Volume 7. Number 11. June 7, 1830, pp. 650-656.

• [Letter to the Editor] by R. T. Brown, pp. 650-651.
• Remarks on the Above by Alexander Campbell, p. 651.
• [Letter to the Editor] by I. I****, pp. 651-652.
• Reply to Brother I****. by Alexander Campbell, pp. 652-653.
• A Dialogue between A and B, the One a Member of Silver Creek Association, and the Other of Lost River Association, pp. 653-654.
• [Note on "A Dialogue . . ."] by Alexander Campbell, p. 654.
• Essays on Man in His Primitive State, and under the Patriarchal, Jewish, and Christian Dispensations.--No. XV.: Christian Age.--No. I. by Alexander Campbell, pp. 654-656.

ARCADIA, RUSH CO., IA., March 15, 1830.      

Dear Brother,

      A GENERAL conspiracy is forming among the "Orthodox Calvinistic Baptists" in Indiana, the object of which is to put a stop to the alarming spread of those principles contained in the Christian Baptist, and advocated by all who earnestly pray for a "restoration of the ancient order of things;" which they, however, have seen proper to honor with the name of "damnable heresies." I have had the honor of being ranked among the first victims of this conspiracy. I have been immolated on the altar of party prejudice and sectarian jealousy. I have passed through the furnace of clerical indignation, "heated seven times hotter than it was wont to be heated." But the smell of fire has not passed on my garments.--Clothed with the panoply of faith, with the volume of unerring wisdom in my hand, I would be ashamed to fear a host of sectarians who have no stronger armor, either offensive or defensive, than their creed.

      Nearly four years ago I had the presumption to oppose the doctrine of creeds, &c., in a public assembly, for which I received repeated rebukes from the dominant clergy, who, however, made no attempt to oppugn the arguments I advanced in favor of my position. The three years immediately succeeding this, passed with my saying little or nothing on this or any other of the religious questions which, during that period, were agitated; my time being entirely engrossed by studies of a different nature.

      After spending some time at Cincinnati, I returned to my former residence in Rush county, and being more at leisure I determined to give the scriptures a careful, and if possible, an impartial examination. I did so, without favor or affection to any party. The effect was a thorough conviction of the truth of the following propositions, viz.--

      1. Faith is nothing more nor less than a conviction of the truth of any position from evidence.

      2. That faith in Jesus Christ is nothing more than a belief of the facts recorded of him by the Evangelists, to-wit: that Jesus of Nazareth was the promised Messiah, and that he gave impregnable proof of his divine mission by his miraculous birth, by the numerous miracles which [650] he wrought while living, and by his death, resurrection, and ascension.

      3. The evangelical writings, containing the facts relative to the mighty works which were done by Christ and his apostles, together with the corroborating testimony of the prophecies, form altogether a phalanx of evidence sufficient to convince any reasonable mind that "Jesus is the Christ."

      4. I became convinced that the popular doctrine of a partial atonement, and unconditional election and reprobation, were alike anti-christian and unscriptural.

      These opinions I at all times expressed freely, not a little to the annoyance of my Calvinistic friends. At length, after considerable threatening, the following resolution was adopted by the church on Clifty for my special benefit:--

      "Resolved, That we will not fellowship the doctrines propagated by Alexander Campbell, of Bethany. Virginia."

      I entered my protest against this resolution, as I conceived it was intended to condemn a man without giving him an opportunity of defence. But I soon learned I was to share the same fate. The heresies of Campbellism (as they pleased to call it) were charged home on me. I claimed the right of defence, but was informed it was a crime which did not admit of a defence. I next denied the charge of being the disciple or follower of any man and required the proof of it. I was again told that no evidence was necessary. Thus you see I was charged without truth, tried without a hearing, and condemned without evidence: and thus, in due form, delivered over to Satan as an incorrigible heretic. Several more of this church are destined shortly to share my fate. Bishop John P. Thompson, and about forty members of Little Flat Rock Church, have been arrested for denying the traditions of the fathers, and will no doubt be formally excommunicated.

      Notwithstanding these sorry attempts of the clergy to patch the worn out veil of ignorance which has long covered the eyes of the people, light is dawning apace. Truth is omnipotent and must prevail.

      I shall make a defence of my principles before a candid public, the substance of which I would send you for publication in the Harbinger, if it would not be too much a repetition of what you have already said on those subjects in your essays published in the Christian Baptist.

