No. 4. BETHANY, VIRGINIA: MONDAY, APRIL, 5, 1830. Vol. 1.

I saw another messenger flying through the midst of heaven, having everlasting good news to proclaim to the inhabitants of the earth, even to every nation and tribe, and tongue, and people--saying with a loud voice, Fear God and give glory to him, for the hour of his judgments is come: and worship him who made heaven, and earth, and sea, and the fountains of water.--JOHN.       Great is the truth and mighty above things, and will prevail.

      WILL sects ever cease? Will a time ever come when all disciples will unite under one Lord, in one faith, in one immersion, in one hope, in one body, in one spirit, and in adoring one God and Father of all? Will divisions ever be healed? Will strife ever cease among the saints on Earth? To these questions all who pray for the millennium, all who long for its appearance, answer, Yes. How, then, shall the union be accomplished? Will all be converted to any one sect? Will all become Unitarians, Trinitarians, Arians, or Socinians? Will all become Presbyterians, Baptists, or Methodists? Will all become members of any one of the hundred sects of this century? I presume no person of common intelligence will say, Yes. All sects know they have some opinions, or some customs which must be dispensed with. How then shall it be introduced? I answer unequivocally in one sentence, By abandoning opinions, and founding all associations upon the belief of gospel facts. Let every sect give up its opinions as a bond of union, and what will remain in common? The gospel facts alone. Every sect, Catholic and Protestant, admits all the historic facts recorded in the five historical books of the New Testament. Their various interpretations, additions, subtractions, and new modifications of opinions concerning these facts, and not the truth or falsehood of the narratives, create all the confusion, build the whole Babel, and set all the machinery of the contending interests in motion. Now, will not the slowest to apprehend see that, if, by any means, they could be induced to abandon their opinions, and retain the plain incontrovertible facts, the strife would be over?

      But men cannot give up their opinions, and, therefore, they never can unite, says one. We do not ask them to give up their opinions--We ask them only not to impose them upon others. Let them hold their opinions; but let them hold them as private property. The faith is public property: opinions are, and always have been, private property. Men have foolishly attempted to make the deductions of some great minds the common measure of all christians. Hence the deductions of a Luther, and a Calvin, and a Wesley, have been the rule and measure of all who coalesce under the names of the leaders. It is cruel to excommunicate a man because of the imbecility of his [145] intellect. I have been censured long and often for laying too much stress upon the assent of the understanding; but those who have most acrimoniously censured me, have laid much more stress upon the assent of the mind than I have ever done. I never did, at any time, exclude a man from the kingdom of God for a mere imbecility of intellect; or, in other words, because he could not assent to my opinions. All sects are doing, or have done this. Their covenants and creeds are deductions, speculative and abstract, from the crucible of some strong skull, and those who would not or could not subscribe them as the oracles of God, have been given over to Satan. The Baptists are doing this now, in many parts of the country, with an unrelenting hand.¹ They will make a sect, another sect, if they can. But they will not be able to make a sect of those who advocate the ancient order of things; provided they who are now contending for the gospel, will be true to their own cause.

      I will now show how they cannot make a sect of us. We will acknowledge all as christians who acknowledge the gospel facts, and obey Jesus Christ. But, says one, will you receive a Unitarian? No; nor a Trinitarian. We will have neither Unitarians nor Trinitarians. How can this be! Systems made Unitarians and Trinitarians. Renounce the system, and you renounce its creatures.

      But the creatures of other systems now exist, and some of them will come in your way. How will you dispose of them? I answer, We will unmake them. Again I am asked, How will you unmake [146] them? I answer, By laying no emphasis upon their opinions. What is a Unitarian? One who contends that Jesus Christ is not the Son of God. Such a one has denied the faith, and therefore we reject him. But, says a Trinitarian, many Unitarians acknowledge that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in a sense of their own. Admit it. Then I ask, How do you know they have a sense of their own? Intuitively, or by their words? Not intuitively, but by their words, And what are these words? Are they Bible words? If they are, we cannot object to them--if they are not, we will not hear them, or, what is the same thing, we will not discuss them at all. If he will ascribe to Jesus all Bible attributes, names, works, and worship, we will not fight with him about scholastic words: but if he will not ascribe to him every thing which the first christians ascribed, and worship and adore him as the first christians did, we will reject him, not because of his private opinions, but because he refuses to honor Jesus as the first converts did, and withholds from him the titles and honors which God and his apostles have bestowed upon him.

      In like manner we will deal with a Trinitarian. If he will ascribe to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, all that the first believers ascribed, and nothing more, we will receive him--but we will not allow him to apply scholastic and barbarous epithets to the Father, the Son, or the holy Spirit. If he will dogmatize and become a factionist, we reject him--not because of his opinions, but because of his attempting to make a fiction, or to lord it over God's heritage.

      And will you receive a Universalist too? No; not as a Universalist. If a man, professing Universalist opinions, should apply for admission, we will receive him, if he will consent to use and apply all the Bible phrases in their plain reference to the future state of men and angels. We will not hearken to those questions which gender strife, nor discuss them at all. If a person say such is his private opinion, let him have it as his private opinion; but lay no stress upon it; and if it be a wrong private opinion, it will die a natural death much sooner than if you attempt to kill it.

      In illustration of this most interesting point, I beg leave to introduce a narrative which justifies the course here recommended, and presents it, in a very eligible character, to the advocates of the ancient order of things.--

      In the year 1828, when the gospel, as taught by the apostles, was proclaimed with so much power, in the Western Reserve, Ohio, by our brothers Scott, Bentley, Rigdon, and others, some of all sects obeyed it. Among these some Methodist and two Universalist preachers were immersed for the remission of their sins. One of these Universalist preachers appeared at the Mahoning Association, held in Warren, in the month of August, 1828. He was invited to deliver an oration, at an early period of the session of the Association. He did so. Many of the brethren heard him with great pleasure; but some--remembering that he had, only a few weeks before, proclaimed Universalism, or some species of Restorationism--could not be altogether reconciled to invite him to a seat, and to treat hint as a brother, [147] Indeed, some worthy brothers were intent on having a motion made, calling upon this brother Rains for an unequivocal declaration of his opinions upon the Restoration scheme, to which he was suspected by some as still partial. It was intended, by some members, to non-fellowship this brother, if he avowed these principles. Some opposed this measure; but finally brother Rains arose, and in a very clear and forcible manner, and with all deference, declared that, when he obeyed the gospel, he had, as he thought, virtually renounced sectarianism, and did not expect that the disciples of Christ were to judge him for his private opinions. It was true, he said, that many of his former opinions remained. These opinions he did not wish to inculcate; but if he were asked to avow his private opinions concerning his former peculiarity, he must confess that he was substantially of the same opinion still.

      This greatly alarmed some of the brothers, and they were prepared either to renounce him, or to withdraw from the Association, if he were acknowledged. Some of us made a proposition that if these peculiar opinions were held as PRIVATE opinions, and not taught by this brother, he might be, and, constitutionally, ought to be retained; but if he should teach or inculcate such private opinions, or seek to make disciples to them, he would then become a factionist, and as such could not be fellowshipped.

      Whether he held these views as matters of faith, or as pure matters of opinion, was then propounded to him. He avowed them to be, in his judgment, matters of opinion, and not matters of faith--and, in reply to another question, averred that he would not teach them, believing them to be matters of opinion, and not the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Although a majority of the brethren were satisfied, still a number were not reconciled to this decision. It was repeatedly urged that it mattered not what his private opinions were on this subject, provided he regarded them only as matters of opinion, and held them as private property.

      I urged this course from the conviction that, if these opinions were not agitated nor discussed, the ancient gospel would cause them to wither away. This was my philosophy then, and, being much pleased with this brother, I had no doubt, from his very handsome address and acquirements, he would be a very useful laborer in the great field. I only heard of him a few times since; but the other day I received the following letter from him, which, I think, proves the wisdom of the course pursued, and goes far to recommend the principles contended for in this article.--

      "DEAR BROTHER,--Being aware that you are often addressed through the medium of letters, and that the multiplicity of engagements which call for your attention, render brevity a necessary qualification in your correspondents, I will, in this communication, be as brief as possible.

      "I wish to inform you that my "Restorationist" sentiments have been slowly and imperceptibly erased from my mind, by the ministry [148] of Paul and Peter, and some other illustrious preachers, with whose discourses and writing, I need not tell you, you seem to be intimately acquainted. After my immersion, I brought my mind, as much as I possibly could, like a blank surface, to the ministry of the New Institution--and by this means, I think, many characters of truth have been imprinted in my mind, which did not formerly exist there. I also consider myself as growing in grace, and in the knowledge of Jesus Christ, every day--and as I give myself wholly to the work of an evangelist, I have, within the last twelve months, been instrumental in disseminating the truth extensively, and in removing from many minds, some heavy masses of sectarian rubbish. The facts of the New Testament will conquer the world. They have conquered me, and are now conquering thousands of others. The reformation is progressing in almost all parts of the Western Country through which I have travelled, beyond my most sanguine expectations.

      My former associates persecute me, I would say, most cruelly. I hope you will not permit them to prejudice your mind against me. I shall have many difficulties to encounter, in consequence of the evil circumstances which formerly surrounded me--or, to speak more plainly, in consequence of having once been a Universalist. I, however, hope to rise above the opposition of my quondam brethren, and during the remainder of my days, to devote my energies, not to the building up of sectarian systems, but to the teaching of the word.

      "I should be very happy to hear of the welfare of father Campbell. I am strongly disposed to reciprocate the kindness of that beloved brother, by declaring, that, if I were Timothy, father Campbell should, in preference to any man, be my Paul. You will not call this flattery. It is a warm sentimental effusion of my heart.

"AYLETT RAINS."

      It is in accordance with a liberty which I sometimes take, when I think the good cause requires it, that I publish an extract from a private letter. This has been known to be my failing; I hope it leans to virtue's side!

      To return--I hope I may be permitted to say that I feel a certainty amounting to assurance, that this is the only practicable course to usher in that glorious day of union, peace, and love, which all desire, and many expect, to be the discriminating character of the Millennial age.

      Reason and experience unite their testimony in assuring us that, in the same proportion as individuals labor to be of one opinion they disagree. The greater the emphasis laid upon opinions, the more rapidly they generate. The nearest approaches to a unity of opinion which I have ever witnessed, have appeared in those societies in which no effort was made to be of one opinion; in which they allowed the greatest liberty of opinion, and in which they talked more and boasted more of the glory and majesty of the great facts, the wonderful works of God's loving kindness to the children of men, than of themselves, their views and attainments. [149]

      I am greatly deceived in all my reasonings, and observation has misled me, if any society pursuing the principle we have suggested, will ever be troubled with Unitarians, Trinitarians, Universalists, Arminians, Calvinists, &c. &c, and under such a course of procedure as that recommended here, all will see that such systems and such schismatical tenets could never originate. If I were to attempt to produce the greatest uniformity of opinion, I would set about it by paying no respect to opinions, laying no emphasis upon them, admiring and contemning no opinion as such. But if I wished to produce the greatest discrepancies in opinion, I would call some damnably dangerous, others of vital importance; I would always eulogize the sound, and censure the erroneous in opinions. We all know that strife is like the bursting forth of water--it always widens the channels; and many a broil in churches, neighborhoods, and families, would have been prevented if the first indication had been sympathetically attributed to the infirmity of human nature.

EDITOR.

