Volume 7. Number 12. July 5, 1830, pp. 656-665.

• Essays on Man in His Primitive State, and under the Patriarchal, Jewish, and Christian Dispensations.--No. XVI.: Christian Age.--No. II. by Alexander Campbell, pp. 656-658.
• The Beaver Anathema by Alexander Campbell, p. 659.
  • [Letter to the Editor] by Walter Scott, pp. 659-660.
• Mr. Brantly's Views of Reformation and of New Versions (from Columbian Star) by William T. Brantley, p. 660.
• [Response to "Mr. Brantly's Views"] by Alexander Campbell, pp. 660-664.
• Concluding Remarks: Part of the Editor's History by Alexander Campbell, pp. 664-665.

      PAUL to the Galatians asserts one of the distinguishing features of the Christian Age to which we have formerly adverted. It is a characteristic of the Reign of Favor, to which much attention ought to be paid. When the people of God were [656] minors, says he we were kept in bondage under the elements of the world. As a son who is an heir, during his minority differs nothing from a servant, though be lord of all, but is kept under tutors and stewards until the time fixed upon for manhood, or full age: even so we were treated under the law. But now, in the wisdom of our Heavenly Father, the fulness of time being come for the enlargement of the people of God, we are raised to the relation of sons of God. This is the new and high relation into which christianity elevates its subjects, the reason of which is suggested by the great apostle to be this;--that God made his Son a servant to buy off those who were held in bondage; that, as he became a servant, so we might be made sons. Hence, as our nature was adopted by God's Son, so the sons of men are adopted into the family of God.

      As young men arrive at the full age of manhood they are emancipated from the government of mere precepts, and put under the government of principles. Here is the secret. The Jews were under a government of precepts--we are under a government of principles. Hence all was laid down to them in broad and plain commandments; and the book which contained their worship was a ritual, a manual of religious and moral duties, accurately defined to the utmost conceivable minutia; insomuch that nothing was left to discretion--nothing to principle.

      There is nothing like this in the New Institution. We have no ritual, liturgy, nor manual. The New Constitution and Law of Love does no more than institute the converting act, the Lord's supper, and the Lord's day. Immersion, or the converting act, by which persons are brought into the kingdom of principles and introduced into the rank of sons, is not so much an ordinance in the kingdom as that which brings us into it. The Lord's supper, a weekly commemoration of the great sacrifice, and the day of the resurrection of Jesus, though positive institutions, are not presented to christians accompanied with directions for the mode of celebration, as were any of the former institutions under the Jewish Age. There were more directions about the celebration of the Passover and the observance of the Sabbath, than is to be found in the whole New Institution. Nay, indeed, there is nothing of that sort in the christian economy. No mode of eating the supper, no mode of observing the Lord's day is suggested in the apostolic writings. In this christians are left to the discretion of full grown men to the government of principle. All things are to be done decently and in order; but the modes of decency and order in the celebration of these christian institutions are no where pointed out.

      Sometimes the apostles notice glaring aberrations from this order and decency, and this is the reason of those remarks which we find in the epistles noticing any egregious departure from that order and decency which become the elevated rank and dignity of sons of God. But even then no code of laws, no enumeration of ceremonies, no forms of observance are suggested. There is nothing in the christian economy of the nature of ceremony--nothing for the sake of form. There is a principle in every thing instituted. And all the principles of obedience, all the principles of action, how numerous soever we may suppose them, are reducible to one great principle, sometimes called the new commandment. Now, says Paul, "the end or object of the commandment is love out of a pure heart, out of a good conscience, and from faith unfeigned." The Christian institution creates in the heart of man this love. It gives it birth and being. It is a love of a higher order, of a sublimer genius, than any former age or economy could produce. The love for God which Judaism implanted and matured, was love for a benefactor, a preserver, or, if you please, a Creator; but love for a Redeemer, for a Saviour, is of a loftier birth and character. Love for one who has redeemed from everlasting death, who bestows immortality, is a love which none could feel who did not understand the doctrine of life and immortality.

      The dominion of love is the dominion of favor, and its service the easiest conceivable. Hence the liberty and perfect freedom felt in slavery to Jesus Christ. All who serve any favorite principle feel themselves free. The man who toils harder than any menial bondman ever did, provided he toil in the service of some grateful principle, (avarice, or ambition, for example,) feels perfect liberty. Liberty is all in the mind. Hence the slaves of Jesus, or the slaves of love, are the veriest freemen in the world. This is the grandeur of the Christian scheme, that it sets men in love with such principles and such a person; that it makes virtue and goodness almost as necessary as the Pagan's fate, and yet as free and easy as the action of the heart or the labor of the lungs.

      There is no serving from memory in the service of love. The Jews required a good memory rather than a good judgment. Children act from memory before they act from judgment. Hence the memory is strong and the judgment weak in youth. In manhood the judgment is strong and the memory becomes weaker. In the religious minority of the world the religious acted from memory rather than from judgment or pure principle. Let no man infer that I exclude principle from the saints of former ages, in the vulgar acceptation of that term. I mean no such thing. But the principles of Christianity, the principles of action which the love of God developed in the mission of Jesus, and the glory to be revealed in us at the resurrection, are so transcendant as to eclipse every thing like principle flowing from love or gratitude to a creator, or benefactor, or guardian as the God of Israel was revealed to the Jews. Their outward services, their yoke of bondage, the elements of the world under which they groaned, are clear monuments of the slavery of the letter, and of the want of what we here call principles. I said, the service of love is not the service of memory. Love is a master whose power is felt without recollection. Omnipresent and omnipotent too in moral influence. It is the moral principle of gravity in the moral universe, and, like the physical attraction, controls every thing.