      The above facts I consider as public property.

	Yours in the bonds of christian love,
	R. T. BROWN.

      WHAT means this intolerant spirit? I ask again, What is the meaning of it? Is every man who acknowledges in word and deed the supreme authority of Jesus of Nazareth as Lord Messiah--who has vowed allegiance to him--who is of good report as respects good works, to be sacrificed upon the altar of opinion--because his opinion upon some speculation, fact, or doctrine, differs from mine? Because, while he admits that Jesus died for our sins, he will not dogmatize upon the nature, extent and every attribute of "the atonement"--is he to be deemed unfit for the kingdom of heaven? Admitting "an election of favor," is he to be given over to Satan because of some opinion about the conditionality or unconditionality of that election?--In one word, are we to understand that an exact agreement in opinion, a perfect uniformity is contended for as a bond of union? If so, let our Baptist brethren say so. Let them declare to the world, that

That a disagreement in the tenth opinion, or in the ten thousandth opinion, breaks the bond of union. If this be the decree, let it be published and translated into all languages--let it be known and read by all men. If, again, a perfect uniformity be not decreed, but a partial uniformity, let it be proclaimed in how many opinions an agreement must be obtained; then we shall know who are, and who are not, to be treated as heathen men and publicans.

      What makes divisions now? The man who sets up his private judgments as the standard of truth, and compels submission to them; or the man who will bear with a brother who thinks in some things differently from him?

      No man can, with either reason or fact on his side, accuse me of making divisions among christians. I declare non-fellowship with no man who owns the Lord in word and deed. Such is a christian. He that denies the Lord in word or deed is not a christian. A Jew or a Gentile he may be, a Pharisee or a Sadducee he may be, but a Christian he cannot be! If a man confess the Lord Jesus, or acknowledge him as the only Saviour sent by God: if he vow allegiance to him, and submit to his government, I will recognize him as a christian and treat him as such. If a man cause divisions and offences by setting up his own decisions, his private judgment, we must consider him as a factionist, and as such he must be excluded--not for his difference in opinions, but because he makes his opinion an idol, and demands homage to it.

      There are some preachers in the East and in the West--some self-conceited, opinionative dogmatizers, who are determined to rend the Baptist communities into fractions by their intolerance. They wish moreover to blame it upon us. As well might they blame the sun for its light and heat as blame us for creating divisions. When we shall have cut off from the church any person or persons because of a difference of opinion, then they may say, with reason, we cause divisions. Till then it is gratuitous. They are the heretics, not we. Yes, they are the heresiarchs, and will be so regarded by all the intelligent on earth, and by all in heaven.

EDITOR.      

MILLERSBURG, March 16,1830.      

      DEAR BROTHER:--Not long since I addressed you a letter, in which I expressed my decided approbation of your Christian Baptist, and of the manner in which you, as an editor, had conducted that paper. My reason for so doing was simply because, in the general, I most highly approved of your course, so far as I could understand it, from a constant perusal of all you had written, from your debate with Walker down to the time of my writing that letter. I approved of your writings because I saw, generally, a clearness and candor in them, rarely to be met with in these dogmatical days.

      I also saw, as I thought, a foundation laid for a general union of all christians who believed Jesus to be the Christ, the Son of the living God, were baptized into his name, and bore the peaceable fruits of righteousness.

      I supposed that when a pure speech was restored to Zion, sectarian technicalities would die a natural death. I judged that when high-sounding titles were no more, and the crown of glory had fallen from the heads of the proud usurpers [651] of the throne of the King of Saints, that the free-born sons of God would flow together as tributary streams to the ocean.

      I had hoped that, through your influence, thousands would be taught the pure language of Canaan; and that, of course, those angry bickerings would cease to afflict the christian world, as they have done for the last fifteen hundred years. And I do think, that, taking into view what you have written upon the various subjects that have occupied your attention, you ought to have been the last man in the world who would have used the scriptures in any other than their most natural import. You have contended, and justly too, that the word of God should stand erect in its connexion, unmutilated by the cunning artifice of designing men; and that its most natural import is truth. And yet, after all, from expressions occasionally found in your writings I am fearful lest my high hopes of your usefulness should be blasted.