      IN the Christian Baptist, volume 7. page 164, is the following criticism:--

      "Disciple or convert the nations, immersing them. I need not tell you (says the writer) that this is the exact translation. Let me ask you then, Does not the active participle always, when connected with the imperative mood, express the manner in which the thing commanded is to be performed. Cleanse the room, washing it; clean the floor, sweeping it; cultivate the field, ploughing it; sustain the hungry, feeding them; furnish the soldiers, arming them; convert the nations, baptizing them--are exactly the same forms of speech." And again: "That was the act [namely baptism] by which the command to convert the nations was to be obeyed. Like or dislike the import of this sentence (adds the writer) it must unquestionably be admitted by all scholars and persons of plain common sense to be the unsophisticated meaning of it."

      Now I must venture (notwithstanding this assertion) to call in question the correctness of this criticism: not that I wish by any means to depreciate the ordinance of baptism; but because I consider the matter not properly represented.

      "Does not the active participle always, when connected with the imperative mood, express the manner in which the thing commanded is to be performed?" I answer, No; not always. It frequently does so; but sometimes (and particularly in condensed sentences) it expresses another action;--a part, indeed of the general order or command, but distinct in its nature from the particular thing enjoined in the imperative mood. Examples in which the participle does express the manner of performing the command in the imperative mood, have been given as above quoted: let me subjoin one or two sentences, [150] of similar construction, in which it does not express the manner of performing that particular command.

      "Go and inspect the army, furnishing all the soldiers with arms and provisions." "Go and count that flock of sheep, marking every one in the ear." Now the active participle furnishing does not express the manner of performing the particular order to inspect; nor does marking express the manner of counting. They express, in both instances, two distinct things,--two different acts, both being included in the general command:--inspect and furnish; count and mark.

      Now try the case in question--the commission in Matt. xxviii, "Go and teach (matheteusate) disciple or convert all nations, baptizing them in the name," &c. Does it follow, from this form of expression, that the active participle baptizing expresses the manner in which the command to disciple or convert is to be performed? I should think not. And as far as regards the particular manner in which the sentence is constructed, I am not forbidden to say, they are two distinct things--both included in the general order or command:--disciple or convert and baptize Nothing in the construction of the sentence forbids it; and upon the most candid examination, I am well persuaded that this is indeed the correct idea--"the unsophisticated meaning" of the sentence. Let us pay some little attention further to the matter.

      Since the mere construction of a sentence in this form will not decide the question, whether the participle is intended to express the manner in which the act enjoined in the imperative mood is to he performed, or whether it expresses a distinct thing, we must resort to some other datum for that purpose. What is that datum? I answer, simply this: the nature of the case. We are to judge whether or not, in the nature of the case, the action in the participle is that by which the thing enjoined in the verb is to be performed. This, and not the mere form of the sentence, must enable us to decide. Hence the corollary stated by the writer, is not a legitimate one. "This was the act (he says, deducing it from the very form of the sentence) by which the command to convert the nations was to be obeyed." It does by no means follow.

      Now, then, we are on other ground than the mere construction of the sentence; and it remains to form our judgment on this question. Is baptism or immersion, in the nature of the case, the act by which a person is discipled, turned to Christ, or converted? Is this the true, "unsophisticated," scriptural idea of the fact? I think not. That baptism appertains to the character of a disciple or convert, I readily agree. Nor do I deny that the apostles would have refused to recognize, as a disciple, the professor who should have refused to be baptized;² this ordinance being the appointed badge of discipleship, the proper mode of manifesting or professing allegiance to the "King of saints." All this, however, admitted, it does by no means follow, that baptism really constituted discipleship; or in other words, [151] is that by which a person is converted to God: nor does the New Testament, as far as I am capable of judging, any where represent it. Conversion is a turning of the heart to holiness, by "repentance towards God, and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ," this repentance bringing forth "fruits meet," and this faith "working by love." Baptism (or sacred immersion,) according to the order of our Lord's kingdom, ought to be a prompt and early fruit of discipleship; and but for the unhappy influence of human tradition, and the blindness of prejudice, surely every one, desirous of sustaining, properly, the character of a disciple, would follow his Master in the way which he has appointed.

      The construction contended for by Mr. C. in the criticism, is this: "Convert the nations, baptizing them," &c.--that is, convert them by baptizing. The construction which I maintain, in these remarks, is this: "Convert the nations, baptizing them in the name," &c.--that is, convert and baptize them:--a construction which appears to me much more congenial with scriptural representation in general; and particularly with the commission as recorded by Mark, "He that believes and is baptized," &c. and with that passage in John iv. 1, (which the writer of the criticism surely must have overlooked)--the Pharisees heard that JESUS MADE AND BAPTIZED more DISCIPLES than John." One sacred writer is the best commentator on another.

CHRISTIANOS.

      P. S. Mr. Campbell is respectfully requested to give these remarks a place in the Christian Baptist. He can animadvert on them as he may think proper.

C.

      MUCH as I may respect the writer of this criticism, and his ingenuity too, I can give him no credit for the above criticism. I spoke of natural participles, not forced participles, or rather not imperative moods forced into participles. He either mistakes the whole criticism, or not liking the plain meaning of the passage, tortured his imagination to find something for which there is no parallel in any writer who understands the English tongue. He invents two exceptions to a rule as general as any rule in the English syntax. Yet neither of them is in truth an exception. Let us examine his first example. "Go and inspect the army, furnishing all the soldiers with arms and provisions." To convert this example into good common English, it reads thus; Go, inspect the army and furnish all the soldiers with arms and provisions. He wishes the actions to inspect and to furnish to appear different. No scholar then could find any reason for using an imperative mood for the one, and a participle for the other. And I will go a little farther and say that no Grecian, Roman, nor English writer of any standing whatever, ever used such an expression. I will thank Christianos to bring from any standard writer in these languages only one example like this, his invented anomaly. [152]

      But I have not done with it yet. Let me ask him to give us a reason for adding ing to furnish. Is not the modification of this sentence which I have given the natural, grammatical, and the universal usage? I have said universal, believing it to be as difficult to find an exception as to find a black swan. There are three natural imperatives--three commands in this example perfectly distinct from one other. The first command is, Go--the second command is, inspect, and the third command is, furnish, different from the other two. Now why add ing to the last, more than to the former two, if not to make a case to suit him. For no other assignable reason!! It is making a new language--a language too new to improve the Augustan Age. Why not have read it thus; going, and inspect, and furnish, or go, inspecting, and furnish. There is as much propriety in either of these, and as much authority for them as for his converting a natural imperative into a participial form to save a private opinion.

      His second example is from the same mint. They are two bullets made in the same mould before the metal cooled, "Go and count that flock of sheep, marking every one in the ear." Why not have had the three imperatives according to the sense and design of the injunctions? Why not have spoken it in English thus; "Go, count that flock of sheep, and mark every one in the ear?" Does he mean that marking them in the ear is expressive of the manner of going and counting them? No, he will answer. Why then add ing to the last imperative? for it is, he says, a distinct command, and surely ought to be a distinct imperative. If it is not a distinct command, then it does not suit his purpose in bringing it forward, and if it be a distinct command, surely it ought to be a distinct imperative. This dilemma, if he understand it, leaves not a wreck of his examples behind.

      But his theology is as exceptionable as his grammar. We shall try it. He has ingeniously formed these two examples to suit not only his forced participles, but his views of the commission: Go and convert the nations, baptizing them. With him these are distinct imperatives, or distinct commands. For this is his side of the question. If distinct commands, they ought to be distinct imperatives. So will decree all the colleges in christendom. If they are distinct acts, distinct commands, they must be distinct imperatives. It ought on his hypotheses to read, "Go, convert," or Go, disciple, and baptize the nations. This is his sense of the passage. He has three distinct imperatives, and would force the participle into an outlandish imperative. It is, Go, disciple, and baptize. I ask then, Does not his baptizing import something different from discipling? Pray what is it? In good English, or in bad English, let us have what he means by baptizing, after a person is discipled. To plough, to harrow, and to sow a field, are all distinct acts, and we may say, "Go, plough, harrow, and sow such a field;" but not Go, plough the field, harrowing it, or Go, plough, and harrow the field, sowing it. It would be tolerable English to say, "Go and plough the field, and harrow it, sowing it," if it was intended to sow it at the same time. But in no other sense would it be tolerable. [153]

      His examples are no exceptions to my rule, for they do not come under it. His rule is this--The active participle is sometimes an imperative mood when in conjunction with other imperatives expressing different commands and different acts. By juxta position, it becomes an imperative!! This is his criticism. It has the merit of novelty. I go upon this old and plain principle of grammar, that the imperative mood is the commanding mood, and that in giving commands for every distinct command, we use a distinct imperative. If there be two or three, or four distinct commands in one address, there must, in all grammatical reason, be just as many imperatives, as there are distinct commands. To convert participles into imperative moods is only necessary when there is some unreasonable position to be carried. Thus in time of war it is right, not only to destroy the country, but to cripple, wound, and even kill the inhabitants.

      There may be many participles added to one imperative to express the manner of conforming to the command--not one of which, however, indicates any act, but an execution of the command given. The first chapter which I read after reading the criticism of my friend Christianos, was the fifth to the Ephesians. In which I observed four participles in sequence of one imperative. In the Greek Testament it reads be filled with the spirit. This is the command, and it is in the imperative mood of course. The participles are speaking, singing, praising, giving thanks. Be filled with the spirit, speaking to one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, singing and praising, or making melody in your hearts to the Lord, and giving thanks on all occasions to the Lord. In this manner the command given in the imperative, "Be filled with the spirit," was to be obeyed. But why should I specify when there is not a more general principle in the grammar of universal language.

      Christianos, no doubt, felt very confident that he had found two exceptions; and is confident that the words "Jesus made and baptized more disciples," was a point blank refutation of the idea that baptizing had any thing to do with making disciples. Now had it read, Jesus had made more disciples and baptized them, it would have been a little more specious; because it would have seemed that the disciples were finished and made before baptized, and baptizing was something very different from making disciples. But this false rumor, in the current language of Judea, that "Jesus made and immersed more disciples than John," is corrected by the historian in the following parenthesis, (though in fact Jesus immersed not: his disciples only immersed.)

      It is the common custom in the colloquial style of all nations, in describing some results, to repeat all the acts by which a thing is done. John cut out, sewed, made, and completed more shoes than any cordwainer in town. William raised and finished more houses than any mechanic in the city. To make and baptize or disciple, is no more than equivalent, to disciple a person. But a question, which will settle this matter, remains to be discussed. Is an unbaptized [154] person any where called a disciple, or a christian, or a convert, after the institution of christian immersion in the New Testament? Can any one be called a disciple who is not in the school of that teacher whose disciple he is called? A disciple is the scholar, or the follower of some person. "The disciples were called christians first at Antioch." No person can in christian propriety of style, be called a disciple who is not baptized. We use the term laxly when applied to those who profess Christ, and who think they are baptized, when in fact they are not. But his is our custom--not the apostles' custom. Christ's command is, Disciple or convert the nations, immersing and teaching them. And without instructing and immersing, the command cannot be obeyed. It never was obeyed in any other way. Hence, the apostles first preached, then immersed those who believed, and taught them the christian institution.

      Notwithstanding our friend Christianos has given us a new datum for understanding participles, we must with additional earnestness, and with more force, press upon our readers the corollary as a most legitimate one, viz, this act of immersing was an act without which the command to convert the nations was not obeyed.

      One of the most ruinous improvements in christian theology, as I think, is the making of conversion what Christianos makes of it--"a turning of the heart to holiness." Mental converts are only speculative converts. Philosophical converts they may be, but christian converts are persons whose lives are changed--who are turned from the practice of sin to the practice of the doctrine of Christ. True, they do love truth, goodness, holiness; but they show this love by obedience. Many of these mental converts need to be converted in the scriptural sense of that word. To many of them I would say, 'Repent and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out."