      The Christian scheme is the wisdom and power of God in producing this principle. When created its aliment is the will of God. On the sincere milk of the word it feeds. This nourishes and strengthens it. To its government the new man is subjected. Hence the obedience of faith is also the obedience of love. There requires no precepts nor commands, with a penalty, other than that the enjoyment of this love of God and his favor necessarily requires conformity. Hence all the exhortations to religious and moral observance are drawn from the love of God to us.

      This is the great principle of the New Institution; although the two great commandments of the law required the love of the whole heart to God and benevolence equal to self-love, it did not afford the strength nor the motive to call them forth. Hence it was a condemnatory [657] precept, rather than a quickening principle. But now the love of God, shed abroad in the heart by the Holy Spirit, excites to an activity, and imparts an energy which the law could not do.

      But that which calls for our notice here, is that God now deals with its as sons, and not as servants--not as sons who are minors, but as sons who are of full age. Hence the suggestions in the form of general principles in preference to a ritual prescribing every act in mode and form to perfect exactitude as under the law.

      There was another consideration in the law requiring an exactness in the forms of worship, which does not exist under the Reign of Favor. The genius of the Jewish Age was figurative, prophetic, or symbolical. Many of the observances of that economy were types or figures of the good things which we enjoy; and that there might be a true representation of these things for the confirmation of the faith, and enlargement of the views of those who are now called into the kingdom, it behoved that nothing should be left to the discretion of man. Every thing must be done according to the pattern exhibited in the law. So that when these two considerations are duly regarded, we shall find two good reasons why the Christian economy should differ so materially from the Jewish. The former was delivered to persons retained in the condition of minors, and it always treated them as such. The latter is addressed to persons in the rank of sons who have passed their minority, and it treats them as such.

      Not regarding this difference between the Old and New Constitution is a chief cause why many have turned the New Testament into a sort of ritual or liturgy, and have sought from it a command or a precedent for every thing, even to the manner of eating the Lord's supper. Hence it has come to pass, that some societies which have taken it for their only guide in all religious observances and actions, having regarded it as the Jews did the book of Leviticus, have reduced Christianity to a frigid and lifeless skeleton, wanting the splendor and earthly attractions of the Jewish worship. They have frittered away into small fractions; and in many instances societies of this sort have become extinct. They were laboring to find in the Christian Scriptures what they contained not; and not finding an exact agreement in those things which they deemed of much importance to scriptural order, they degenerated in their piety and zeal, and languished away into a barren and improfitable profession.

      We must have either a good share of worldly splendor to keep alive a show of religious affection in public assemblies; or wanting these worldly and carnal attractions, we must feel and we must exhibit that love of God and that pure devotion to Jesus Christ springing from a lively sense of the pardoning love of God. Without one or other of these attractions religious communities will languish and pine away, and die like a consumptive patient. Religious and worldly pride combined have made what the world calls flourishing churches; but they have been rather synagogues of Satan than temples of the Holy Spirit.

      There is an objection, and one of much apparent, but not of real weight against the prominent idea in the preceding remarks upon this alleged feature of the Christian Institution. It is the following:--If Christians are not under an economy of precepts and precedents, but under an economy of principles in which much is left to the discretion or to the natural tendency of principles, will it not follow that Christian societies may have different practices and a different order, according to their views of decency and order, and yet be alike acceptable to the King and alike acceptable to the world? This is partially a true and partially a false conclusion, and therefore requires examination.

      It is not alleged by me that there are no divinely instituted acts of Christian worship nor ordinances in the Christian church; nay, the contrary I have undeviatingly affirmed. These are a part, an essential part of the Institution of Favor. It is not discretionary with disciples whether they shall or shall not enter the kingdom without obtaining the remission of their sins by immersion; whether Christian societies shall regard the first day of the week to the Lord; whether they shall show forth the Lord's death at the Lord's table till he come to raise the dead; whether they shall continue in the fellowship for the saints and the Lord's poor; whether they shall sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs; unite in social prayers, and in reading the sacred writings in their regular meetings. These are the traditions of the Holy Apostles who were commanded to teach the disciples to observe all things which the King in his own person had commanded them. But they are not in these observances bound by a prescribed form. There is no law, command, nor precept, prescribing the form of immersion, the place where, nor the manner in which the subject shall be disposed of in the act. There is no mode of observing the Lord's day--no law upon that subject. There is no prescription concerning the time of meeting in the congregation; whether they shall first do this, and then that; or whether they shall eat the Lord's supper standing, sitting, kneeling, or reclining; whether prayer and singing shall always succeed or accompany each other; whether all shall pronounce the same words after the speaker, or only say Amen after his thanksgivings. In brief, there are no distinctions of this sort in the Institution. With regard to moral injunctions the great principle called the golden rule is a fair sample. Exhortations and admonitions concerning morals, found in the Epistles, grew out of the occasion, or were suggested by the inadvertencies of the disciples. But had these Epistles never been written, or only a part of them, the Christian Institution would have been perfect and entire, wanting nothing. The gospel--yes, the gospel, the proclamation of God's philanthropy, as it was uttered by the apostles on Pentecost, or in any one of their converting discourses, would have been, and still is, alone sufficient to produce those principles in the heart which issue in all holiness and in all morality.

      It is then true, that different communities might, in following up their own sense of propriety attend upon some of the institutions of the christian worship in the Christian assemblies differently, and yet be equally acceptable to God and profitable to men. But the great principles of Christian morality never can legitimately issue in a different practice no more than the great law of attraction can produce antagonist results or opposing effects at the same time and in the same place. I would also add, that a hearty and unreserved submission to the authority of Jesus Christ, will generally, and, perhaps, universally, issue in uniformity of practice as respects even those discretionary matters which we have seen to result from the fact of our being treated as men rather than as children.