      In a paragraph said to be written by you, and published in a Cincinnati paper, you say, "It is necessary to believe, as a cardinal point, that Jesus Christ is God manifested in the flesh, the Messiah of God;" that "you cannot fraternize with those who deny the Lord that bought them," &c.

      Far be it from me to fraternize with such: but who are they? Those who confess him to be the Son of God, who speak of him in scripture language, or those who speak of him in language not known in holy writ? The meaning of the article under consideration, if I understand it, is simply this: "Trinitarian brethren, in answer to whom I write this letter, dismiss your fears; I'm no Unitarian; I believe Jesus Christ to be the Supreme God: and that it is essential to salvation to believe this doctrine: I cannot, therefore, fraternize with Mr. Flint, or any other man who denies this cardinal point--who denies the Lord that bought him." If this be not the plain meaning of that letter, I confess I know not what it means. Will you please to tell me in your answer whether or not this is your meaning; whether or not you are disposed to exclude from your fellowship those who, though they heartily believe all that the scriptures say concerning Christ, as they understand them, do nevertheless reject the doctrine that Christ is God Supreme?

      In the first number of the Millennial Harbinger, you say, that, "from the demonstrations of the Spirit, the ancients were enabled to call Jesus King Eternal, immortal, and invisible." (Should you not have added. "the only wise God?" then you would have been understood.) In volume vii. No. 8, of the Christian Baptist, you say, "The King Eternal, Immortal, and Invisible, died for our sins." &c. Now if you will show me the scripture that says the ancients were enabled, or ever did call Jesus King Eternal, Immortal, Invisible; or says that the King Immortal and Invisible died for our sins. I will yield the point. And I now pledge myself to you, so soon as you prove that the King Eternal. Immortal, and Invisible, died for our sins, I will prove to you and to the world; that the only wise God died upon the Roman cross!!

      That Jesus is anywhere called King Eternal, Immortal, and Invisible, I do deny.

      This very language, if we are to understand the scriptures in their most natural import, is used to show us that there is a King Eternal, Immortal, and Invisible, who only has immortality, dwelling in the light: whom no man has seen or can see; who is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. But how could such language be applied to Christ? He was seen by Cephas--then by the twelve--after that he was seen by above five hundred brethren--and last of all be was seen by Paul. How, then, can he be that Invisible God whom no man has ever seen, or can see?

      Jesus is our great High Priest, who is passed into the heavens to appear in the presence of God for us; and it is said, on the best authority, that, to him every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess that he is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. And to this my heart responds, Amen!

      I am fully aware that you do not like to insert or answer such communications as this. And although you may think my criticisms little things; yet as sure as I write, these little things are identifying you with the belligerents and sectarians of the day; and so far as you are concerned, will give tone to the reformation in which you are a principal actor, and ultimately exclude from fellowship those who cannot use the same language. I had never troubled you with this scrap, but for the love I have for you and for that cause with whose interests you stand so closely connected. No man probably in America has as much in his power as you. The eyes of thousands are upon you. You certainly occupy a most responsible station; and I had fondly hoped (But alas! I hoped in vain) that no unscriptural expression would ever have dropped from your pen. And now, my dear brother. I declare to you, that I am neither a Unitarian, nor Trinitarian, but a lover of a pure speech, and an humble advocate for a restoration of the ancient order of things. In conclusion, I beseech you not to pass this communication silently by. An answer to it is called for loudly and speedily. I am well persuaded that in this communication I express the wishes of hundreds of your warmest friends and supporters, of whom I am one, though I have thus written.

I. I****.      

      DEAR BROTHER,--As a lover of a pure speech, to a lover of a pure speech, I am always bound to offer an explanation or an apology. I have not written a piece for any Cincinnati paper since my debate with Mr. Owen. In the next place, I cannot find in number 8, vol. 7. nor even in the first number of the Millennial Harbinger, the phrases in the identical words, nor even in the same connexion of idea which you have quoted. It is true, in the first number of the Harbinger I assert (not, however, in the form of a quotation, nor of a direct and exclusive appropriation of the words,) that Jesus Christ is now attested as the King Eternal, Immortal, and Invisible; or rather, that "the ancient christians were enabled to call Jesus Lord of All--the King Eternal, Immortal, and invisible, from the demonstrations of the Holy Spirit confirming the testimony, without any other aid than the power of God exhibited in attestation of the testimony." That he is Lord of All, the Immortal King, of whose government there shall be no end; and although the invisible, yet the real Governor of the whole Universe, I am taught to believe, and do believe.