      In one sentence, I am for purity and holiness of life in all disciples; and in making disciples, I go for the old usages--for proclaiming the gospel--for immersing the believers for the remission of sins; and then after they are thus converted, for teaching them to observe all things which the Lord commanded. And if Christianos has discovered any other or better way, it is his own, and I have no right to it. I trust the learned will either refute, or cordially adopt my remarks upon this participle.

      As I have now republished Christianos in these pages, I hope he will make interest with the Religious Herald to let my remarks in reply to his criticism, go in the same columns to his readers.

EDITOR.

      Mr. Editor.

      I PERCEIVE, in the third number of the Baptist Chronicle, the letter written by the church in Frankfort (or rather by Dr. Noel,) to the Franklin Association; and although I doubt not you will notice it as it deserves, yet there is one matter connected with it that you, [155] perhaps, are not aware of; but to which the public attention should, in my opinion, be directed.

      I have observed (and it has often amused me) the pains taken to enlist the prejudices of the public in favor of certain men, and against others. It is supposed that the weight of great names does wonders in any cause where argument fails. It would seem though that the defeat these gentlemen sustained in their calling of Bishop Semple to their aid, should have taught them better. But our religious politicians are just like the politicians of this world. They imagine they can dupe the people into any thing. It matters not what course they have pursued, if they can only keep the public mind off from that, and make them think that they are now the champions of their cause; the "blushing honors" of popular applause they know will "fall thick upon them."

      The Baptist Recorder, during its existence, was wont to bespatter those who wrote for its pages, with epithets well calculated to secure for their essays a full share of attention. The Baptists have been taught to believe that there exists "an odious conspiracy" against their very existence, and especially their name. If, therefore, "a Baptist of the old stamp" appears, he is sure of a patient hearing.

      I see, too, that the Chronicle is about to follow its example, and to appeal altogether to the passions and prejudices of its readers; and if I should judge from the communications contained in it, as well as from its editorial flights, this is all it can aspire to.

      Brother Clack is, indeed, a man of some attainments; and I have regretted exceedingly to see him duped by artful and designing men, of whose character he knew nothing, to place laurels around their brows at the expense of truth and righteousness.

      But to the point. I have been led to these reflections by observing a question, precisely of the character above alluded to, in this famous Church Letter. And I am the more disposed to notice it, since the celebrated Mr. Henry Wingate has been pleased to say that the reason for shutting the doors against the brethren Creaths, is to be found in that letter--namely, they are identified therein.

      I presume the gentleman above alluded to, having been chosen door-keeper for the house of Representatives, felt himself so highly exalted above his usual sphere by the appointment, that he supposed he could, with impunity, aspire to the honorable office of door-keeper, to a house built by the new recruits; and consecrated to holy purposes with all due form and solemnity; and, therefore, without any order from the Church, could give to the public just what documents he saw proper from amongst her papers.

      The question I refer to is the following. After giving the items of false doctrine, charged upon Mahoning by Beaver, and adding some others of a most indefinite character, the Doctor asks, "Can any real Baptists abide it?" And in all the fury with which his theme inspired him, he gives to all neutrals, all unreal Baptists, their furlough. [156]

      Now, whenever any man claims to himself very exalted pretensions, the public, and especially if there are any among them who have good memories, (the possibility of which demagogues always choose to forget) have a right to be informed upon the validity of this claim.

      I have, therefore, a question to propose, upon which it is hoped this same Doctor Noel will be pleased to afford us some information:--

      Is Dr. Noel a Baptist, or is he a Presbyterian?

      Laugh not, gentle reader, at the apparent folly of such a query. Dr. Noel was once a Presbyterian Baptist; and that but a few years ago; and I desire to know whether he is any thing else now. He was no real Baptist at the time alluded to, the real Baptists themselves being judges; since a venerable old real Baptist declared, publicly, that the Doctor only raised the dust I am about to advert to, that he might throw the real Baptists into confusion, and slip out of the dilemma in which they held him, unnoticed. He was once a reformer, a "restorationer" and the reason that has induced him to change, is now sought for, if, indeed, he has changed, or has any reason for it.

      It is well known that after Dr. Noel first started as a preacher, he raised a considerable commotion among the Baptists by the "doctrines" he delivered and the worldly course he pursued. He was at length appointed Judge by Governor Slaughter; but after he had exercised his talent for a time (with a view, no doubt, to the profit and honor of him who gave it) it was found that the Senate would not allow him to administer justice to the good people of Kentucky.

      He then devoted himself exclusively to the practice of the law, and continued in this career for some time.

      At length a motion was made in the Church in Frankfort, of which he was a member, to call upon him to assign his reasons for not having preached for some years past. It was agreed that the call should be made, and Dr. Noel informed the Church at their next meeting he would give his reasons for his course.

      Now came the bustle. A general convocation of all the neighboring clergy was summoned; publications were made in the papers; great excitement prevailed; the people came flocking together to hear what reason could possibly be assigned why a professed Christian should prefer the bench to the pulpit.

      When the day arrived a manuscript of many pages was presented. It was too long to read it all at one meeting; the excitement, too, it was necessary to keep up. The people had not yet decided whether the Doctor were a man of talents or no; and the decision of this question was, I have since understood, the object of all the ado.

      If I am not mistaken, and I trust the Doctor will correct me if I am, he gave as reasons for having desisted preaching:--

      1. That he was not satisfied of his call to preach.

      2. That he was not settled in his doctrinal views; and that if he had continued in the pulpit he should have preached what he now found to be untrue. And [157]

      3. That he was dissatisfied with the government of the Baptist Churches.

      As it respects the two first points I have nothing now to say; but concerning the last, have just to remark that, in the views the Doctor delivered, and the "reformation" (an old brother said it was revolution) he proposed, he was decidedly opposed by all the old and long established real Baptist preachers who took part in the discussion. Among these were the brethren Taylor, Hickman, Cook, and Scott, and others whom I do not now recollect. He was, however, seconded by his present able coadjutor in opposition to the truth, George Waller.

      Many other preachers were invited to the meeting; some of whom refused to attend, looking upon the whole as a mere manoeuvre of the worthy Doctor.

      He maintained that the Baptist government was altogether too inefficient; that there ought to be ruling elders in the churches; and that Associations should have appellate jurisdiction over the churches, In short, sir, he came out a full-blooded PRESBYTERIAN.

      Now the object I have in view, as already stated, is, to request of the Doctor information upon this matter. Is he really a Baptist, or a Presbyterian?

      He may, for aught I know, have changed "his views of what the Scriptures teach" on this matter. Will he, therefore, distinctly say if Romans xii. 8. 1 Cor. xii. 28. 1 Tim. v. 17. now teach that there should be ruling elders in the churches, as he contended, they did then? These passages were as plain then as they are now. If they taught Presbyterianism then, as the Presbyterians believed Doctor Noel had proved, they teach it now. If Doctor Noel believed what he then said he did, he must have had good reasons for it; and if he does not now believe what he then did, he must have better reasons for the change--if, indeed, he be a reasonable man, which some doubt.

      If, too, Doctor Noel is now really a Baptist, a "genuine Baptist" a "Baptist of the old stamp," and not a reformer, a "restorationer," a revolutionist--a Presbyterian and no Baptist, as was there said by those opposed to him; he can certainly give his reasons why he then wrote and acted as he did--or why he has changed in his "views of what the Scriptures teach," concerning the alleged inefficiency of the Baptist government.

      Pardon me, sir, for this intrusion upon your time; (I trust the Doctor will pardon it;) but I thought it right that the Baptists should distinctly ascertain if Doctor Noel be a real Baptist, or a Presbyterian--if he has any creed at all, or ever had.

	Yours, &c.
QUERENS. [158]

      Matt. vii. 16. "Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?"

      PREFACE, page 1. "NO one can reasonably claim the attention of the public, unless he is fully persuaded that he has something of sufficient importance to offer. When so many writers are daily addressing the religious community, it may, perhaps, be demanded why another should solicit a reading? When so many religious papers are daily issuing from the press, why add another to the number? To these and similar queries it may be answered, That of all the periodical religious papers of this day, with which we have any acquaintance, but a very few are of an independent character. They are generally devoted to some one or other of the religious sects which diversify the devout community. So much so, at least, that being under the control of the leading members of the respective sects, under whose auspices they exist, and to whose advancement they are destined, they are commonly enlisted in the support of such views and measures as are approbated by the leaders of each sect. And such must every sectarian paper be."

      Remarks.--THE ostensible plea, here urged for the origin and publication of the Christian Baptist, is the want of independency of character in other periodicals, sufficient to guard them from the influence of sectarianism. And according to this professed plea, each of the devout sects, and supporters of sectarian periodicals, were authorized to expect in the columns of this paper, a candid, impartial, and christian view of their various sentiments, christian forbearance and tenderness in regard to their supposed errors; christian candor and liberality in respect of their merits; and in all respects, a clearer exhibition of that mind which was also in Christ Jesus, than was seen or professed in themselves. Whether this reasonable expectation has been realized, will be more fully developed in the prosecution of this examination. To issue a religious paper, on the ostensible and plausible ground that all, or nearly all others, were so much under the controlling influence of sectarian leaders, as to forbid the hope that, in them all the truth, and nothing but the truth, would be exhibited and defended; and then to direct the operations of that paper in such a style and spirit, as must inevitably result in the formation of another new sect more discriminating in its peculiarities, and more intolerant in its spirit, than these which it labors to reform or destroy, cannot, in the judgment of intelligent and reflecting christians, be regarded as christian ingenuousness. But that this has been the course and tendency of the Christian Baptist, is now so evident as to need no further proof. It is true, that those persons who have adopted the peculiar sentiments of the Christian Baptist, whether they were originally Baptists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, or Methodists, have not assumed to themselves the significant appellative, Campbellites; but they are now as generally distinguished, and as well known by that name, as are the admirers of Calvin and Wesley, by theirs. And although they may have thrown away to the moles and to the bats, as so much unintelligible and mystic jargon, what are tauntingly and contemptuously called, by them, the dogmas of Calvin, Arminius, Gill, and Fuller; they now contend as earnestly and perseveringly for the doctrines and sentiments of the Christian Baptist, as they formerly did for those which they have recently renounced. All this has been done, and the work is still in progress, under a professed design of destroying that pernicious sectarianism which has diffused itself through the various ramifications of the Christian community, marred its peace, and deformed its beauty. Our Lord, in one of his inimitable discourses, speaks of certain persons who "strain at a gnat and swallow a camel." Whether this may be applied to them, is left to their discriminating and candid judgment to determine, [159]

      Preface.--"We now commence a periodical paper pledged to no religious sect in Christendom; the express and avowed object of which is the assertion of truth and the exposure of error, as stated in the Prospectus. We expect to prove whether a paper perfectly independent, free from any controlling jurisdiction, except the Bible, will be read; or whether it will be blasted by the poisonous breath of sectarian zeal and an aspiring priesthood."