EDITOR. [658]      

      CONCERNING those four churches, said to belong to the Mahoning Association which are represented in the Beaver Minutes as having left their former connexion, because of "damnable heresy," I solicited information from brother Walter Scott, who has been the active agent of one of the most important revolutions and conversions in the present day, as far as has come to my ears. He favored me with the following hasty sketch which will throw some light upon the Beaver anathema.

ED. C. B.      

NEW LISBON, April 9th, 1830.      

      BROTHER CAMPBELL,--THE following are the particulars which I have learnt and know of the four churches.

      Youngstown Church.--About eight or nine years ago there was a revival within the bounds of the church; the acting minister was brother Woodsworth, a regular baptist. There was a great stir, and many were baptized in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Mr. West, I believe, then lived in Nelson; but some of the members conceiving a partiality for him, he was elected Minister of the Youngstown Church to the rejection and dismissal of brother Woodsworth, the successful laborer. Affairs began to put on a different aspect immediately--the church declined from that day--conversions stopped, and after the lapse of some years the meeting was embroiled in family quarrels--Mr. West himself being grossly implicated.

      When I called about two years ago, I found the church in a state of entire prostration. For four years they had not eaten the Lord's Supper; all was delinquency--a perfect web of wickedness, the like of which I never had seen. It was an involved labyrinth of personal and family quarrels.

      For about three weeks I strove to disentangle the sincere hearted, but in vain. Strife is like the lettings out of water--what is spilt is lost. When the threads and filaments of a quarrel have forced themselves like waves over the whole body ecclesiastic, that body should be dissolved.

      We accordingly looked upon this institution to be entirely lost, and began to preach the ancient gospel--the word of the Lord is a hammer and a fire. All hearts were immediately broken or burnt; and of that sinful people there have been immersed nearly one hundred and fifty individuals. These have become a church, and are walking in the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless, as I hope. The scriptures are their sole authority, and they have three bishops bold in the Lord Jesus, and five deacons.

      All those who could not, should not, or would not join the young converts, to the amount of about sixteen, styled themselves the Church of Youngstown, and went to the Beaver Association to aid in the framing of that enormous bull which has excommunicated our name from the list of the Baptist Associations in the United States. Be it observed, however, that nothing said here is to be construed evilly in regard to the sixteen members--I believe them to be misguided Christians. They are eleven, or at most sixteen--the disciples we baptized are about one hundred and fifty.

      Palmyra Church. About a year after I had been in Youngstown, I went to Palmyra, in company with brother Hayden, a faithful laborer in Jesus Christ. Here too all was worse than decay--'twas ruin all. The Methodist class was a desolation strewed over the town--a race of backsliders. I talked with many of them, and their quondam class leader was the first person who was immersed--a man who had maintained his purity amid the general delinquency--he stood like Lot in Sodom. The Baptist meeting, like Sardis, engrossed a few names, and but a few who had not defiled themselves; but as at Youngstown, so here also, the church was filled with creeds, swellings, and personal and family quarrels.

      We forthwith read the gospel from the sacred page, and exhorted to obedience, whereupon many believing were baptized in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We afterwards separated the young converts, and informed the old folks that so many of them as choosed to embrace the new institution, would be admitted with all pleasure nearly all of them united, and the church now includes about one hundred names.

      They break bread every first day, have the scriptures for their sole authority, the settlement of their differences is attended to promptly, (Matt. xviii.) and not deferred till a monthly meeting--they have none--they are very lively, and have overseers and servants.

      But here again, as at Youngstown, fifteen, or at most twenty, although I suppose only eleven went off, betook themselves to their old ways of creeds, monthly meetings., &c.--called themselves Palmyra Church, of course, and joined the Beaver Association.

      Achor Church. This used to be a flourishing church. The causes of its decay are more easily conjectured than detailed. Mr. Winters used to visit it about two years ago, and aided in the ejectment of some of its best and liveliest members who have since been associated as a church in St. Clair township--since that occurred, Judge Brown, a pillar in the Anchor Church, has deceased, and the remaining members have been laboring by means of divers ministers to resuscitate matters. I was told that Mr. West preached there last Lord's day, and baptized one convert. I visited the church about two years ago, but felt so much hurt by their indelicate behavior that I would not preach, and retired from their meeting house--since that I have heard but little about them.

      Salem Church. In one place where I was baptizing, just as I raised the baptized person up out of the water, I saw a great stick hanging or rather shaking over my head. On another occasion I was interrupted by a person with a sword cane--at one place they set loose my mare in the night, and at Noblestown in the midst of six Presbyterian congregations the sectarian population cut of all the hair from her tail; but in no place did I ever experience such deceitful treatment as at Salem. According to my appointment I visited this church soon after I began to ride. The brethren received me with seeming courtesy, and I began to speak. The ancient gospel had set straight in my mind things which were formerly crooked. I felt my soul enlarged; the Lord had opened my eyes, and filled my mouth with arguments. I was all transported with the gospel--its novelty, its power, its point, its glory. Accordingly I rushed upon the sinful people like an armed man--forty-one were immersed in ten days, and all seemed to rejoice with me in the victory; but we had to wait until monthly meeting before we could propose the young converts for admission. As this was two or three weeks in the future, those who were secretly or openly opposed to the proceedings had abundance of time to put into requisition all the little arts [659] which they supposed would be necessary to keep out so many of the young converts as they thought unconverted: so many of God's children as they thought had not been born aright the second time. The meeting came round and none of them were admitted, yet they were many of them their own children, and nearly all of them related either immediately or remotely with the members of the church.

