediate peace without, and distinct from, any subsequent act whatever. Rom. v. 1, 2. Until then, I humbly conceive there is no right to immersion, or the privilege to any other ordinance belonging to the kingdom of Christ. But it may be said that he cannot worship acceptably until he attends to this. To which I answer, He can. If justified by faith he has peace with God, and access to him also. Rom. v. 2.Acts ix. 6. "Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?" Then, and not till then, will his prayer come up as a memorial before God, who will answer, "Go to Damascus: it shall be told thee; or send for Peter," &c. Acts x. 4. Then will he be qualified to learn "the ways of the Lord more perfectly:" having first been taught or discipled in the facts concerning the Lord Jesus Christ, he is prepared to attend to immersion and to all other things which the Lord has commanded. Having had his heart "sprinkled from an evil conscience," he is ready to have his "body washed with pure water;" or, like Paul, to "arise and be immersed and wash away his sins, and call on the name of the Lord," and more and more to purify his heart in obeying the truth; for all the laws of the kingdom of Jesus are qualified to do this, and to keep alive in the believing mind the facts by which at first his deliverance came, with all its purifying influences.

      You say in your book that the testimony of the apostles concerning Jesus, is the gospel in word, and that immersion is the gospel in water. And does it, according to this, take the two gospels to save the sinner? or does it take the first and one half of the last? or does it take one half of each to make one whole saving gospel! What do the words of the apostles amount to? To this: they represent a saving fact, which brings the mind of man to the Lord Jesus, the knowledge of whom is eternal life. Immersion does the same: the Lord's supper does the same. But words which convey the fact, the water which represents the fact, the bread and wine which show forth the fact--these are all shadows, figures, or representations. None of them, nor are they jointly, the substance. Christ is the only one in heaven or on earth that can save the guilty. After all this, obedience to all the commandments of the Lord is absolutely necessary to the safety of. the believer. They all promote his happiness, joy, and peace; they increase his faith, his hope, and love; by them he becomes partaker of the divine nature; and by them he escapes the pollutions of the world. The first of these is immersion. To this time things stood as a matter between God and himself, but he now looks abroad in the light which God has shone upon his mind, and relatively he sees that he has to enter into company with the family of God upon the earth; and his first step is to be immersed, professing in words first and in figure, the truth by which he was made free; the hopes engendered by this truth of life and immortality, his connexion with Christ and his people in the victory obtained in the truth figured in this ordinance; his putting off the old and putting on the new man; and from henceforth to walk in newness of life Zionward, in the hope of immortality and eternal glory.

	Yours in christian love,
	C. F.
Baltimore, Jan. 23, 1830.

      P. S. With regard to acceptable worship before immersion, see Acts iii. 8, 9, ix. 6-11. and x. 4-46.

      DEAR BROTHER,--WHAT portion of the human family may attain to the resurrection of the just, I presume not to say. How many Antediluvians, Patriarchs, and Jews--how many of the Pagan nations, before or since the Christian era--how [629] many infants, idiots, and deaf and dumb persons--the testimony of God says not. But the intervention of the Mediator, the "obedience to death" of the Messiah, whether with faith or without it, whether with circumcision, baptism, or the law, or without them, is declared to be the ground and reason which will render their salvation possible.

      Many confound the salvation to be revealed at the final consummation, with the enjoyment of the present salvation which primarily consists in a deliverance from the guilt, pollution, and dominion of sin, and which salvation has been, under the Reign of the Messiah, proclaimed through faith and immersion. In this way "baptism does now save us," so Peter declares. Hence Jesus said, "He that believes and is immersed shall be saved." Few seem to believe Jesus. I must, however, call me weak or credulous, or what you please, believe him. And he that pretends to know better than the Lord, or to separate what Jesus has joined together, presumes farther than I dare follow him.