      But it is one thing to say that the ancient christians believed, or that I or any christian, believes that Jesus is the Lord of All; that he is the King of kings, the Lord of lords; that he is now immortal or incorruptible; that he is to reign for ever an Eternal King, of whose government there shall be no end; and another to affirm [652] that the verse which you cite is applied to Jesus. That is what I have not affirmed. But one thing is certain, that the Father has placed his Son upon the throne of the Universe--has made him Lord and Messiah, and has given him all the names, titles, and honors which belong to the Governor of the Universe; because he has, by inheritance, obtained a more excellent name than any creature. There is no one sentence which says that Jesus is the Great Prophet, the Eternal High Priest, and the Universal King. Yet that he is the Great Prophet of whom Moses spoke--"a priest forever"--and Lord of All, is incontrovertibly plain;--equally plain that he is now the King Eternal, Immortal, and Invisible.

      I have so often and so explicitly spoken upon this subject--so repeatedly declared that we ought to confine ourselves to bible terms and phrases in speaking upon all subjects which have occasioned divisions and strifes, that I cannot suppose that any person could imagine that I have any peculiar or appropriated sense which I wish to impose, in any form, upon the religious communities. I do apply to the Father, to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, every attribute, name, title, and work, ascribed to them by the writers of the New Institution, and will never agree that a peculiar or an appropriated sense shall be affixed to this language and made a term of communion. Nor will I agree that the deductions of any man's reason shall stand at par with the plain and definite declarations of the Holy Spirit; much less in opposition to, and subversive of, the testimony, the direct and unequivocal testimony, which God has given of his Son.

      There is, I must add, a morbid sensibility in the minds of many upon this theme. The Trinitarian, Arian, and Unitarian dogmata have been so much debated in Kentucky, that the greatest alarm is produced in the minds of one of the belligerents if a single ambiguous expression or allusion bearing for or against one or other party, happens to fall from the lips or pens of any one advocating the ancient order of things. This is a rickety conscience--a morbid sensibility. A healthy conscience and a sound mind are equally jealous of every part and every item of the Christian Institution, and is as zealous for speaking, thinking and acting agreeably to the utmost minutia of the divine will, as in the greater and weightier matters of the eternal salvation.

      I have no sectarian technicalities, because I have no sect in my heart, except that originally called the "christian sect." This I love, and its technicalities I admire. I intend, however, to propose a plan in the next number of the Harbinger, which will, if carried out, terminate the controversy, and prevent the existence of a Unitarian, Arian and Trinitarian. Till that is adopted, or something like it, sects and all their consequences will be unavoidable.

      In the meantime I can assure you and all my reader, that I will never aid or abet, knowingly or willingly, any sectarian scheme, theory, or practice, though called by its fabricators the essential or capital doctrine of christianity. The original institution of Jesus Christ, unmingled with Judaism and Pagan philosophy, is that, and that only to which I stand pledged. Hoping that such is your determination, I subscribe myself yours under the reign of favor.

EDITOR.      

      A.--GOOD morning, brother B; I am glad to see you--I have had a wish to see you, and have some plain talk with you ever since your last Association.

      B.--Good morning to you, brother A; I suppose I may venture to call you brother, as I cannot believe every member of your Association is a heretic, and my long acquaintance forbids the idea that you have been led astray. I have always taken you to be a man of stability and very sound in the faith.

      A.--That is just to my hand--you have gone right into what I aimed to be at--has not your Association voted to drop correspondence with ours?

      B.--Yes, indeed, she has done that very thing.

      A.--Can you tell the reason why?

      B.--I do not know that I can; but reports say that your Association has been corrupted, or led astray by a Mr. Alexander Campbell, and has become heterodox in faith.

      A--I call for proof of the fact. I do not know that the Silver Creek Association has ever been charged with any such thing.

      B.--I suppose no formal charge has ever been exhibited against your Association; but it is a common talk in our neighborhood, that the Silver Creek people are Campbellites; and it is said they have admitted Dunkers to their communion table, which you know is contrary to the rules and regulations of all regular Baptist churches, and therefore insufferable.

      A.--Did you ever hear that the Silver Creek Association has admitted Dunkers to the Lord's Table?