      Creeds, confessions, and experiences, were sine qua nons with a few of the old folks, and particularly with one woman, so that we separated without doing anything but disgusting the new converts; but I had to leave the place for five weeks, there being revivals in New Lisbon, Warren, Braceville, and Windham, all at the same time. In my absence twenty-one of the converts were cajoled into the church; the rest have since been formed into a meeting three miles south of Salem, and are likely to do well. At my return to Salem I was requested to be absent for a little, until things became settled, and finally had word sent not to return. Thus a people who would have plucked out their own eyes, and given them to me, did all of a sudden turn round and separate me from their own relations and townsmen, whom under God, I had been the means of bringing back to the Lord, and to righteousness. I never spoke to all the converts again.

WALTER SCOTT.      

      BY "the present order of things" we understand Mr. Campbell to mean the prevailing order and doctrine of our Baptist churches, and the existing forms of ecclesiastical government. The doctrinal views most prevalent in the churches of our persuasion, in the United States, may be summarily expressed in the annexed sentences. The sufficiency of the Scriptures in their present version, for knowledge and practice, is strenuously asserted. The total depravation and corruption of human nature, is invariably admitted. The dependence of salvation upon election, and not upon man's will, is a tenet generally held with much decision and firmness. The sufferings and death of Christ are believed to be the foundation of that atonement, or propitiation, or pacification, upon which the salvation of all the elect is insured. It is believed amongst us that there is a Holy Spirit of promise, by which christians are sealed after they may have come to the exercise of faith; that this same Spirit presides over, and produces every instance of regeneration which occurs in the world; and that he ordinarily employs the Word of God as the instrumental action in regeneration. Immersion in the name of the Trinity, is regarded as nothing more than the figure, the symbol of salvation. It is not a moral purification, but the answer of a good conscience. To the question, Do you believe with all your heart, Baptism answers, Yes. It is a most significant answer. The constitution and government of our churches are such as to provide for the perfect independence of every church or congregation, and to make it a religious commonwealth in itself, having authority and jurisdiction over its own affairs, and not answerable for its acts to any Presbytery, Synod, or other ecclesiastical tribunal. The duty of extending the gospel by missions, is generally admitted. The value of extensive learning to the ministry, but not its indispensable necessity, is commonly recognized. The duty of believers to maintain a holy life is universally allowed; and the claims to the character of christians disallowed to all those who lead unholy lives. The efficacy of faithful prayer in obtaining the blessing of Heaven, is confidently believed.

      This is a concise view of that "order of things" to which we are attached, not merely because it is old, but because it is true. The "inefficiency" of which we complain, does not originate in any defect of our system, but in its defective use and application. That which is true in Mr. Campbell's system, is not new; and that which is new, is not true. "The order of things" under which people live, may be good, whilst their practice is bad; and, unless we have had erroneous information, Mr. Campbell himself is an instance in point to prove that a man may have a good deportment under an "order of things" which we consider radically bad.

      The reformation which we should be pleased to see, and to which we endeavor to make these pages subservient, consists barely in one article; and that is, the more exact conformity of christian practice, to that "present order of things" which has been briefly sketched above. It is not new systems that we need--it is new hearts. There is no necessity to attempt the amendment of the law; but the amendment of morals is highly requisite. "The present order of things" is not to be blamed; but they are to be blamed who charge the faults of their conduct to wrong systems, instead of charging them to their wrong hearts. Revolutionists, either in civil or religious matters, are often to be suspected. In their harsh attempts to repair the building, they frequently subvert the very foundation. In their amputations and excisions, they cut off the vital parts, and thus destroy the very life of the body. As they act under a plausible pretext, they can take advantage of public credulity, and proceed to almost every extravagance. Another misery with religious revolutionists, is, that they never know when and where to stop. We may consent to go with them as far as the old version will authorize; but when we shall have arrived at a limit, they can easily substitute a new version, and by the help of this can raise us over mountains of difficulty. Wesley found predestination and election so strongly blended with the common version of the New Testament, that he applied himself to the task of making a new translation. The Unitarians, finding the old version rather a dead weight upon them, constructed a new dress for the Testament, from which the more offensive features of the ancient readings were carefully expunged. And now Mr. Campbell has a version, the fabric of which was not woven by himself, but collected in fragments and stitched together. Some of these patches be has borrowed from his old Scottish name-sake, Dr. George Campbell, a very different man from himself; some from Macknight, some from Doddridge, and we know not from how many more. It is obvious that, as the great and good men named above, made out their respective versions to suit their own views of Scripture, there can be very little uniformity in a book composed of such various materials. Why is it that all innovators become tired of the old version and seek new ones? Some, who were not innovators, have made new translations of the Bible, or parts thereof; but none of the leaders of Innovation so far as we know, have remained contented with the old fashioned Book in its present dress.--Col. Star.

      IT gives me pleasure always to acknowledge a favor, and to give a person credit for all that he is worth. I thank Mr. Brantly for this notice. [660] What he has written in the above remarks he prefaces thus:--

      REFORMATION.--The last number of the Millennial Harbinger contains the following sentence at page 81, which seems designed for our attention:--"

      The Rule of Life of the Colombian Star.--I know not why it is that Dr. Brantly is so much attached to the present order of things, while complaining so much of its inefficiency, and why he should at one time talk as if friendly to a reformation, and at another exhort his readers to keep in the good old way, alluding to the way of their grandfathers, or ancestors for two or three generations. A little light on this subject would be acceptable. We would thank him to say whether any reformation in the system of things is necessary; and, if any, in how many particulars his reformation would consist."