      Remarks.--An exemption from sectarian influence is again reiterated, with a declaration that the Bible only is to exercise a controlling jurisdiction in moulding and directing the views and measures of this truly anti-sectarian paper. The Bible as interpreted by those who control their views and measures, is the acknowledged standard of all those who publish religious periodicals Whether, therefore, the interpretation of the Bible, as exhibited in the Christian Baptist, more accords with the will and mind of Christ remains yet to be proved. The bold assumption, however, seems to prefer a claim to much higher degrees of knowledge, and a greater assurance of infallibility, than are professed in other religious periodicals. The paragraph as it is quoted, seems evidently to imply, that the interpretations of the Christian Baptist are to be free from error; its sentiments so liberal, so free from partiality and sectarian influence, that should any one dare dispute its claims; refuse to adopt its creed; or undertake to oppose its progress; he must breathe "the poisonous breath of sectarian zeal, or belong to an aspiring priesthood." If the Christian Baptist should cease to excite the admiration of the world, lose its patronage, fail in its grand object, and like others sink into the shades of a dark oblivion; let it not be imputed to the absence of extraordinary merit in itself; let it not be supposed that its object was unworthy, and its contents the emanations of an erroneous judgment, or a bad heart; rather let it be concluded that it was "blasted by the poisonous breath of sectarian zeal, and of an aspiring priesthood." It will not be doubted by modest men, that these pretensions are sufficiently lofty, while anticipated opposition, is marked with a resentment pointed, strong, and bitter as death. The following text is one of great importance, and perhaps much too seldom weighed by most professors. Rom. ii. 1. "Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art, that judgest; for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things." The term "priesthood" in this connexion is not particularly defined; but it is believed that it will clearly appear in the course of this examination, that it is applied contemptuously, and reproachfully, to all those ministers, as well Baptists as others, who believe themselves to have been called of God, to the work of the ministry; have submitted to be ordained by a Presbytery, and who are unwilling now to renounce their sentiments on this subject, and adopt those of the Christian Baptist. In view of the rise and progress of the Baptist denomination in these United States, almost entirely through the instrumentality of ministers of this description, united with the consideration of their patience of hope, and labor of love, while, in many of them, holiness to the Lord was written as it were upon their frontlets, and marked their footsteps; it is not very easy to submit patiently and meekly to such taunts, coming too from a professed disciple. All will admit, however, that acrimonious, invective, and reproachful epithets, are much more easily obtained than sound and conclusive arguments, and that christian candor and humility, after which all should aim in religious controversy. When the term Priest was applied, appropriately to Melchisedeck, to Aaron, and to the godly of his order, and to one infinitely superior to them, it was an epithet of distinguished honor. Since the death and ascension of the Lord of glory, it is appropriated exclusively to HIM who is called the High Priest of our profession. If, then, it be applied as a term of reproach to the ministers of the present day, though they claim it not; they must seek a shield from the obloquy in the recollection that those ministers who have evidently most resembled our Lord Jesus Christ, in the different ages of the gospel church, must share with them the gratuitous contumely. As Baptist preachers, though far distant from them in point of merit, we may think of the Ganos, Baldwins, Furmans, Mercers, and Marshalls. [160]

      Preface.--"Had the well-meant remonstrances of Luther, Calvin, and Wesley, been acknowledged and received by the sects to which they belonged, the mother would have been reformed, and the children would have lived under the same roof with her. But they would not. They were driven out of doors, and were compelled either to build a house for themselves or to lodge in the open air."

      Remarks.--If Luther, Calvin, and Wesley, had succeeded in reforming the several churches or sects from which they finally seceded, they would not have been compelled to set up an independent standard and organize a new sect. But their remonstrances failed; and consequently a new sect, in each case, was formed. This, though at first not well understood, wears the aspect of a prophetic threat; and in its fulfilment, facts abundantly justify the following referential interpretation. If the Baptist Churches will acknowledge and receive the well-meant remonstrances to be published in the Christian Baptist; if they will renounce their attachment to a regularly, ordained ministry, and admit that no man has been moved by the Holy Ghost to preach the gospel since the days of the Apostles; if they will admit that what they have all this time regarded as experimental religion, is a mere delusion of the Devil, or the enthusiastic whims of a disordered brain; if they will admit all to baptism and fellowship in the church, who say no more than that they believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God; if they will renounce their old Bibles, and adopt the new translation of the Testament, with the whole creed of the Christian Baptist; then the daughter (the Campbellites) will live with them under the same roof. But if they will not be thus reformed, the daughter, being opposed to all sectarianism, and in purpose, fixed to maintain her own sentiments and views, free from and against the controlling influence of all sectarian leaders, will suffer herself to be driven out of doors, build a house for herself; or lodge in the open air, and erect the standard for a new sect. Accordingly in more churches than one, the line of demarcation has already been drawn. Aged ministers whose grey hairs are still their crown of glory, have lived to be reproached as textuaries and Priests by those who once owned them as fathers in the gospel. While envy, with her serpentine tongue, has spread discord and revenge amongst those who once regarded each other as brethren; and sectarian jealousy has kindled a fire, to be quenched by death alone. The new sect is formed; houses have already been built; and no doubt others are in contemplation. All this has been accomplished, too, through the instrumentality of a paper, professedly anti-sectarian in all its principles and objects; and urging as with a thousand tongues, that sectaries and sectarianism are the bane of the Christian Church. It cannot be improper to repeat here, "By their fruits ye shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?"

      Preface.--"The price of this paper is such as must convince all who reflect, that it cannot be a lucrative scheme."

      Remarks.--In this proposition it is taken for granted, that the Christian Baptist carries in its very front, as it were, indubitable evidence of its disinteredness and pure benevolence, or at any rate, that the love of filthy lucre had no share in its origination--no controlling influence in directing its operations. When it is considered that the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; that man, in his best estate, is prone to selfishness; and so very propense to this species of selfishness, that, in the Bible, the love of money is pronounced to be the root of all evil; a declaration of this kind, when made, ought to be sustained by evidence sufficiently conclusive to gain the ready assent of every good man's heart, and to extort it from the base and suspicious. What is the evidence in this case? A bare declaration, that for a very small work a very high price is not demanded. But this declaration happens to be made by the Christian Baptist, which assumes the conflicting offices of judge, jury, and witness; a witness too deeply interested. And as it is a point of great importance in ascertaining and fixing the credibility of its testimony in other cases hereafter to be discussed, and as conviction presupposes [161] examination, it may not be impertinent to quote in anticipation, another proposition from the 12th page of the Preface. "We have learned one lesson of great importance in the pursuit of truth; one that acts as a pioneer to prepare the way of knowledge; one that cannot he adopted and acted upon, but the result must be salutary. It is this; Never to hold any sentiment or proposition as more certain that the evidence on which it rests; or, in other words, that our assent to any proposition, should be precisely proportioned to the evidence on which it rests. All beyond this we esteem enthusiasm, all short of it, incredulity." This proposition, so concise, so easy to be understood, so extensive in its bearings and so various in its application, is cheerfully introduced to aid in the decision not only of the present case, but will be regarded as an auxiliary pioneer; through the pending examination. The price of the Christian Baptist is little,--one dollar only, for 12 numbers; therefore, the love of money cannot have had any share in its origin.

      On page the 6th are the following conditions: "For a year or two, until this work shall have established its own character, each number shall contain 24 pages duodecimo, published on the first Monday of every month, at one dollar per annum, exclusive of postage, to be paid on the delivery of the first number." For 283, or at most 300 pages duodecimo, one dollar is to be paid in advance. It has claimed the patronage of 4000 subscribers. So that however free from the love of filthy lucre its scheme may have been, its gain, provided the claim to patronage be just, must have been equal to four thousand dollars a year, including necessary expences. The first number was issued in 1823, but from the conditions as quoted above, it is self-evident that a greater work was then in contemplation. It was then supposed that the Christian Baptist would establish its own character in two years at most. This expectation was not realized. However, in the seventh year, this greater work is issued under the title of the Millennial Harbinger, at the moderate price of two dollars a year if paid in advance; or two dollars and fifty cents if payment be delayed. Thus for twelve numbers, each containing about the same quantity of matter as one number of the Columbian Star and Christian Index, which is a weekly paper, amounting to 52 numbers in the year, at precisely the same price,--two dollars are required If the patronage has been increased, which may be fairly presumed, as the Christian Baptist must have established its own character by this time, the Millennial Harbinger must draw within its benevolent grasp something more than eight thousand dollars a year. Besides this immediate efficiency in the money way, the Christian Baptist must let the public know that there was to be a new translation of the New Testament, at its office; that the Debates with Walker and M'Calla were there ready for sale; since then, that with Owen; and, in addition to all, a volume of Pure Hymns.

      The proposition. "The price of this paper must convince all who reflect, that it cannot be a lucrative scheme," was written while all these matters were passing in lively perspective; and reflecting men are called upon, in front of this evidence, to believe that the idea of gain was far away; that the love of filthy lucre never once insinuated itself into any secret chamber of the heart; never gave the smallest momentum to the wonderous scheme. If assent to the proposition should be precisely proportioned to the evidence on which it rests: can it be criminal to suspect of enthusiasm, those who believe it? Can they be considered criminally incredulous, who find it impossible to assent to it!

      Preface. "There is much less diversity in the views, passions, prejudices, and circumstances of mankind, as respects the true religion, in the different ages of the world, than at first thought we would willingly admit. Who is there that has attentively considered the history of Cain and Abel; of Noah and his contemporaries; of Moses and the Egyptian magicians; of the Lord's Prophets and the Prophets of Baal; of Israel's true and false Prophets; of the Lord of Life and his disciples, with that of the religious sects of the day; of the present advocates of primitive christianity in Europe and America, and of the supporters of the popular systems of this age;--I say, who is there, that, having considered such [162] histories, will not be astonished at their remarkable coincidences, striking similarities and concurrent contexture of events?"

      Remarks.--The phrase, "the supporters of the popular systems of the age," is conceived to form an exception to the general import of the paragraph: otherwise it bears the impress of incontrovertible truth, and affords a striking illustration of one of the most important features in the religion of the Bible. It is believed to result necessarily from the unity of the Godhead and of his purpose--the changeless obligation of the creature to his Creator--the nature of sin and of holiness--the one name alone, Christ Jesus the Lord, through which man can be restored to holiness and to God--the oneness of that church, to which Christ is made head over all things--which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all. Whence also results the conclusion, that true religion, however the outward forms of expressing it may have been varied, according to the appointment of him who imparts its principles and requires their outward manifestations, in different ages and under different dispensations, has always been essentially the same. Hence from Abel down to the present day there have been strong resemblances not only between the righteous themselves, but between many of the external circumstances and events with which they stood connected. In every age and under all circumstances they have been actuated by similar principles, and drawn by similar motives, to worship the one living and true God. While in the ungodly, the carnal mind, through a love of sin and an aversion to holiness, has constantly rebelled against the Most High God. This feature of true religion was conspicuously exemplified by the fact that Dr. Owen, a Pedobaptist, and one of the most learned and pious men of the age in which he lived, attended the preaching of John Bunyan, an illiterate Baptist preacher. In listening to the doctrinal, experimental, practical, heart-searching sermons of Bunyan the classical scholar and the learned divine forgets his own greatness, and that himself and the preacher were of different sects--regards him as a servant of the Lord, and is willing to learn even from him more perfectly the knowledge of Christ and him crucified.