      B.--As an act of the Association, I never heard that it had been done.

      A.--In what, then, has Alexander Campbell led us astray?

      B.--I do not think I am able to satisfy you in that either; but I suppose you are aware that it is said by many, that Alexander Campbell is an Arian or Socinian, by some a Sandemanian, and by others a Deist in disguise; and many, very many, of every sect and denomination of christians, speak of him as a most dangerous heretic and desperately wicked bad man.

      A.--Unless you have sufficient testimony of what you have related, I should say it is evil speaking--yes, mere slander.

      B.--As to that, I have to confess that I have not sufficient proof, but it does appear to me that Campbell has done abundance of harm, and I am seriously alarmed at the rapid spread of heresy, and am much afraid that he has been, and will be the cause of schisms and divisions in all the churches, and ultimately will do the cause he professes to advocate a great injury.

      A.--You may have just cause of alarm; but I hold you to the point. If I understand you rightly, you do not know, neither have you ever heard of any charge of heresy, or any thing like it, being preferred against the Silver Creek Association.

      B.--I know of no such thing, neither have I ever heard of any charge of any sort being preferred against your Association.

      A.--Well now, brother B, is it not astonishing? Just consider the matter seriously--no solid proof that the man, who is accused of leading us astray, is himself in error; and admitting that to be the case, it remains to be proved that, the Silver Creek Association are followers of him. But our Association has never been legally charged with any thing like it; yet strange to tell, a large majority of your Association voted to reject us, or which is the same, to drop correspondence with us. Now, I would ask, in the name of common sense, why so much hurry? we [653] ought always to remember, that one false step in the beginning, is apt to do abundance of mischief. The course she has taken, to say the least of it, is imprudent and unscriptural: for if we had been charged with being heterodox in faith, and that charge had been substantiated, then, and in that case, in order to follow Scripture direction, a first and second admonition should have preceded rejection; but you rejected us without any charge in a legal way, and consequently, no fair discussion or chance of defence on our part; without proof or even a charge, of our being guilty of any kind of disorderly conduct, or of any departure from the faith. Now, my dear brother, what have you to say in vindication of the course your Association has taken? have you treated us like brethren? does it appear as if you had any desire to reclaim us, or to heal the wound? or has it not more the aspect of the proceedings of a court of Inquisition? Does it not virtually say, Cut them off--away with them--cast them out of the synagogue? why? because the disorder is catching, the disease is contagious--the faith of our own society, and not only ours, but the craft of all the sects, is in danger of being overturned.

      B.--Stop, brother A, you seem to be getting too warm on the subject; and you know that is not the best way to settle matters. I assure you that I shall not attempt to vindicate the conduct of our Association any further in what she has done. I confess I was not pleased with it myself,--to me it seems to discover something of the spirit of persecution in it; but I hope you, as you say you take the scriptures for your sole guide, will in this case let your moderation be known to all men, and by christian forbearance, and in the spirit of meekness your Association will treat with ours in a christian-like, faithful, and tender manner; and by that means she may be brought to see that the course she has taken is, at least, censurable--that she will, at her next meeting, reconsider the matter, and that the wound will yet be healed without loss of life or reputation.

      A.--I should be glad; yes, indeed, I should rejoice to see peace restored, and union and love abound among us; but I fear that a reconciliation, will not be so easily effected; because there are some of our preachers, and many of our people, who have come into the opinion that the creeds and confessions of faith, adopted by the many different sects of professed christians, are, and have for a long time been, the prime cause of schisms and divisions among christians; and since the hasty, vote of your Association, they have become more established in that opinion, and much more warm in the cause; and some seem to be determined to preach them down if possible; but that you may not misunderstand me, you will please take notice, we do not so much condemn the doctrines set forth in the creed--we would not say that the doctrine contained in the Baptist Confession of Faith is absolutely unscriptural, but do contend that it is unreasonable, and we think unscriptural, to make abstruse metaphysical questions articles of faith for weak believers to subscribe to; or otherwise be kept out of the church. We insist upon it, that it should suffice for all to subscribe to the plain, simple truths of the gospel, taking the whole of the scriptures as the revealed word of God, and the sole rule of faith and manners; and any thing therein contained appearing vague, ambiguous, or of uncertain signification, or very mysterious, admitting of a fair debate, in that case, difference of opinion should not break fellowship, but should agree to think and let think, bear and forbear, as we unhesitatingly affirm, that it is the unalienable right of every individual to think for himself. I would say more, but time fails, and I must desist, but hope to see you again shortly. Farewell.