      I must give him credit for possessing a great degree of art--yes, of art. It is not the art displayed on one occasion, but on many occasions, which I admire. We admire art, although exhibited against honesty and candor; and while admiring, we only regret that it is not displayed on the side of truth and goodness. In a very artful manner this gentleman substitutes a string of opinions, and calls them the prevent order of things, and thus evades the whole subject presented to him in the paragraph he cites.

      This is certainly a new order of things which consists in the doctrinal view most prevalent in the churches of our persuasion. It is the first time that I have heard a number of abstractions, purely sentimental, called an order of things. I will define what I mean by the phrase order of things in the connexion in which this phrase appeared. The present order of things amongst the Regular Baptists is this:--A person applies for baptism. He is called before the church, at its Saturday monthly meeting. He is interrogated respecting his conversion. He relates all that he has felt and thought, more or less, since the time of the commencement of a "work of grace" upon his heart. After being examined to the satisfaction of the church, the question is put--"Ought the candidate to be baptized?" If the church, or a majority of them present, give a verdict in his favor, he may then be immersed. He is then immersed in the name of the Trinity on a suitable occasion, and joins the church. This church of which be is a member meets statedly once a month in its church capacity. After meeting on the Lord's day, and talking over the affairs of the neighborhood out of doors for a while, the preacher calls them into the house, either by going into the pulpit or giving out a hymn. They sing a few stanzas of a hymn or song, the precentor or the choir, as the case may be, standing, and the congregation sitting. This ended, the preacher prays for the people, and for a sermon, sometimes for a text, and for the conversion of the converted. Then comes the sermon, homily, or discourse, explanatory of some word, phrase, or verse found somewhere in the Old or New Testament. Sometimes it is the saying of an angel, a good man; sometimes the saying of a wicked man, and sometimes the saying of the *****. [I must here declare that I did positively hear a sermon delivered before an Association from the words of a demoniac or person possessed of a demon.] The sermon ended, a prayer is made for a blessing upon the seed sown, or the doctrine delivered; a song is sung, and the benediction is pronounced.--Home they go.

      I will say nothing about the order of things in the families of those who have been worshipping God in worshipping a preacher, or in sitting once a month under the allegories and comments of it person who, eve times in seven, cannot tell the nominative case to a verb, or the antecedent to a relative. I never did disdain, nor did I ever cast a disdainful look upon a brother because be was illiterate Nay, so far from it, I have generally encouraged them "to improve their gifts." But I cannot compliment any illiterate man for assuming the office of an interpreter, or expositor of Scripture. Men may proclaim Jesus, and exhibit the reason why they believe on him; they may preach Christ successfully without English, Latin, or Greek, just in the language of the nursery; but to hear such a man expounding texts or explaining scripture, is a burlesque on the pulpit and a satire upon the age. Yet a large proportion of our preachers, are not content with being preachers: however illiterate, they must make sermons, and become pulpit commentators.

      Once a quarter, often once in six months, there is a sacrament. The table is spread, and bread and wine placed upon it. The preacher breaks the bread into crumbs, talking all the while about the eucharist; and after prayer the deacons carry it round upon plates. None of the disciples break the loaf. The consecrated hands of the pastor alone is privileged thus to handle it. Then a cup is carried round by the deacons, whose sole office it is to wait upon the pastor to help to serve the tables.

      The sacrament being over, all things continue as they were; the people dress and mount their horses, walk, or ride in carriages, as it happens, once a month, to hear a text explained, and often as much to see their relatives, neighbors, and friends, as to hear the sermon. Their children are generally left to the Lord to be converted; for if embraced in the atonement or the election of the party, they are "insured."

      But now and then a missionary, a Sunday school agent, a temperance preacher, or a tract eulogizer, makes them a visit. He tells a good story of the scheme, and inculcates liberality. He inspires the people with his spirit. If he is on the tract expedition he gets up a society. A president, directors, and a treasurer are wanting. This serves to gratify the pride of some of the wealthier sort. It also serves for a theme of conversation, discussion, and religious talk on Sunday. By the time they have worn out, or got tired of this religious plaything, (for religion has its toys,) a temperate preacher announces temperance as the order of the day. This is a good work, and there must be some other society, other than the church of God, created upon a new bond of union, and upon a new principle of co-operation. Officers for this are wanting, and a new knighthood is formed. If the rich in the neighborhood were all taken into the first order of dignitaries, rather than take into this new communion the virtuous poor, they conclude to double or treble title some of the order of St. Dominic. They will confer the ribbon or the garter upon dignitaries of the Tract or some other fraternity. The people become temperate, and the question has been decided that this is a good institution. Then comes the training of "pious youths for the gospel ministry," and the importance of education is discussed. An education society is wanting, and pious youths, who want to rise to the dignity of pastors, are sought after. Many are found, but few can be qualified for the want of money! The missionary cause and its agents come always before us. The poor pagan cannot be saved without the gospel, [661] though Mr. Brantly admits they may be regenerated without the word of God! And what shall I more say? for time would fail me to tell of Gideon, Barak, and Samson--to tell of the Sunday School Union--of things domestic and foreign--of the cessation of Sunday mails, and of all the benevolent enterprizes of the age. These generally are a part of the present order of things. This I give as a sample, and it is but a sample of the present order of things among the Baptists.

      In the mean time the people are not instructed in the Holy Writings; they are ignorant I say comparatively, and generally they are ignorant of the message of God to the world. The consequence of this ignorance is a deadness and coldness in the whole profession. The love of the world and the honor that comes from man leave little room in the affections for the love of God and the joys of his salvation. Light cheers, quickens, animates. The light of salvation gives life. But the dead, and the obdurate, and the disconsolate, are under the dominion of darkness.