      It gives much additional force to this view of the subject, that not only those who are illiterate, but also the most learned and pious men of this day, whether Presbyterians, Episcopalians, or Baptists, read, admire, and love the Pilgrim's Progress. In further illustration of this trait, this coincidence and similarity in those who profess true religion, it may be remarked that Luther, Jonathan Edwards, Dr. Bellamy, Dr. Dwight, Dr. Chalmers. Dr. Scott, John Newton, George Burder, Whitefield, Fletcher, Bunyan, Dr. Gill, Fuller, and Dr. Baldwin, though belonging to six different denominations, living at periods distant, and at distances great, and under external circumstances much diversified, do nevertheless agree essentially in their views of true religion. Now, if these individuals and thousands of others, so variously distinguished, agree essentially in their views of true religion; and if these views be materially different from those maintained in the Christian Baptist; it will require evidence of an extraordinary nature to convince reflecting, judicious christians, that the Christian Baptist maintains correct views of true religion. That this coincidence may not be supposed to relate to a single point in theology let the following verses be considered as embracing so many or more distinct propositions. 1 Cor. ii. 14, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." Rom. viii. 7. "The carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." John iii. 3. "Verily, verily I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Luke xiii. "But except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." Acts viii. 37. "And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." Now if the persons named above give essentially the same exposition or interpretation, of these verses; such a coincidence proceeding from persons and circumstances so diverse, must go far to produce conviction that their interpretation is true. And if this interpretation be essentially different from that given by the Christian Baptist, this discrepancy may justly excite an [163] apprehension that its interpretation is false. But in the sequel of this examination it will appear that this discrepancy does exist. Perhaps no work of the same size has ever been received, by the christian community of different denominations, in these United States, with such universal approbation as Burder's Village Sermons. The multitude of new publications which have been issued from the press, has not, it is believed, diminished its growing popularity nor curtailed its usefulness. It so commends itself to every christian reader's conscience, as in the sight of God, that sectarian prejudice is at once disarmed and the heart led captive by the attraction of the Cross. But in the judgment of many, very many christians, there is as great a discrepancy between the view here given of true religion and that exhibited in the Christian Baptist, as there was between Abel's sacrifice and that of Cain--between Elijah's prayers and those of Baal's Prophet's--between Aaron's rod that blossomed and those of the magicians--between Peter's faith and that of Simon Magus. It will be conceded by all acquainted with the history of the visible church in our own country, that between Hophni and Phineas, Nadab and Abihu of the priesthood, and ungodly ministers, there have been, and still are, remarkable coincidences, striking similarities--and their character and their doom ought to bear with solemn and mighty force upon all those who minister, or who expect to minister in holy things.

      But King Saul, Absolom, Jehu, Saul of Tarsus, Simon Magus, and Alexander the coppersmith, were characters too conspicuous, without the aid of a priestly robe, not to have furnished parallels for "remarkable coincidences, striking similarities, and concurrent contextures of events for the present day." Let the religious zealot behold on record the zeal of Jehu for the overthrow of idolatry, while the golden calves at Bethel remained unmolested. Let him then turn his eyes to the history of these times, and then to his own heart. Let the political and the religious aspirant contemplate Absalom stealing the hearts of the people--spreading the seeds of discord, rebellion, and treason amongst the peaceable and quiet subjects of his father--expelling him from his throne and from his own habitation, that he might judge and redress the grievances of the people; and then let him read the history of passing events, and inquire, Is there no coincidence, no similarity? Of Simon Magus it is written: Acts viii. 9, 10, 11. and 13; also, 18-23. "And there was a certain man called Simon, which before time, in the same city, used sorcery and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one to whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God. And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries. Then Simon himself believed also; and when he was baptized" &c. Here is an express declaration that the subject of faith was baptized, and no one can doubt but he was baptized according o the mode instituted by Christ Jesus the Lord. Yet from the subsequent verses it is apparent that, as he offered to purchase the gift of the Holy Ghost with money, Peter pronounces him to be in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity. Whence it follows, that there may he faith followed by baptism, without the pardon of sin or the gift of the Holy Ghost. But as the Lord of truth declares that he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; it must be inferred that there are two kinds of faith--the one true--the other false--the one living--the other dead--the one connected with the pardon of sin and the salvation of the soul--the other leaving its hapless subject in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity, exposed to the fearful wrath to come. From Simon's character it is manifest also, that there may be external reformation without true repentance, without a change of heart. If, then, in his case, there was reformation; a change from sorcery--an abandonment of witchcraft--if there was faith followed by baptism; and yet no pardon of sin, no salvation; may there not be between his character and some great one's of the present day, "remarkable coincidences, striking similarities?"

      The meaning of the phrase, "the supporters of the popular systems of this age," considered in this position alone, would be very ambiguous. On the 12th page [164] of the preface, however, it is acknowledged by the editor that he once belonged to the popular religion; but that he fortunately escaped after discovering his danger, without being buried in its ruins. It is understood that he was a Presbyterian: therefore the legitimate inference is, that the Presbyterian system is one of the popular systems of this age, and that by its supporters are meant, chiefly, its ministers. Dr. John Witherspoon, Jonathan Edwards, Dr. Joseph Bellamy, Eavid Brainard, and Samuel Davis, are gone, as is confidently hoped and believed, to reap a long reward in the kingdom of their Father. While they were here they did not believe that immersion was essential, in the ordinance of baptism--or to the forgiveness of sin. Their spirit, however, characterized their works--their works demonstrated the reality and holiness of their faith, and marked their transit with beams of unfading glory. They have left successors, supporters of the same system, as humble, as holy, as devoted as themselves.--That such men should be ranked with the false prophets and priests of Baal by the late POLITICAL Sage³ of Monticello, can surprize no one acquainted with his RELIGIOUS sentiments. But that there should be such a "remarkable coincidence and striking similarity" between his sentiments and those of the Christian Baptist is worthy of universal notoriety and admiration. The limits prescribed to this number remind me that there is room only to repeat, "Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?"

ABNER W. CLOPTON.

      IF there continue such a lack of argument in Mr. Clopton's monthly papers as the present number exhibits, and as his preamble evinced, the publication of them and the reading of them in this work will be a dry sort of business. Nothing but a vehement desire to give my readers both sides, and to let them see with what weapons I am assaulted, could induce me to occupy so many pages with productions so vapid as the preceding. For easy reference I will follow his divisions headed "Remarks," in the numerical order.

      Remarks on Remarks, No. 1. This first comment on an extract from the preface to the first volume of the Christian Baptist contains no argument against any sentiment I have ever expressed. It is a charge against me for complaining that the religious newspapers were sectarian in their character, and devoted to sectarian interests. Is this charge just? Has he disproved it? Is not the "Star," the vehicle in which he rides, devoted to sectarian interests, and so one-sided as not to give both sides--and is it not a fair sample of the periodicals of the day? Let Mr. Clopton give us the name of a single periodical which he approves, that is not decidedly sectarian and one-sided. Till he does this my statement stands unimpeachable. That the Christian Baptist was one-sided he presumes not to affirm--that it is sectarian he would insinuate. But this is but an insinuation. See "Millennium, No. 2," in this present number, and the "Foundation of Christian Union,' Christian Baptist, vol. 1, page 167, 2d edition, for a complete refutation of this impeachment. I might refer to almost every number for proof of the injustice of this imputation. If Mr. Clopton and Mr. Brantly, and Mr. Chambers of Georgetown, Kentucky, nickname the readers of the Christian Baptist, and call them [165] "Campbellites," is it not cruel for them to turn round and impute their own misdeeds to me for their being nicknamed. They have as much reason to blame the New Testament for all the sects which exist, or the Sun for darkness, as the Christian Baptist for any leaning to sectarianism. And as for the charge of intolerance against those who yield to all, perfect liberty of opinion, and proscribe no man except for disobedience or transgression of a positive command, it is as unfounded a calumny as ever was invented. Will Mr. Clopton sustain his charges by one proof? Whom did we ever proscribe or anathematize for a difference of opinion? He cannot bring a solitary specification. And I hope he will not say that I am intolerant because I censured some churches for retaining ungodly members, for not excluding drunkards, and extortioners. These are the only characters towards whom I have evinced any sort of intolerance. All those who devour widow's houses, who oppress the poor, who do not live up to the matrimonial covenant, all immoral persons, all who refuse to obey the commandments of Jesus Christ, are those, and those only, towards whom I am intolerant.

      Remarks on Remarks, No. 2. The extract from my preface, the text for these remarks, is as much perverted as ever did a disciple of Swedenborg pervert the narrative of the resurrection. Who that had not the religious jaundice could see "resentment, pointed, strong, and bitter as death," in this extract!! But the phrase, "aspiring priesthood" pierced the soul of this humble, unambitious, modest, and unassuming preacher. Does he not pretend "to be called of God, as Aaron was?" Does he not assume to he specially called of God to preach the gospel? Does he not aspire to the honor of being sent of God to treat with sinners as an ambassador? Does he not aspire to the office of one who intercedes with God officially for sinners? Does he not aspire to the "holy hands" which break the elements of the Lord's supper? If he does he claims a priestly office! Mr. Clopton, I do contend, substantially claims the honors and the office of a priest. And here is my proof--In consequence of his "divine call and ordination," he assumes to do that from which he would debar the members of his church. He would not tolerate a disciple in his church to baptize a candidate, nor to "administer the Lord's supper," nor to pray over the loaf or the cup. This is my proof. If he says he would, and does, permit the uncalled and unordained disciples thus to officiate, I will except him from the priesthood, the aspiring priesthood. If he does not, I must honor him with the name, for he deserves it. And I hereby inform Mr. Clopton, and Messrs. A. B. and C. that I am always prepared to show that every man who assumes as much as Mr. Clopton, is an aspiring priest, in every substantial attribute of a Jewish or Papal priest. Put me to the proof now, Mr. Clopton, or rather, explain away, if you can, the proof I have brought against you.

      Remarks on Remarks, No. 3.--The quotation from the preface no more justifies these remarks, than does the Bible the doctrine of purgatorial fire. They are gratuitous. They are just as pertinent [166] to the text as Peter D'Alvos' volumes on the miraculous birth of the Messiah. As a specimen of the travestied style, I would say that if the Christian Baptist had plead the special call of all preachers to proclaim the gospel, and administer "the sealing ordinances," their exclusive right to sit as apostles, and legislate for the church, their divine right to take texts, make sermons, and to claim a liberal support for themselves in so doing; had it commended all their schemes to honor and adorn themselves with the titles of divinity, and the dignities of presidents and treasurers for all the "benevolent enterprizes" of the day; I say, had the editor of the Christian Baptist thus represented all the operations, and assumptions of the priesthood as the suggestions of the Holy Spirit, then he would not have derided experimental religion--then he would have been truly regenerated, and as great a saint as Mr. Clopton and his brother Brantly. So much in Mr. Clopton's style--for his Remarks on the third excerpt.

      Remarks on Remarks, No. 4.--These insinuations have been substantially made by Mr. Brantly, and examined in number 10, vol. 7, Christian Baptist, page 217, to which I refer the reader. They are there, shown to be manifestly unfair, uncandid, and without foundation. Persons who choose to pervert and insinuate, cannot be circumscribed by fact, nor by evidence. I did suppose that a person commencing a paper of the size and character of the Christian Baptist, opposing the schemes by which many were enriching themselves, necessarily calling forth the vengeance of the covetous, money lovers, and ambitious, would be as free from the imputation of mercenary motives as man could be, where money is required, and especially one who had the means and opportunity of increasing his estate by the application of some degree of skill and capital, to objects incomparably more promising pecuniary reward, than the editing of a one dollar volume per annum--and a person, too, who had all his life declined any remuneration as a teacher of religion. But it is only intended, I presume, to throw an obstacle in my way to expose the mercenary efforts of those hirelings who think that because they love money, and work for it, every other person is under the same influence.

      If any teacher of religion can give more unequivocal proofs of disinterestedness, than did the editor of the Christian Baptist when he undertook that work, we shall thank Mr. Clopton to name him out, that we may form an acquaintance with him. I knew one, if not two, of my warmest opponents whom I am confident he will not name.