      You say that all, "from Abel down to John the Baptist, who cordially believed the testimony of God," &c. had their sins pardoned. Do you mean they had their sins pardoned while on earth, and through faith? This is necessary to your hypothesis. Now I must confess that I know of no scripture, from Abel to John the Baptist which teaches any such thing. Not an instance do I know of the pardon of sin by faith only. Without "shedding of blood," without attendance upon the altar, without obedience to the appointed means of pardon, "there was no remission." We know that neither animal blood nor the element of water, per se, could take away sin. But under the former economy blood was necessary to forgiveness; and under the new economy water is necessary--faith is the principle of action in both--and they are the means, not "agents," through which God imparted remission.

      You seem to be aware that your conclusion is at variance with Peter's address on Pentecost, and then endeavor to show that Peter was not always consistent with himself; or, which is the same thing, that in his other addresses he did not speak in the same manner. This mode of reasoning may be employed, and has been employed, times without number, to explain not only immersion, but water baptism, entirely away. But yet you would be able to refute all objections made against Philip for not mentioning baptism to the Eunuch, or against Luke the historian for not recording it, by showing that although Luke did not always relate all that was said, he did it frequently enough to show the usual mode of address.

      But after all, Peter was not so inconsistent with himself in the discourses to which you refer. In Acts iii. 19. he does not proclaim forgiveness as attendant on faith, but on an act called turning to God, or conversion. In the new version it reads, "Reform, therefore, and turn to God, that so your sins may be blotted out; that seasons of refreshment may come from the presence of the Lord," &c. And in the king's version, "Repent and be converted that your sins may be blotted out." So that in both versions the blotting out of sins is not connected simply with faith, but with an act called turning to God, or conversion. Have you, my dear brother, ever adverted to the import of the participle in the commission, Matt. xxviii. Disciple, or convert the nations, immersing them. I need not tell you that this is the exact translation. Let me ask you, then, does not the active participle always, when connected with the imperative mood, express the manner in which the thing commanded is to be performed. Cleanse the room, washing, it; clean the floor, sweeping it; cultivate the field, ploughing it; sustain the hungry, feeding them; furnish the soldiers, arming them; convert the nations, baptizing them--are exactly the same forms of speech. No person, I presume, will controvert this. If so, then no man could be called a disciple or a convert--no man could be said to be discipled or converted until he was immersed. Whatever inward change might have taken place, still the person was not, in the estimation of those who acted under the commission, converted until he was immersed. That was the act by which the command given to convert the nations was to be obeyed. Like or dislike the import of this sentence, it must unquestionably be admitted by all scholars and persons of plain common sense, to be the unsophisticated meaning of it. So that Acts iii. 19. is just equivalent, when the terms are under stood, to Acts ii. 38. So is Acts x. 43. "To him give all the prophets witness, that, through his name, whosoever believes in him, shall receive remission of sins." Remission is here affirmed to come some way through his name. It was the pronouncing of the name of Jesus upon the cripple, Acts iii. which, together with his faith, gave him perfect soundness. It was not simply his faith, but the pronouncing of this name upon him. So Luke teaches. Peter said, "Yea, his name and the faith which is in him, has given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all."

      In the same style Peter spoke to Cornelius' household. Yet in neither of these instances does Peter speak fully, or the historian does not give all that he said--"With many other words" (than those recorded) "did he testify and exhort on Pentecost, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation." And in the house of Cornelius, while he was yet speaking, in the midst of his discourse, did the Holy Spirit fall on all the hearers.

      I might, were it necessary, show that in no one instance in the New Testament, is remission connected with faith alone. Have you considered why, when both Mark and Matthew mention baptism, Luke does not, though he, as well as they, records the commission? He substitutes the effect of faith and the fact of immersion for them both; and instead of saying Jesus commanded "faith and baptism to be proclaimed," expresses himself thus: "He commanded reformation and forgiveness of sins to be proclaimed to all nations." Nothing can be more plainly taught in the New Testament than that the actual remission of sins is now connected with immersion.