      By the fruits of the popular order of things I judge of its character. I well know the history of the Baptist churches, as well as of many of the Paidobaptist. I will not write a history of one of them at this time; but I may yet give the history of a few for a sample if Mr. Brantly will affirm that I have not given a fair outline of the present order of things. I do not say that every church in the Baptist connexion is exactly represented in the preceding outline; but one thing I will say, that more than the nine-tenths of them in half the states of the union where I have formed an acquaintance with them, are fairly represented in this hasty sketch. In lieu of this order of things, Mr. Brantly gives us a list of their opinions, and all the reformation he wants is to see them acting up to these opinions. Now I do know many individuals living up to these opinions, as far as one can live up to opinions so contradictory to each other, and I know of none professing the Christian name less to be envied than they. I presume Mr. Brantly lives up to these opinions, and what are the effects of them upon his mind and behavior, and upon his church? I leave those best acquainted to answer this question. But read the Star! Behold the system! Behold the man! I dare say that Mr. Brantly is as good a man as the system can produce.

      I will not now repeat what has been so often said in the preceding volumes upon the items of opinion in Mr. Brantly's present order of things. I confess that with many of these opinions I agree as I do with Mr. Locke or Mr. Reed in their philosophy, or with Sir Isaac Newton in his Principia. And viewed in the light of Mr. Brantly's optics, they are as inefficient to reform the world, as the doctrine of Sir Isaac was to change the transit of a star or the orbit of a comet. I do not, indeed, understand what Mr. Brantly means in some expressions--such as, "coming into the exercise of faith"--"the total depravation of human nature"--"the death of Christ, the foundation of pacification"--"the Spirit's ordinarily employing the word of God as the instrumental action in regeneration"--"immersion, the figure or symbol of salvation"--Past salvation or future salvation, as respects the moment of immersion?--Say? "The Baptist church, a religious commonwealth"--"the efficacy of faithful prayer."

      There is such a new-fangledness and awkwardness in this phraseology--such an unintelligibility about it, that it requires for me a commentator. I know it will puzzle even Mr. Brantly to explain some of these tertium quid phrases. Suppose the following questions were asked him: was faith before the exercise of faith? How does a person come into the exercise of any principle? Does "total" mean entire and perfect? Has it any parts or degrees? Can the most impious wretch be any thing more than totally depraved? Is the newborn infant as depraved as the vilest sinner that lives? Does atonement mean God's pacification to us, or our pacification to him? Is the death of Christ an atonement of God to us, or our atonement or reconciliation to God? Is not God reconciling us to himself by the sacrifice of his Son for our sins? Can there be two seeds of the same plant--two seeds of the same animal--two instrumental actions or means of regeneration? Can there be an ordinary instrumental action of regeneration, and an extraordinary instrumental action of regeneration? Does not the Apostle Peter declare that the word of God is the incorruptible seed of regeneration? What new seed is this which you have found, Mr. Brantly?

      My dear sir, permit me to assure you that there needs no witness to depose that you have drunk too deeply into human systems. The Oracle of God you have seen through the glasses of a system, which have given a new and strange line to the whole volume. Pull off your glasses and read with the naked eye and see what a different colored volume it is!

      What means "immersion in the name of the Trinity?" Is there any act--was there ever any act instituted as a figure of what we had formerly received, of any gift or favor bestowed upon us? Is faithful prayer and "the prayer of faith" equivalent?

      What means the answer of a good conscience through a symbol? Explain, if you please. Your correspondent (Mr. Clopton) talks about "high-sounding word's of vanity." I would thank him or you to show that these are not unintelligible sounds, words without ideas, which neither yourself nor one of your readers can explain. So much for your "order of things," or new order of expressions. There is one great truth, and I will always pick up a truth as I would a diamond out of the mud--I say there is one great truth in your second section. It is this: "That which is true in Mr. Campbell's system is not new, and that which is new is not true." I know there is an ambiguity in this sentence. But in its common meaning it is most true. Suppose it had read, That which is true in religion is not new, that which is new in religion is not true, I would hug e said a hearty Amen. The fault I have found with the popular schemes of religion is well expressed by Mr. Brantly in this antithesis. They are all too new for me. I have said, as every reader of these volumes knows, that nothing in religion is worth a thought which is not as old as the New Testament. Has Mr. Brantly agreed with me at last--what is new in religion is not true!! This was my starting point in the year 1810. It is found minutely detailed in the first and second volumes of this work. I am all for the old things--not Mr. Brantly's old things, some of which are not older than the fortieth year of Andrew Fuller. Old things may become new, however. Many of the positions of Luther and Calvin were called new, and were new, at the era of the Reformation; but yet they were as old as the era of Christianity itself.

      Some new things in "my system" may be true. Many things said about the modes of preaching [662] and teaching are as new as the practices, and therefore may be true; for both that which is opposed and that which opposes are of recent date. But this is a mere criticism on the phraseology. What Mr. Brantly means is true. I understand him to mean that all new things in religion are false, and that whatever is true is as old as the religion. I request all my readers to bear this concession of my most inexorable opponent in long remembrance.

      Bad hearts are next complained of. "It is not new systems, but new hearts that we need." True it may be of many, and, for aught I know, of many of the popular preachers. But I go upon this principle, that the heart is not to be cured by a charm, nor to be purified by false notions. Therefore, I contend for the ancient gospel--the gospel found in the New Testament, because it is the wisdom of God and the power of God to purify the heart. Neither Calvinism, Fullerism, Arminianism, nor any human system can purify the heart; for very wicked men have been indoctrinated into all these systems. None, however, believe and obey the gospel whose hearts are not purified; for God purifies the hearts of men by believing the gospel. This is the reason faith purifies the heart, for it brings the truth of God in to the heart.