      There are sundry palpable mistakes (I will not call them by the hard name of falsehoods) in this calculation. He assumes as a fact that "the Christian Baptist has claimed the patronage of 4000 subscribers" This is a false fact. Where is the proof, Mr. Clopton? His talking about my foreseeing the events of seven years, such as my debate with Mr. Owen, deserves no notice. He also represents this work as containing each number about the same quantity of matter as one copy of the Star; whereas each number of this work [167] contains two super-royal sheets, and the Star is published upon one imperial sheet. Each number of the Star contains 16 pages, or 32 columns, nearly seven of the closest of which is contained in the preceding pages. He also represents the Star as being of the same price, contrary to its printed conditions which make it $2,50 for a single subscriber in advance, or $3,00 if not paid in ADVANCE. It is, moreover, a single sheet like any common newspaper, differing only in the manner of its folding. His remarks upon the comparative size and price of the Harbinger and the Star remind me of some editor of a large newspaper in small type, claiming patronage, because one of his papers contained as many words and letters as one of Sir Walter Scott's Waverly Novels which sold for one dollar; whereas his paper was put at five cents. But this politic editor omitted to tell his readers that his paper was chiefly extracts from other pens and other papers, and advertisements for which he was paid by the reader and the writer too; and that his sheet was not a book, &c. Pretty similar is the representation of Mr. Clopton. I might, perhaps, as well, however, say, that I hope I shall have more than 4000 subscribers to the Harbinger--say ten thousand, and then it will yield, as a matter of course in this climate where every thing is obtained for nothing, and every man pays his subscription, $20,000 per annum, clear gain! This would be the best answer for such envious and jealous imputations. The reader needs only to remember that Mr. Clopton has been employed as solicitor for the Star, and that will account for his recommendation of the commodity on account of its cheapness.

      I need not make use of such arguments to obtain subscribers. It is enough for me to put any of my works at the fair price of new and original works. Whenever l condescend to become a gleaner, and publish matter which has been published a hundred times before, then I will make the cheapness of a publication its passport into the hands of those who have more money than sense, and value the article by showing how valueless it is! This is, perhaps, the best answer to give to such imputations and vulgar assertions.

      Please see the doctrine of the days of witchcraft revived in Philadelphia, and Charlotte county, Va. They were wont to try a suspected witch by plunging her in a pond; if she was drowned, she was proved not to have been a witch; but if she could swim, then she was a witch and must be taken to execution. The imputation itself was death. If the Christian Baptist had been killed by the priests, then it would have been as clear as day that it was heretical, and now that it could not be killed, but has given birth to this work, then both are from this single circumstance proved to be heretical.

      Remarks on Remarks. No. 5.--The sermon is again unwarranted by the text. I presume Mr. Clopton is so much accustomed to depart from the text, that it would be marvellous to see him only once following in its train. His encomiums upon some authors, which he appears never to have read with much attention, is so impertinent to the object proposed, as to merit no notice from me. I would therefore [168] dismiss it with a remark or two. John Bunyan stands high deservedly. His Pilgrim's Progress is one of the best religious novels I have ever read. I am not, however, much skilled in this sort of composition, never having read a dozen in all my life. The Pilgrim's Progress stands at the head of my list as the best of the best which I have read. Bunyan exactly describes the pilgrims which the clergy of the last two centuries have made. This is the merit of his Pilgrim's Progress. But Mr.Clopton's drawing together Edwards and Baldwin, Fuller and Gill, and Gill and Fletcher, as agreeing essentially in their doctrinal views, is proof positive that he has either never read, or has entirely forgotten the contents of them. Gill and Fletcher are as complete antipodes as systems can make.

      But, in the remarks made upon the last extract, there are but two ideas carried out. The one is, ad captandum vulgus, to catch the unwary, by representing all the names adduced, while coming from six sects, as agreeing essentially; (like Gill and Fletcher, palpably contradicting one another on the five points;) as giving one explanation, and all uniting against me. I do not pin my faith to any of these men, nor to all of them. Nor does the concurrence of these men "in explaining one text" prove their interpretation just, any more than the concurrence of ten orders of monks uniting in sustaining the pretensions of the Pope, proves the infallibility of "his Holiness." I have often said there are but three or four men preaching in all Protestant christendom. What are the three thousand Methodistic preachers but three thousand trumpets echoing John Wesley's voice? What are the two thousand Calvinistic Presbyterians but two thousand trumpets reverberating the accents of John Calvin? What are the hundreds of Lutheran preachers on this continent but trumpets resounding the dogmas of Martin Luther, Mr. Clopton's packed jury shall never sit on any question in which I am concerned. I will change the venue to Jerusalem, and be tried by the apostolic jury alone.

      His next effort in the last extract is to compare me to Saul, Absalom, Jehu, Saul of Tarsus, Simon Magus, and Alexander the coppersmith. I must thank him for this honor. I am not permitted to reply to this. It must pass for what it is worth. Paul commands me to "bear evil treatment," and to "render to no man railing for railing."

      A word on Simon's baptism--The apostles were deceived in this case. What then? Did they adopt a new course? Did they refuse to baptize the next applicant on the same profession? No. This merits much consideration. Mr. Clopton's corollary from this case is as cheap as the Columbian Star. He says, "It is manifest that there may be external reformation without true repentance"--and yet it was manifest to the apostles, through the want of external reformation, that his heart was in the gall of bitterness!! From the case of Judas it is manifest there may be true repentance without reformation. Now what are the two corollaries worth? As much as the following sentence will pass for among logicians--"Dr. Witherspoon, J. Edwards, J. Bellamy, D. Brainard, and S. Davis are gone to heaven," [169] believes Mr. Clopton. I hope he may meet them there. But will this sanctify his and their errors!

      If Mr. Clopton has nothing more argumentative to offer for his system, and against the Christian Baptist, I will promise my readers not to trouble them soon with so long a portion of his rhapsodies. Nor will I be induced easily again to defend my character from such imputations as those which appear in the present number. I thank the Lord that, although opposing corruption and immorality in the professors of religion for many years, no man has ever been able to fasten on me a single imputation. My worst enemies have conceded to me a good character, and such as it is, it is too generally known to require any defence at home; and if a man is fearless at home, he is invulnerable abroad. I will, however, divest the controversy with the sects of allusions to particular individuals as much as possible. I am determined that my opponents shall not draw me out from an exposure of the corruptions of systems and of measures into the imputations and defences of men. I have some important developements of principles to submit and some alarming displays of the tendencies of systems and measures to offer, from which I shall take care not to be diverted by the wiles of the enemy. If Mr. Clopton should proceed as he has begun, in commenting on the Christian Baptist, it will require about one century to get through with the seven volumes; and rather than examine ten bushels of chaff for one grain of wheat, we will bestow it with the chaff to the north-west wind. Should he, however, change his course, and Mr. Brantly publish my replies,--so long as he has a new argument to offer, he will find me forthcoming.

EDITOR.

      I KNOW of no spirit less understood, and less exhibited, than a christian spirit. It is a sweet phrase, a common phrase, a much abused phrase. But let me ask, What is a christian spirit? It is a spirit like that of Jesus Christ. It is the spirit which the doctrine of Christ inculcates, infuses, and perfects. It is distinguished by many epithets, such as a meek spirit, a mild spirit, a holy spirit, a forgiving spirit, a loving spirit. But it is better understood from a close examination of the sayings and doings of Jesus Christ, than from any abstractions or contrasts which can be set forth upon paper. To learn the christian spirit, we must, like Mary, sit at his feet; or, like John, recline upon his breast. We must keep close and constant company with Jesus, and with his most intimate companions, the Apostles, who caught most of his spirit and temper.

      His was a condescending spirit. There was no respect of men's persons with Jesus Christ. He did not flatter the rich nor the popular, nor did he revile them as such. He did not despise the poor, nor contemn them of low degree. He was, compared with the spirit of them in high stations, remarkable for his condescending spirit. The plea of the destitute he did not disregard. He was most familiar with the humble poor. He did not respect the poor as such, any [170] more than the rich as such; for some of the poor are still as vile as the rich; nay, some of them are more vile than they. But goodness, whether cloathed in rags, or decorated with scarlet, which, however, is an attire seldom worn by goodness, was that which caught his attention and captivated his heart. He admired this diamond whether surrounded by filth or giving lustre to a crown. And as goodness has hitherto been a more intimate guest with the poor and despised, than with the rich and the honorable, for that reason he was more familiar with the poor than with the rich.

      Nearly allied to a condescending spirit is a sympathizing spirit. This was most conspicuous in the Christian Chief. None ever equalled him in this. Between the highest attainments in the possession and demonstration of a sympathizing spirit and the sympathy of Jesus, there is a wider distance than between any other attribute of his spirit and the aspirations of his most distinguished followers. No son of sorrow, no child of anguish ever sought his aid in vain. Alive was he to all the pains and all the maladies of the unfortunate. He felt the sorrows which he saw, and wept with those who wept. His was a sympathy that felt not only such agonies as make most unfeeling relent, but the slightest inconvenience of those around him, awakened his pity and called forth his regard; I cannot send them away hungry, lest they faint by the way," shows to what slight afflictions his tenderness responded. It was, perhaps, something owing to this that he made himself so familiar to the poor--not because there is in poverty by itself so much to pity, as because of the insolence which the rich have shown to the poor.

      But his was a candid spirit. Some do not know what candour means who talk much about it. Many, too, admire it who never exhibit it. This is a very high encomium upon it. All, candid and uncandid, admire candor. An open, generous, honest, and ingenuous air, claims and forces a tribute of respect from all. To acknowledge and admit all the good properties, all the good traits of character in an enemy, an antagonist, or an opponent, has a charm and a nobility about it which the most insensible cannot but feel. Those whom Jesus most denounced for intolerance, if they had a good property at all he gave them credit for it. If they only told the truth, and did not practice it, he acknowledged it. If there was a single redeeming quality in the greatest compound of inconsistencies or of wickedness, it was respected and acknowledged. But now a single apprehended defect in the estimation of some called christians, covers a multitude of virtues. If a mere difference of opinion, in any item deemed important, be found in a man, no matter how excellent in behaviour, he is ranked among heathen men and publicans.

      One of the evils, the great evils attendant on one of the handmaids of sectarianism, one of its greatest, largest and foulest blots, is, that it destroys all reverence and respect for good men. "Without any love to good men" is one of the most prominent characters of an apostate church. One of the signs of the perilous age of which Paul spoke was this: "They are without any liking for good men." Is he [171] orthodox--is he sound--is he one of us? constitute the great virtue which all sectaries admire and love. If he be not one of us, this one exception excepts him out of the pale of our regards, and places him among those whom, for God's sake, we ought to dislike. If "Saint Paul," as some call him, were in disguise among us now, I am fully convinced he would be most hated by many esteemed the most devout. "Charity hides a multitude of sins;" but Sectarianism, like the cloud that separated Israel and Pharaoh, casts darkness over those who differ in opinion from us, and sheds a halo of glory on those who agree with us.

      Time was when a man's behavior, his piety, and humanity, obtained for him the esteem and affection of all good men; but now his being one of us in opinion and in sectarian feeling, is all that charms us--it is all that we love; and his being enrolled on some other catalogue of saints than upon our catalogue, hides from our view every excellency he may possess. If Jesus Christ were now on earth in disguise, not a sect in christendom could acknowledge him, for he would not acknowledge them; and while they would be speaking the praise and extolling the excellencies of a Jesus Christ of their own, they would be thrusting the Faithful and True Witness out of their synagogue, and seeking for the brow of some hill from which to precipitate him to ruin.

      These remarks have been called forth not so much from a design to write an essay upon a christian spirit, as to place in a fair light the conduct of some who are accusing us of the want of a christian spirit. What they call, or seem to call, a christian spirit, is that spirit which approves their course, and commends them in all their undertakings; that spirit which says to them, "Well done!" whether or not they have done well.