      But system will not permit us to hearken to the apostles. Yes, you, yourself, though a century before most of your cotemporaries in the knowledge of christianity, ask me, How can this be, and such a system be true! You speak in glowing terms of making immersion equal in importance "with the atonement." Don't you make faith of equal importance with the atonement? Nay, you make the paper and ink, or the words of a living speaker--the vowels and consonants of the English alphabet, of equal value with the atonement!! Your remarks stop not short of this, my brother, startle at it as you may. And your concern about the Old Testament saints and the Paidobaptist saints, reminds me of the concern exhibited for the salvation of [630] the whole Roman Catholic Church before the Reformation, when the priests beset Luther.

      The super-excellency of christianity is, that it makes the conscience perfect. The Jews, and the Gentiles too, many of them at least, were saved without any distinct knowledge of the sacrifice of Jesus. And I have much reason to think that infants dying will be citizens of the kingdom of glory, without, in this life, knowing, or believing any thing of the sacrifice of Christ, of faith, or immersion. And I doubt not but such Paidobaptists as simply mistake the meaning and design of the christian institution, who nevertheless are, as far as they know, obedient disciples of Jesus, will be admitted into the kingdom of glory. But what has this to do with our obedience who are better instructed! If we profess to know our Master's will, or profess to know it better than others, and do it not, shall we compare ourselves to Jews, Pagans, Paidobaptists, infants, and all other uninstructed persons! To do so would be to prove ourselves hypocrites.

      I have carefully considered all that you have advanced, and many other communications to the same effect; and instead of weakening my assurance that the act by which we put on Christ, the act by which we come to Christ, the act by which we confess Christ, the act by which we become disciples of Christ, the act by which we come into the kingdom of Christ, the act by which we are married to Christ, the act by which we receive the pardon of our past sins, the act by which we come into the actual enjoyment of the salvation of Christ in this present life--is the act of immersion into the name of Christ: which act presupposes faith in him. The principle on which I find yourself and most of the more evangelical brethren object to this, is not because the whole current of the New Testament allusions do not run in this channel; it is not because many of the most literal addresses and expositions of the apostles do not, in the most obvious construction, teach this; but because it is incompatible with the received notions of salvation by faith or salvation by grace. To this, therefore, I shall briefly attend.

      Now I do not think there lives a man who will, or who can, with more cheerfulness, with more cordiality, with more unequivocal sincerity, affirm his belief or his conviction, or, if you please, his assurance that "salvation is by faith that it might be by grace," or pure favor, than myself. But many have been indoctrinated into a faith and a grace of another character than that which the apostles proclaimed.

      Can we not say that men live by breathing, by eating, by motion; and that they live by air, by food, by exercise? Is there any contradiction in all this? Is it incompatible with the idea of living by breathing, that men must eat, must drink, must sleep? Is it incompatible with the idea of almsgiving that the beneficiary must receive the alms tendered? If from pure mercy A. gives bread to the hungry, does it destroy the idea of mercy that they must use their hands and their teeth before they can receive nourishment from it? According to the ideas of grace which some entertain, if God does not, by irresistible force, moral or physical, snatch men to heaven in a whirlwind, or by some almighty influence which requires them to be as passive as a stone, they are not saved by grace at all. And, indeed, many so live, that, if saved, they must be saved as Elijah was translated to heaven, by pure physical energy. This they call grace. And as for faith, it is something wrought in the heart supernaturally, like the creation of Eve out of a rib taken out of the side of Adam. They fall into a dead sleep, and while they are dead God creates faith in them. This being wholly God's creature, they call it the faith of God's elect, or grace. Yet methinks I could suggest to these speculators upon free grace ideas still more gracious. Would it not be more in accordance with their views of grace to have saved men without imposing upon them the necessity of self-denial, repentance, reformation, or regeneration! Would there not be more grace in saving men without either faith, reformation, baptism, or self-denial of any sort?

      My dear sir, you will at once perceive, that while I contend that salvation is of grace, proceeding from the pure, unbought, and unsolicited philanthropy of God, exhibited in the mission and gift of his Son, the only begotten, I do not suppose it to be in reason, nor according to scripture, incompatible with the idea of pure favor, that we must receive the salvation, or that we cannot be saved. And as to grace, if we must receive it by any act at all, it matters not what that act be, if it is one which is in the compass of our faculties--whether by looking with the eye, hearing with the ear, believing with the heart, speaking with the tongue, or walking with the feet. I believe it was of grace that the blind man was healed, though he walked to Siloam and washed in the pool before the power of Jesus touched his eye.