      Then comes Wesley's, the Unitarian's and some other versions of the New Testament. Then comes the denunciation against the New Version--the wholesale denunciation. Who can stand before envy? Let me here say, and let me be put to the proof, that there is no important item for which I contend that I cannot prove from the worst version I ever saw. I will take the common version and meet Mr. Brantly on any one item he chooses to select--Baptism for the remission of sins, if he pleases. Yes, the common version will sustain, ably sustain me in every point; and I will predict, that, upon this point and many others, Mr. Brantly will call upon the aid of Dew versions before I call for help. I look upon all that is said on the subject of the New Version by Mr. Brantly as most illiberal, uncalled for, and insupportable. It exhibits a rancor and a spirit of denunciation more becoming his Holiness than a Protestant. I am always prepared to defend not only the New Version which I have published, but the necessity of new versions for the confirmation of the faith and the enlargement of the views of Christians. There is not a commentator in Christendom that has not given as much of a new version as I have done. Not one catholic or protestant who has not attempted to correct a thousand times the version on which he wrote. Nay, Mr. Brantly must be a rara avis in terris simillima nigrogue cycno (in plain English a black swan,) if he has not in his pulpit harangues often attempted to improve the version. But these remarks were intended to prejudice those who have not examined the version both against the publisher and the work. I am an innovator and the version is an innovation. I am glad that in these volumes will be found the preface to the king's version, a very scarce document in this day. From that preface, written by the publisher of the king's version, it will appear that all Mr. Brantly has said, in spirit and substance, was said by the opposers of the present version. The common version was introduced by authority in defiance of all objections. Is not this a fact, Mr. Brantly? Was it not more objected to than the reading of the New Version? Surely he is not so ignorant of the history of the versions of the bible as not to know that not one was ever introduced without much opposition. Mr. Brantly takes the same ground to oppose myself and the version I have published on which the Catholics stood in all their opposition to all the new translations. They said all the innovators wanted new versions.¹ Wickliffe (we call) the first reformer [the Catholics call him the heretical innovator, John Wickliffe] published a translation just to suit his own views. This was the first English bible. An innovator he was, and the bible he published was an innovation upon the Church of Rome.

      Tyndal, A. D. 1526, another innovator and heretic, published an English version of the New Testament. The bishops of England condemned it; King Harry proscribed it; the bishops bought up and burned all they could find; the laity would read it, and the king and the clergy had their hands full to keep the people in the dark. In ten years five editions were sold in Holland. The king proposed a new translation, but the bishops opposed it; and in spite of both, the people got to understand the scriptures better than their teachers. The same version, dressed up a little, and called "Thomas Matthews' Testament," when recommended by archbishop Cranmer, took with the clergy; and when they found the people would have it, they said it was a good version, and took off all restraints against the reading of it.

      Luther and Beza--indeed, all the innovators, now called reformers, either gave new versions, or aided in giving them. So that the Catholics and Mr. Brantly have good reason to lament that all innovators gave new versions. [See the History of the Bible, vol. 2.] Well may he ask, "Why is it that all innovators become tired of the old version and seek new ones?" All reformers hitherto have had occasion to lament that the people, either through imperfect translations, or through the want of translations, were kept under the dominion of the clergy!

      Had I made a version myself it might have been said, with more plausibility, I was tired of the old one. I chose rather to collect a version already made by men, that Mr. Brantly called "great and good." His commendation of them, however, goes not very far with me. But those who look to him for instruction will please remember that Mr. Brantly calls the authors of the New Version great and good men. But see what sort of men are great and good in Mr. Brantly's calendar; such as make a translation "to suit their own views." "These great and good men," says he, "made out their respective versions to suit their own views." So did the king s translators--so did Beza. They pleased the king, the court, and the bishops of England. But it is gratuitous to say that Drs. Campbell, Macknight, and Doddridge made a version to suit their own views; for none of them strove to sustain their own sect farther than their prejudices directed them, and two of them, (Campbell and Macknight) rose as far above the sectarian feeling as any translators in ancient and modern times. Dr. George Campbell was a very different man from Mr. Brantly and A. Campbell, it is true. But that cannot be helped; and I know not why any two men, born at different periods and educated in different schools, are to be blamed for not being item per item the same.

      I think I have not passed over a single item worthy of a remark in this Mr. Brantly's present [663] order of things. As I have thanked him for this notice he has taken of me, I will thank him twice if he will be as liberal to his readers as I have been to mine. Let them once hear me in his paper as I have let mine hear him, in extenso.

      I am not afraid (because I have nothing to lose) to permit my readers to hear all that can be said against my views and my deeds. This has always been my course. This hasty sketch appears in this paper to make room for Mr. Clopton's No. 2, in the fourth number of the Harbinger. The cause I plead cannot be defeated by its enemies: retard it they may. They cannot make a sect of us as we shall show. We have more to fear from our friends than from our enemies. Let them act with Christian prudence and in a Christian spirit, then their efforts cannot fail.

EDITOR.      

      TO the co-operation of a few friends, under the divine government, is to be ascribed the success which has accompanied this first effort to restore a pure speech to the people of God--to restore the ancient order of things in the Christian kingdom--to emancipate the conscience from the dominion of human authority in matters of religion, and to lay a foundation, an imperishable foundation, for the union of all Christians, and for their co-operation in spreading the glorious gospel throughout the world. I had but very humble hopes, I can assure the public, the day I wrote the first essay or the preface for this work, that I could at all succeed in gaining a patient hearing. But I have been entirely disappointed. The success attendant on this effort has produced a hope which once I dared not entertain, that a blissful revolution can be effected. It has actually begun, and such a one as cannot fail to produce a state of society far surpassing in the fruits of righteousness, and peace, and joy, any result of any former religious revolution, since the great apostasy from christian institutions.