      But before I give any application to these remarks, I must notice another trait of a christian spirit. It is a spirit that rejoices not in iniquity--that rejoices in the truth. Jesus loved the truth supremely. The God of truth delights in truth. And that which calls for the supreme affection and regard of all the good, and of all who fear and love God, is the truth. The Devil is the "father of lies," and by lies he has wrought all his sorceries upon the children of men. Our common mother was deceived by a lie, and by lies he reigns, and has always reigned, in the hearts of the children of disobedience. The good hate lies; and a lie, which is another name for sin, is all they do, for it is all they can legitimately hate. Christians love all truth; but their love for truth burns into jealousy for that which is emphatically called the truth. Had it not been for this, Paul the Apostle never dared to have said, "If any man or angel proclaim any other gospel than the true, let him be an anathema." His opposition to men proceeded from their opposition to the truth. He knew, without supernatural inspiration, that some of those who withstood him were enemies to the truth. As such he and his associates unceremoniously treated them. They had no personal ill will; nay, they prayed for them whom they denounced as enemies of the true gospel. [172]

      It is quite compatible with the meekness, mildness, and tenderness of a christian spirit, to reprove, rebuke, and expose hypocrites and false pretenders to truth and righteousness. Had it not been compatible with such a spirit, why should the advocates for the true religion have been commanded by the Apostles to reprove sharply and rebuke with all boldness false teachers and pretenders. Paul to Timothy thus speaks: "Confute, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering when teaching: for there will be a time when they will not endure wholesome teaching; but, having itching ears, they will, according to their own lusts, heap up to themselves teachers; and from the truth, indeed, they will turn away their ears, and be turned unto fables." Some have accused Paul of the want of a christian spirit because of such sayings as the following:--"Alexander the coppersmith has done me many evil things: the Lord will reward him according to his works. Of whom beware, for he has greatly withstood our words." "There are many unruly talkers and deceivers, especially those of the (orthodox, I was going to say) circumcision, whose mouths must be stopped; who subvert whole families, teaching things which they ought not for the sake of gain." "One of themselves, a prophet of their own, has paid, The Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy bellies." "This testimony is true; for which cause rebuke them sharply that they may he healthy in faith." While Paul exhorted Timothy to bear evil treatment, and in meekness to instruct those who oppose themselves, he commanded this course also with regard to some.

      I have pursued the same course as nearly as I can judge. I have as little to condemn in myself, from all that I know of my own heart, because of the want of a christian spirit, as I have on any other account whatever. My opponents have compelled me into this egotism; yet I presume they will not forgive it. But justice to my Sovereign, and to the cause I plead, compels me to say something about my own feelings. I have searched my heart--I have examined my motives, as with a lighted candle, on this very subject--not once, nor twice, but many times. I do not say that I have infallibly felt and undeviatingly exhibited a christian spirit; but I will say, my failures have been most sensible to myself on other occasions, than when writing against those who have been my warmest opponents. Some of my opponents I do know are bad men--I mean wicked men. They have plainly exhibited to all men that they were wicked men. I will not now name, but I could name some of my warmest opponents have rendered themselves so obnoxious for their immoralities, as to have the meeting-house doors of even my warm religious opponents shut against them--as to be literally shut out of decent private families who had no affection for me. And I am much mistaken if some others, who are now opposing me, will not soon stand forth in the same black characters of those to whom I allude. I do know that others of my opponents are good men, but mistaken in me and in my controversy with the sects. I have good evidence of both characters. Others are with me doubtful. I know not to which class they belong. Now I cannot say unto the wicked, Thou art righteous, nor can I treat [173] the righteous as the wicked. I do not, either, set myself up as a judge of the character of my opponents. By their overt acts I know them, I do not "gather grapes of thorns, nor figs of thistles" I will bear evil treatment, and I will in meekness instruct some opponents, and with sharpness rebuke others.

EDITOR.

      I MUST again allude to the Beaver Anathema.⁴ Once again, and once for all, I will affirm, that, upon me personally this anathema was not at all regarded as inflicting any wound or dishonor. Nay; I rather glory in reproaches, than shrink from them. But seeing that it was designed to prejudice the minds of the uninformed, and seeing that great exertions were making to publish it all over the Union, I thought myself in duty called to expose it, as exhibiting a most unjust caricature of the sentiments and practices of my brethren laboring with me--and knowing something of the characters of those from whom it emanated, I thought myself called upon to take the notice of it which I have taken in two numbers of the Christian Baptist.

      Since the last number of the Christian Baptist was in type, the Columbian Star brought me, as it often does, some of the lowest scurrility and abuse for what I said concerning Mr. Winter, in the form of a certificate from the First Baptist Church in Pittsburg, signed Wm. H. Hart, Clerk. This certificate purports to be from the whole church, and avers that, "Every particular published by Mr. Campbell in volume 7, page 184, of the Christian Baptist, respecting Mr. Winter, is unqualifiedly false, and without even the shadow of truth to sustain him in his slanders." What a malicious slanderer I must be! Not even a shadow of truth to sustain me!! What an inventer of evil things I must be! This comes, too, from a whole church, recollect, and was signed by--I was going to say the greatest saint in Pittsburg--Wm. H. Hart. Concerning this gentleman I will only remind my old readers that he was the confidant, aider, and abettor of Lawrence Greatrake, of calumniating memory. I will not descend farther to particulars. But it is the act of a whole church, signed by its clerk, concerning events that happened in the year 1812, before the present First Baptist Church was born. We know, and we admit, that twelve members once legitimately excommunicated from the Regular First Baptist Church in Pittsburg, is the nucleus of this present First Baptist Church. These twelve may have known something about Mr. Winter's arrival in Pittsburg; but how the present First Baptist Church in Pittsburg, consisting of say some sixty or perhaps more persons, can depose upon such an event, would furnish some intricacies for lawyers and courts, and, however it may pass in an ecclesiastical court, it would not bear much investigation before Cesar's judgment seat. It is presumed that they were unanimous as was the Beaver Association in their anathema. Such unanimity is very creditable, though its credibility is not so indisputable. [174]

      But now for the admissions of my statement concerning Mr. Winter, found in this certificate. Notwithstanding all the generality and universality of its protestations against my statement, it admits every prominent item as respects the arrival of Mr. Winter, and Mr. Rigdon's treatment of him, and Mr. Winter's treatment of the church. There are, at least, seventeen distinct propositions concerning Mr. Winter, in the page alluded to, (page 184, C. B.) Of these, six, or at most seven, are excepted against in the certificate. It is admitted that Mr. Winter came to Pittsburg in the year 1822; it is admitted that brother Rigdon took him and family into his house and sustained them for a time, it is admitted that brother Rigdon introduced him to the church, and invited him to preach; that he afterwards opposed brother Rigdon; that Mr. Winter left the city and removed into the bounds of the Beaver Association; that he divided some churches, &c. &c. All these statements are admitted in the certificate, and some of them proved, by as good testimony as can be found, in the last number of the Christian Baptist. Yet, in direct contradiction of their own admissions, they say that "every one of my statements is false, and that there is not a shadow of truth to sustain them." Now, I ask, is such testimony credible! If persons glaringly contradict themselves, who can repose confidence in them!

      It is a pleasure to me to reflect that the mistakes concerning the time of the year of Mr. Winter's arrival, and the size of his family, and his landing in Baltimore instead of Philadelphia, were corrected by me in the Christian Baptist, before I saw this certificate in the Star. They were written on the 18th of April, and the Star was issued the 17th in Philadelphia. I had, by associating another family in distress of which I had heard, fallen into a mistake of the size of Mr. Winter's family and the month in which he had arrived in Pittsburg. I have, however, sent in quest of documents concerning the matter which it may be necessary yet to lay before the public. This correction, I say, was made in the Christian Baptist before the certificate appeared. And when it is subtracted from the merits of the whole matter, it leaves the statement I made, as affecting the conduct of Mr. Winter, just where it was. Besides, it has been corroborated since by two witnesses in the Christian Baptist, No. 12, vol. 7, pages 271 and 272.

      Thus in vindicating the, Mahoning Association, I was obliged to go into a detail which Mr. Williams or Mr. Hart calls "nefarious." I was obliged to mention the name of Mr. Winter, perhaps providentially; for had I not mentioned his name, in all probability a most outrageous transgressor never would have been detected. Had I not mentioned his name, the following letter, in all probability, never would have appeared in print. Had I not fallen into a mistake about the size of his family, and the time of his arrival in Pittsburg, and the port at which he landed, such documents to detect an impostor never would have been furnished. But I think he that ruleth over men, and to whose all-seeing eye all things are naked and manifest, has designed to give another lesson to this generation, that men may [175] be very orthodox, and make much noise about error in doctrine, and denounce reformation, and yet be like whited sepulchres, full of rottenness and corruption.

      If the following letter suit not the individual mentioned, it will be easy to show it does not; and if it do not, it will be necessary that the public be in possession of it to guard them against imposition. The following is an attested copy of a letter from a christian in Liverpool to the Rev. Dr. Glendy, of Baltimore, touching an impostor in this country. The publication of the Beaver Anathema brought it to me from an authentic source. It speaks for itself:--

      "Rev. Mr. Glendy--Baltimore--

      "SIR--At the recommendation of our mutual friend, Mr. Cather of this place, I make free to inform you of a circumstance which has inflicted a deep wound on the cause of religion in the North of England, by one whose professions, education, and general character, had recommended him to a pretty general acquaintance as one of its advocates.

      "A Mr. Winter, formerly a student in the respectable Baptist Academy, Yorkshire, and (probably 10 months since) ordained Pastor over a newly formed Baptist Church at North or South Shields, near New Castle, had made himself acceptable as a preacher: a new place of worship had been erected; subscriptions to a considerable amount obtained for payment of the expences; and Mr. W. had gone on a tour for 5 weeks in order to obtain enough to discharge the remt. of the sum, when his friends learnt, to their unspeakable surprize and grief, that he had eloped with a young married woman, a member of his church; and that they were on the point of embark for the United States. I have since learnt that they shipped themselves for Baltimore, (taking an infant with them, suspected to be the fruit of a former illicit connexion between them) and I rather think (though I cannot immediately ascertain the fact) on the 12th April, in the Newburyport, Captain Goodrich, from this port.

      "The object of these lines will now explain itself. Mr. Winter (who embarked, I understand, with this woman, in the names of Mr. and Mrs. Winter of Kidderminster) is personally unknown to me: but his conduct has done already abundant injury to the cause he has betrayed, and I am anxious that the same cause should not be further wounded, when I have the opportunity of honorably warding off the blow. You are perhaps already aware that your country has often been reproached here with receiving as ministers of the gospel the outcasts of our society. I should, indeed, be grieved could I think there were any just ground for the charge. That such men have been improperly received at times, I have good reason to think; but it is not always easy to detect hypocrisy, or we ourselves should not have been, as in this instance, the dupes of designing villainy. It behoves us mutually to avoid the extremes of unnecessary suspicion and hasty familiarity; but in a people "given to hospitality," as yours is, the [176] latter is perhaps likely to be the more prevailing fault, and an immoral ministry is perhaps as great a curse as can be inflicted upon us, and therefore ought to be regarded with a very jealous eye.

      "I need make no apology, sir, for this freedom--a good design needs none. I know no one in Baltimore but Drs. Mason formerly of New York, and Romeyn of that place, as well as several other clergymen there; and in particular among my lay friends there Mr. Divie Bethune, or Mr. Benjamin Marshall can inform you what weight is due to my representation.

      "I leave it to your discretion what use to make of it--and am very very respectfully, sir, your obdt. servt.

"SAM. HOPE."

      I heard of a preacher--nay, I know one in this country who was the most denouncing against Arminians: he was an orthodox Regular, of flaming zeal. He was convicted before a part of the public of a crime not to be named; and yet his church sustained him, because of his orthodoxy, and I believe he yet "preaches" to the church; but the world will not hear him. It is the misfortune of all societies to have sometimes wolves amongst them--lions and tigers too, (I think Paul calls Alexander the coppersmith a lion) in sheep's cloathing. But to sustain any man, acting immorally, because of the doctrine "once in grace always in grace," or because of his orthodoxy, is as bad as to suffer that woman Jezabel to seduce to the basest crimes those who profess godliness. The reader is reminded that the certificate above alluded to came from the "'lovers of truth and righteousness." We shall look for the proof. As yet it is in word only. They will find when they make another experiment, that Solomon's proverb is yet true--"The wicked flee when no man pursues them, but the righteous are as bold as a lion."