      [The publication of the above Dialogue in a Western paper occasioned the writer of it to be excluded from the church. Such is the intolerance of the populars!

ED. C. B.      

      THIS is the consummation of the Ages. Types, symbols, prophecies, and promises have their completion here. The law by Moses came; the favor and the reality by Jesus Christ. A righteousness without law, and eternal life are its new and joyful developments. Faith, first honored in the person of Abraham, is now made the principle on which the enjoyment of the new salvation turns. "You shall call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins." This was the novelty of this salvation. Of all the Saviours and Messiahs which God sent to Israel, not one came to save that people from their sins. From their temporal enemies, from the power of them which hated them, they were their redeemers. But now, once, in the end of the ages, has a Redeemer, a saviour, come to redeem and save men from the guilt, pollution and dominion of sin.

      The superlative excellency of this economy consists in the clear discovery it affords of the character of God, his gracious purposes to be developed at the Resurrection, and the immediate and perfect pardon of all sin, which at once perfects the conscience and begets that peace of God which passes all understanding. On this so much has been said in the preceding volumes and as we have arrived so near the close of this work, only a few general views, rather inferential from the premises so amply laid, than from any new topics, shall be submitted in two essays.

      It has been somewhere said that the priesthood of every divine economy was to the whole system what the heart is to the human system. It gives life and energy to it. It is the vital office. So the office of a High-Priest was the active and operative principle in every dispensation.

      All Priests have been a sort of Mediators, and the High Priest the great Mediator of the institution under which he officiated. To present sacrifices and oblations--thank-offerings and peace-offerings--to make reconciliation for sins--was at least one half of his official duties. The other pertained to intercessions and benedictions.--Every High Priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, to offer both gifts and sacrifices for sin.

      To perfect the conscience as respects sin; to reconcile to the divine government: and to produce a perfect reconciliation among men, is the great object of the High Priesthood of the Christian Economy, "Glory to God in the highest! peace on earth! and good will among men!"--are the tendencies of the Christian Institution.

      The experience of all christians--nay, of all men who ever had the consciousness of sins, who ever felt the pangs of a guilty conscience, will attest the truth I am about to utter. It will vouch for the truth of this assertion, viz, that to [654] be assured of the pardon of sin--to feel ourselves justified in the sight of God, is the reign of heaven in the heart--the very essence of happiness, from which, as from a fountain of living water, springs up eternal joy. This is the peace of God which passes all understanding, ruling and reigning in the heart. This is, then, just wherein christianity, rightly understood, has the excellency over Judaism, and every other institution, human or divine, which the ear of man has ever heard.

      To speak in the figurative style with Paul in his letter to the Hebrews:--The Holy Spirit signified by and in the Jewish Institution, that the way into the holiest was not laid open while the tabernacle had a standing upon earth. This figurative representation was for the time being; according to which gifts and sacrifices were offered which could not make him who performed that service perfect as pertains to the conscience; they being imposed for meats and drinks, and diverse immersions, and rules of conduct respecting the flesh until the time of the Reformation. But now Christ being come a High Priest of the future and eternal good things, has entered into the holies--having by his own blood, once for all, procured everlasting redemption. If the former sacrifices cleansed the flesh, how much more will the sacrifice of Christ purify the conscience from dead works, to serve in a new spirit the living God? He having offered one sacrifice for sins to last forever, sat down at the right hand of God, waiting till his enemies are made his footstool. For by one offering he has made perfect forever them who are sanctified. Having, then a great High Priest over the house of God, let us approach with a true heart in the full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

      In this way the Apostle directs us to the superlative character of the New Institution as respects its purifying influence upon the conscience. The first and most distinguishing character of the New Institution is the ample provision which it makes for taking away sin from its damnatory and polluting power over the conscience. It authorizes all its subjects to say, from experience, "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputes not sin!" This blessedness is theirs who have intelligently submitted to the government of Jesus.