      Having been educated as Presbyterian clergymen generally are, and looking forward to the ministry as both an honorable and useful calling, all my expectations and prospects in future life were, at the age of twenty-one, identified with the office of the ministry. But scarcely had I begun to make sermons, when I discovered that the religion of the New Testament was one thing, and that of any sect which I knew was another. I could not proceed. An unsuccessful effort by my father to reform the presbytery and synod to which he belonged, made me despair of reformation. I gave it up as a hopeless effort: but did not give up speaking in public assembles upon the great articles of christian faith and practice. In the hope, the humble hope, of erecting a single congregation with which I could enjoy the social institutions, I labored. I had not the remotest idea of being able to do more than this; and, therefore, I betook myself to the occupation of a farmer, and for a number of years attended to this profession as a means of subsistence, and labored every Lord's day to separate the truth from the traditions of men, and to persuade men to give up their fables for the truth--with but little success I labored.

      When pressed by some of the most influential Baptists in the cities of New York and Philadelphia, in the year 1816, to settle in one of those cities, I declined the friendly offers and kind persuasions of both deacon Withington of New York and deacon Shields of Philadelphia, alleging that I could not take the charge of any church in those cities, because I did not think they would submit to the government of Jesus Christ, or to the primitive order of things. They asked me what that order was? I gave them my views. To which neither of them objected.--Deacon Withington alluded to Mr. M'Clay's church in that city as practising in part that order; and said that for himself he preferred it. I replied that however well disposed he might be towards it, I could not think that many of the members of that church would (Mr. Williams' it was then,) and rather than produce divisions among them, or adopt the order of things then fashionable in that city, I would live and die in the backwoods. The same or similar remarks were made to deacon Shields in Philadelphia.

      Such were my views and feelings at that time, and so slight were the hopes which I entertained of seeing the least impression made upon the kingdom of the clergy. But my own mind labored under the pernicious influence of scholastic divinity, and the Calvinian metaphysics; and although I greatly desired to stand perfect and complete in the knowledge of the will of God, and my conscience could bow to nothing but the authority of the King Eternal, yet a full emancipation from the traditions of the elders I had not experienced. This was as gradual as the approaches of spring.

      In the year 1820, when solicited to meet Mr. Walker on the subject of baptism, I hesitated for about six months whether it were lawful thus to defend the truth. I was written to three times before I gained my own consent. I did not like controversy so well as many have since thought I did; and I was doubtful of the effects it might have upon society. These difficulties were, however overcome, and we met. It was not until after I discovered the effects of that discussion that I began to hope that something might be done to rouse this generation from its supineness and spiritual lethargy. About two years afterwards I conceived the plan of this work, and thought I should make the experiment. I did so, and the effects are now before the public.

      Little is done, it is true, compared with what is yet to be done; but that little is a great deal compared with the opposition made, and the shortness of the time in which it has been done. He that sails against both wind and tide sails slowly, and if he advance at all it must be by great exertion of the mariners. The storm now rages more than at any former period; but the current is more favorable. The winds of doctrine are ringing upon the great sea; but they are continually shifting, and though we may be tossed and driven sometimes out of our course, the vessel is good, the Pilot the most skilful, so we cannot fear to reach the desired haven.

      Many apologies ought to be made for the execution of the prospectus of this work. Things changed so much from our expectations that we were compelled to change with them. Our series of essays upon more topics were much shorter, and longer between, than was contemplated. The publication of two debates, and of two editions of the New Testament, unexpected when we issued our proposals, distracted our attentions, and so increased my labors, that more was done than could be done well. The compositions for this work were almost universally written in the despatch of ordinary letter writing, the half of an essay being often in type, or in the press, before the other half of it was conceived or written. During the last two mouths we have issued three numbers of the Millennial Harbinger, and this is the sixth number of this [664] work, in nearly the same period. Besides we have written scores of long letters. These things ought not to have been so, but a willingness to do all that the most unremitting attentions could do, and the demands upon our services in various departments having been so urgent, we were compelled to undertake too much. We hope to avoid these excesses of labor in future, and to rally and concentrate our energies upon one work.

      Many subjects introduced into this work have not been fully and systematically discussed. General views have been submitted, rather than full developments and defences. Not a single topic has received that finish, or that elucidation which it is in the compass of our means to bestow upon it. I have thought if life should be prolonged, and an opportunity offer, that I would one day revise this work, and have a second edition of it published, with such emendations as experience and observation might suggest.²

      I have commenced a new work, and taken a new name for it on various accounts. Hating sects and sectarian names, I resolved to prevent the name of Christian Baptists from being fixed upon it to do which efforts were making. It is true, men's tongues are their own, and they may use them as they please; but I am resolved to give them no just occasion for nicknaming advocates for the ancient order of things. My sheet admonishes me that I must close, and as usual on such occasions, I ought to return thanks to all those who have aided in the circulation of this work and patronized it, were it not that I cannot consider it as a favor done to me. Those who write for a subsistence should feel grateful to those who sustain them; but the patrons of this work, its real friends, were actuated by other considerations, than personal respect for me; and as it was not to sustain an individual, but to promote the truth, they bestowed their patronage, I can only say that the God of truth has blessed them, and will bless them, having acted sincerely in this matter. To him I commend them, and to him to whom I owe my being, and all that I call mine, to whom I have vowed allegiance never to be recalled, to him I will now and forever ascribe praise for the good which he has made me to enjoy, and for the good, if any, he has enabled me to do to others. I have found myself blessed in this undertaking--my heart has been enlarged, and no reader of the Christian Baptist, I think will ever derive more advantage from it, than I have from the writing and conducting of it. To Jesus Christ my Lord be everlasting praise.

EDITOR.      

[TCB 656-665]