      To graft religion upon a natural principle was exceeding gracious; but I cannot see the grace in grafting it upon a supernatural principle.--Now it is grafted upon a natural principle that it might be by grace.

      But here I have a query for those who talk so much about salvation through grace, which I would be glad to see them answer. Whether would there be more grace apparent in grafting salvation upon a natural principle, or in grafting it upon a supernatural principle? Suppose that the easiest act that a man can perform is believing; that the most natural, common, and universal principle of action is faith; and that God had adapted his salvation to this most common and natural of all principles of action--would this be more accordant with our ideas of favor, than if, after having finished the whole work of redemption, and consummated the whole scheme, it was not adapted to any capacity, or faculty of mind and body which belonged to man; but that, in order to embrace it, he must be created anew, or endowed with new capacities, faculties, and powers, before he can see it, touch it, taste it, or possess it? I say, I wish some of these declaimers upon something they call grace, would humble themselves so much as to answer this question.

      If, however, they will not answer this question, I know they will concur with me in saying that salvation must be received before it can be enjoyed. What then is the action by which it is received? Whatever it may be, it cannot deprive the salvation of the attribute of grace. It is faith, say they, by which we receive the salvation. Then faith ceases to be a principle of action, if it be the action itself. But "faith, works" and is not itself the work. Faith can receive a promise or a truth, and then the promise or the truth becomes the principle of action. Now if there was a promise that I should be pardoned the moment I believe that promise, then I might have a pardon through faith. But if the promise of pardon is connected with any other action than believing, then it is only when [631] I perform that action that I can be assured of pardon. Pardon is ascribed to the blood of Christ as the worthy cause; but it is connected with, because promised through, certain actions. Suppose a Christian, one who has put on Christ, should commit some sin. How is he to be pardoned? By faith simply? No--he must confess it, and ask for pardon. Pardon, then, follows confession and prayer. So the Apostle John teaches. Now, when a disciple who sins, confesses his fault and obtains forgiveness, does the fact of his confession, or his prayer destroy the nature of grace, or render faith of no value? If, then, God has promised pardon to Christians for particular sins through confession and prayer, why should it be thought incompatible that he would require "confession to salvation," or baptism, as a means of bestowing remission of all past sins on coming into the kingdom of the Messiah? If he will not through faith without confession forgive a Christian a known transgression, why suppose that he would forgive all past sins prior to believing simply through faith!

      Our Saviour taught his disciples that, when they asked for forgiveness for themselves, if they did not forgive one another, neither would their heavenly lather forgive them. If, then, conditions of forgiveness are appended to faith in one case, why object to baptism as a condition of remission in another! And surely if neither our confession nor our prayer, nor our forgiving those who trespass against us, precludes the idea of grace, nor impairs the value of faith in obtaining remission, baptism can impair neither the one nor the other, when proclaimed for the remission of sins.

      Nay, it is an act of grace to appoint some act of ours as a medium of remission, that we might have the assurance of forgiveness, and know when we are forgiven. With how much satisfaction and joy can we arise from our knees, assured that we have, through confession and prayer, obtained forgiveness. It heightens the grace by making us sensible when we need it, and when we receive it. No wonder the eunuch went on his way rejoicing after he was immersed. We do not, then, make water prayer, confession, and faith, saviours--Jesus is our Saviour. 'Tis he forgives our sins. And these are the means through which, by faith, we are forgiven.

      But I have wearied you in laboring a subject which is too plain to require much argumentation. Nothing but the obliquities of a metaphysical theology could have created any doubt upon this subject. If, on further examination, you are not satisfied, please write again. With all affection, I remain

	Yours in our common Lord,
	EDITOR.

[TCB 623-632]