      Something that was wanting in every previous dispensation is supplied in this--a rational and certain pledge of the forgiveness of all sins.--True, the Jewish Economy made provision for the transgressors; but how the blood of bulls and goats could take away sin in any sense, was a mystery of that Economy. No development was made until God said, "In sacrifice and burnt offerings and offerings for sin according to the law, I have no pleasure." To do his will Jesus came. The New Constitution so often dilated on in these volumes, contains the distinguishing privileges of this economy. "Their sins and their iniquities I will remember no more." stands forth to view its the constitutional privilege of all christians. An act of oblivion on the past, and a promise that sin shall not lord it over them in future, are the pledges which in baptism are given to all who come to Jesus. I could wish that this excellency of the New Institution was held up to the eye of this generation as was the brazen serpent to the eyes of Israel in the wilderness. It is not known--I say, comparatively it is it secret to this age. The confessions and prayers for pardon echoing every Lord's day from ten thousand pulpits on this continent: the mournful and long details of past sins offered up with every morning and evening sacrifice upon the family altars of the worshipping families, more resemble a Jewish sacrifice or sin offering than the incense of purified hearts warmed and cheered with the forgiving love of God. "The worshippers once cleansed should have no more consciousness of sins." But in their prayers and confessions there is a remembrance of past sins every morning and every Lord's day. This is proof positive flowing from the hearts and lips of professors, that they are either ignorant of, or unbelieving in, the Christian Institution. They feel not the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes not sin. If they do, their lips utter the words of deceit and guile. They profess to feel and to desire that which they neither feel nor desire.

      To open these prison doors, to release these captives, to introduce them to the golden day of christianity, to proclaim to them the, jubilee of heaven, to declare the acceptable year of the Lord, has been a primary object in all the essays I have written upon the Ages.

      To this purpose I again call their attention to the distinguishing character of the Reign of God. "It is not," says Paul, "meat and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in a holy spirit." This is a summary view of the Kingdom, or rather, the Reign of God. The reign of these principles within men is what the Lord himself affirmed, the discriminating criterion of his reign. The reign of God comes not with observation, with external signs and evidences, as does the reign of a worldly prince. It comes with no external pomp. It is within men. And it is the dominion of righteousness, peace, and joy, terminating in a holy spirit--issuing in that spirit and temper conforming to the Spirit or God. The alliance of King Righteousness, King Peace, and King Joy, produces the happiest heart under heaven. Melchisedec, the type of our High Priest, was King of Righteousness and Prince of Peace. Our King of Righteousness and Prince of Peace was anointed with the oil of joy, with the Unction of the Holy One, above all who ever sat upon a throne--above all God's Messiahs. His dominion, his rule and reign is, therefore, the reign of these principles--righteousness, peace, and joy. To be under the sway of these is to be holy, and that is to be happy. To feel ourselves righteous in the presence of God, to feel ourselves pardoned and accepted, naturally produces peace with God, and that naturally fills with joy. Being made righteous through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, and we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. This is the whole philosophy of the Reign of Heaven. But it is not, only the effects produced by the Reign of Favor, to which we look in fixing our attention upon it. There is the Kingdom and there is the Reign. The Kingdom is the effect of the Reign, as it is simply that embraced under it. But there is an activity, an agency in these principles, which may be called a Reign in strict conformity with the liberties of human speech. We say of some they are under the reign of pride, or cupidity, or ambition, under the reign of whatever principle seems to control their actions. Avarice and ambition are as dominant principles controlling the actions of men as ever was an eastern despot: nay, more dominant and tyrannical than a Turkish Sultan. It is no departure from analogy, no abuse of speech, to say, that a man is under the reign of righteousness, when he is righteous in [655] character and loves righteousness: to say, that he is under the reign of peace, when the peace of God triumphs in his heart, and he cultivates peace with all men; to say that he is under the dominion of joy, when he rejoices always and is habitually employed in thanksgivings. These all conspire in purifying the heart. These all, like fires operating upon precious metals, purge the dross. Hence the result of the combined operation of these principles is a holy spirit or temper of mind, and this is the Canaan of bliss into which all the believing enter. This is the land of promise, and whether rich or poor, whether learned, or unlearned, all who enter these precincts feel themselves happy and triumphant in the Lord. Hence it was ordained that one sacrifice should make an end of sin-offerings--should at once, and forever, perfect them thus separated from the world; and that the first act of mercy in the new reign of God would be an act of oblivion, a cancelment of all guilt, an ablution from all sin, an ample and perfect remission from all former transgressions. "Where remission of these is, no more sacrifice, confession, or prayer for pardon is needed." Hence it came to pass, that when the proclamation of the Reign of God was first made, reformation and remission of sins, or faith and immersion went hand in hand. Every baptized person, not a hypocrite, was pardoned, and after being born of the water and the Spirit, they came into a now kingdom--felt new relations and partook of it joy before unknown. The first strong impulse which the mind of the converted felt, was a sense of the pardoning love of God through the sacrifice of Jesus. This, like the touch of the magnet, turned the affections towards the skies. Risen with Christ, not only from the grave in which they had buried their guilt and their fears, but risen in their hopes of heaven and aspirations after glory everlasting their affections were placed on things above, and not on the things on earth. This was the strong hold which christianity took on the hearts and affections of the converted. This drew a clear, legible, sensible, memorable line between their former state and the state of favor and reconciliation to God in which they found themselves after they had obeyed the gospel.

      To the strength of this conviction, to the vividness and force of this impression upon their putting on Christ is attributable the great difference between the first converts to Jesus Christ, and the converts to the various creeds and sects now so numerous. There is something so impotent in an assent to mere opinions in joining a sect, in becoming a Baptist, a Methodist, or Presbyterian, that it makes no sensible difference in the affections towards heaven, and therefore fails to purify and elevate the heart, and to reform and decorate the character of the proselyted. The first converts to christianity in the converting act in the assurance of remission, were made strong in the Lord and able to deny themselves, filled with joy and peace. Of them it could be said, "Whom having not seen, you love; on whom not now looking, but believing, you rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory." But, I ask, Is this true of all or of a majority, or of a respectable minority of them who are converted to a sect? If I may judge from long observation, one such christian is almost a prodigy in a city, in a county, or large district of country. The reason is our forms of christianity want something which the gospel, as proclaimed and exhibited by the Apostles, presented to the apprehension of the converted. Ours is a shadow--theirs was the substance. Ours is opinion--theirs was fact. Ours is the distant hope of future pardon--theirs the reward of their faith, the salvation of their souls. This they all received in Baptism. "Receiving," said Peter, "the reward of your faith, the salvation of your soul." They were pardoned and felt it--we feel it not. They had an assurance of it, which we have not. This is the true philosophy of the difference between the ancient or true gospel, and the modern--between the first converts and the present converts. Indeed, few profess to believe the same gospel. Many of the preachers laugh at receiving the forgiveness of sins through the obedience of faith--through immersion. They ridicule it; they nickname it, like Mr. Brantly, "Baptismal Regeneration;" they hold it up to derision. How, then, can those, led by them, experience any great felicity from that which their spiritual guides ridicule!! They cannot. The popular immersion is no better than a Jewish ablution. It is a mere rite, a ceremony, an ordinance, or any thing but a pledge of our pardon and acceptance with God, or the means of our entering into the kingdom of God. The popular preachers preach another gospel and another baptism. Theirs is the gospel of the Holy Spirit and the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Theirs is a speculative gospel about spiritual operations--cold and inoperative. If ever it flames, it is by a friction of the hands, or by a vigorous operation of the lungs, the bellows of life. As Samson's strength lay in his hair, so the strength of the popular gospel of speculative influences lies in the vociferations of the proclaimers.

      The ancients never strove to produce good feelings by describing them; they were better taught than to make such an effort. They called the attention of men to that which would make them feel, and good feelings followed as a matter of course. I will now assert it, and I shall leave it to philosophers and historians to disprove it if they can, that he who is immersed for the remission of his sins, in the full belief that he will receive remission in the act, will enjoy more of the life and joy of Christianity, and not be half so likely to apostatize as he that is immersed for any other purpose, I care not what it be. This I have proved by observation--I was going to say, by experience too. And to this chiefly is to he attributed the superior attainments in righteousness, peace, joy, and a holy spirit of the first converts, compared with the moderns. It is not the withholding of God's Spirit, but it is our immuring ourselves in the cells of anchorites, our burying ourselves under the traditions of the fathers, our explaining away the testimony of God, and our substituting the meteors of a moonless night for the radiance of the risen day, which has given such a pale and ghastly hue, such a wan and livid aspect to the Christians of the new schools, of the modern brands, of the new mints of modern orthodoxy. May the Lord deliver us from the ghosts and spectres of an untoward generation!

EDITOR.      

[TCB 650-656]