EDITOR.

      TACITUS says that, as to "a common sewer, so to Rome flowed the filth of all nations;" so to the columns of the Star flows (I shall give it no name) ------- of all the enemies of reform. His "corroboration" from an anonymous traducer in the Star of the 17th, dated at Cincinnati, is presumed to he a compound of malicious falsehoods. Let him give up the name of his correspondent, and we will, if he have any standing or character, notice his calumnies. Till then he may act like the assassin. We will consider him a cowardly and self-condemned accuser of the brethren, who "loves darkness rather than light."

      As he published with peculiar zest the Pittsburg certificate, will he insert the preceding reply, and such certificates as we may send him pertaining to that subject?

EDITOR.

      Dear Sir,

      IF all my opponents were as candid as you--if they exhibited a christian spirit like you--if they were as disinterested and as easy to be entreated as you--my controversy with them, call it by its most unacceptable name--I say, my controversy with then would be much more pleasing, profitable, and easy to be terminated. But what a generation of perverters, misinterpreters, and captious spirits have beset me! who, like the great Adversary, are lying continually in wait to devour.

      But, sir, while I have the Philistines before my face, their allies on my right hand and on my left, it is some consolation to see the face of a good old Israelite, who loves the King and the cause I serve, and differs from me only in what are the best ways and means of serving him.

      Brother Semple, you and I were not taught first by Paul, and therefore we will have to wrestle with ourselves for some time before we can rise from among the pots, and think and feel like them who were taught by the Apostles. Some vessels long retain the flavor of the first liquor which filled them. Our minds resemble them a little. Neither you nor I, methinks, will ever understand and feel the whole result of the christian institution upon our minds as though we had never been indoctrinated into the systems of Calvin, Gill, and Fuller. I have been at war with myself, more than with any man living, for many years, to eradicate from my mind every plant which Paul did not plant, nor Peter water. In this I consider myself as having only partially succeeded. Care is to be taken here, as well as elsewhere, that, in rooting out the tares, the wheat is not also rooted out.

      But, it is only by the constant study of the Oracles that we can attain to those clear and healthful views of the religion which produced such wonderful effects upon the first converts. Those who depend upon any operation of the Holy Spirit to impart to them what is already written, or to explain it to theirs, will never, never find such aid. I think the experience of one thousand years last past is enough to support this last saying, if there was not another word to be said upon it. Do you ask what experience? I answer, the individual experience of all the devout of every name, and every page of the history of all the great and good men of that period.

      Where is the man now living, and where is the history of the man now dead, to whom God has specially revealed any thing in the Oracles but by studying them. The students of systems have become learned in systems: and the students of the Bible, and none else, have become learned in the sacred writings. How many myriads of praying non-readers have prayed for light without finding it. How long did John Bunyan, Newton, cum multis alliis, pray for light, without finding it, before they betook themselves to the Oracles. How many now pray for the Spirit to guide them into all truth; and since the Apostles died, to whom has this prayer been answered? Was Newton, [178] Bunyan, Gill. Fuller, Wesley, Calvin, or Luther, or are the myriads of preachers now praying for the same favor, led into all truth! As naturally might we pray for manna now to fall from heaven upon us, to save us from cultivating the earth, as to expect such teachings and guiding as ninety-nine hundredths of the religious of all denominations are praying for but never finding. The Spirit, you will agree with me, teaches Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, &c. &c. alike. Why, then, do they all continue as they were! God's Spirit imparts light only to them who read or hear the Oracles, and as he blesses the labors of the diligent husbandman with the early and he latter rain, so is he blessed who devotes his energies to the written word.

      You say that the result of your inquiries was "a firm belief that without the influence of God's Spirit directly on your heart, you could not be saved." You add, "Well, sir, I sought it, as a sinner, a justly condemned sinner, and I have found it, thanks to sovereign grace!" That such is your conviction, and that you found the favor of God, I doubt not. But would not any other person, who sought with equal sincerity, have found all that you found? And if so, why do you ascribe it to a special grace in your particular case? The Lord promises the Holy Spirit to every one who asks, desiring it, just as certain as natural parents give good things to their crying children. Do only some of the asking children receive what they solicit from their parents? Again, let me ask, What did you find that was not before written? Any new promise, any special promise, any new light, which was not before as distinctly and as clearly proposed as God could propose it in human language? Had you not faith before you asked, and was not this faith a persuasion that God exists, and is the rewarder of all who diligently seek him? You could not have asked for any thing which you did not before believe God had promised to bestow. Could a child who never heard or believed that there was a diamond, ask for one? Your faith in God's favor was established before you bowed your knee! The difficulty with you was a special interest in it. This I know, for my experience was like yours in this particular. I desired to feel a special interest, and for this I prayed. But mark this, brother Semple, if you and I had been taught that God's philanthropy equally embraced all, and that all to whom the word of this salvation was sent, were equally warranted to appropriate it to themselves, this concern for a special interest never could have originated. It was a previous system assented to, which gave birth to these desires and prayers; otherwise as soon as you believed God's promise through Jesus Christ, you would have found yourself embraced. No one in the primitive age ever made such a prayer as you and I were taught to make; no one languished then for a day or a week to be born again. All were commanded to reform, and, instantly, all who obeyed received forgiveness of sins. Our converts are sometimes agonizing before they are born again for months--for years. This destroys the figure, and it proves that a false philosophy has perverted us from the simplicity of the gospel. [179]

      The Spirit, you say, opens our understanding. I doubt not but all the light which shines into our understandings, on the unseen and future world, is communicated by God's Spirit. But that light shines only in the written word. To open the understanding is explained as synonymous to open the Scriptures. One represents it thus: "Then he opened their understandings to understand the Scriptures." Another historian, relating the same incident, says, ""He opened unto them the Scriptures;"--a very common mode of speaking, and one of easy intelligence. One man thus opens the understanding of another when he opens the subject to his apprehension of it.

      The popular doctrine of the Calvinian school, in all its ramifications, is this, that notwithstanding all that has been done by the death of Jesus, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and the preachings of the Apostles, still an omnipotent act is necessary to produce faith in God, to unveil the grace contained in the word; nay, more, that it is dangerous not to assent to this position, and not to teach it to all who inquire for the knowledge of salvation. Now this abstraction, or speculative point, is at the very root of all the moral ruins of Calvinian christendom. When I see a grain of corn, I am willing to say it is the act of omnipotence; but if any man ask me, Does God put forth an act of omnipotence in producing every grain of corn? I answer, No: he gave birth to a system that creates it, under which system human agency can produce it in millions of measures. So I reason in this case. The means are adapted to the end in both cases. But this is only "my theory," and that is yours. When we proceed to convert men, we command them to obey the gospel after we have proposed it to them. At least this was the old-fashioned way.

      There is one expression, more than any other, I regret to see in your letter; and that I need not inform you, is, your calling the gospel a dead letter--that which Paul calls the power and wisdom of God to every one who believes it. It is not to those who disbelieve it a dead letter, for it kills them--as some say, "It is a savor of death to them." Now if the gospel be a dead letter, how can it condemn the disobedient. A dead man can neither kill nor save! A dead letter can neither save nor condemn. Jesus said his word was spirit and LIFE. No scripture says, brother Semple, what you have said, that "it is the Spirit of God which makes it sharp and two-edged." Paul, to whom I look up, says the word of God is LIVING, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing, &c.--He qualifies it not as you have done. If again, as you say, the Spirit has revealed Jesus for six thousand years, without any written revelation, of what use is the revelation to us, and why so much concern in sending the word to the heathen! This looks a little like making the word of God of non-effect. But I will not press this matter until you have an opportunity to explain yourself. To conclude, I would say, brother Semple, I can only show my faith by my works; and it is only when these works accord with what the Spirit has already said to the churches, that I, or you, can approve its character. I will ever rejoice to see your faith, and love, and liberality [180] always growing abundantly. Hoping soon to hear from you. I remain affectionately yours in the hope of immortality.

EDITOR.

      THE object of these essays is to develope the progress of sin in the human family, by presenting its influences upon individuals and nations; next, to prepare the reader more fully to understand the prophecies from a brief outline of ancient history and geography. These selections we will cull from the most authentic sources, and present with all possible brevity. The history of Egypt, Assyria, Persia, Greece, and Rome, is so blended with sacred history, and so woven into the prophecies of both Testaments, that a general idea of these states and empires is indispensable to an apprehension of the compass of the prophetic writings. In this number we represent the outlines of Egyptian history. We are happy in finding it well sketched, almost to our hand, in Lectures upon Ancient History by S. Whelpley, A. M. Member of the Literary and Philosophical Society of New York. In my last article under this topic, I simply noticed the awful monuments of the divine indignation against sin in the destruction of the Old World by water.

Ed. M. H.

      "WHEN we come on this side the watery waste, a guide of a different character offers her services: I mean the historic muse. Nearest to her lofty tower lie the fields of modern Europe. They are wide, elevated, and diversified with every kind of prospect.

      The genius of war, ever ready to

reigns in modern Europe. A little further off, and retired under a heavier shade, lie the ages of Gothic darkness. Through these she conducts you to the elevated destinies, and imperial grandeur of ancient Rome. Like the Alps among ordinary hills and values, she towers above all nations, and for ages gave law to the world. You see her an empire, a republic, a kingdom, a clan. Still further back, you behold a wonderful people, of less sullen majesty, but of more brilliancy of intellect and vigor of genius: there the temple of science displayed its fair columns, and expanded its majestic portals.

      Still far distant beyond the Greeks, you behold the Persians, the Assyrians, the Egyptians, each flourishing in their day, and filling remoter grounds of the receding prospect.

      Between these nations and the Deluge, there is still a wide expanse, through which the Mosaic history has drawn a single line, like a thread of silver, without breadth. But here the historic muse gives you her perspective, and bids you make the best of what you can see. You see heroes and giants, and gods and demons, Mended [181] in a scene which declares itself to be fabulous; and you perceive yourself to be in the heroic ages. The traditionary tales, the fables, the mythological fictions of the Romans, Greeks, and Egyptians, lie here. Here are the exploits of Theseus, the labors of Hercules, the lives and actions of those men whom credulous and superstitious nations deified and adored.

      The country of Egypt occupies the north-eastern corner of the Continent of Africa; is between five and six hundred miles long, and from fifty to one hundred and fifty miles broad. The territory is long and narrow, though of very equal breadth; and the river Nile, passing from South to North, runs through the plains of Egypt, and falls into the Mediterranean sea by several mouths. It is usually bounded on the North by the Mediterranean sea, on the East by the Isthmus of Suez and the Red sea, on the South by Ethiopia, and on the West by Lybia. It extends from the latitude 31 North, nearly to the tropic of Cancer. The southern parts of Egypt have an almost vertical Sun, in the summer months.

      Rain seldom falls in Egypt. The sky is generally serene in every part of the year, and the power of the Sun, from May to September, is oppressive; yet the climate, especially as it anciently was, is, perhaps, excelled by few parts of the earth. The defect of rain is compensated by copious dews; and the lands bordering on the Nile are enriched by its inundations to a surprising degree. Dr. Clarke, a late scientific and judicious traveller, who was in Egypt during the invasion of Bonaparte, observes, that bad as the civil and moral state of Egypt now is, it far surpassed all his former conceptions of luxuriancy of vegetation, and fertility of soil.

      The ancient power and grandeur of Egypt was owing greatly to its extent of commerce. An attentive consideration of the map of the globe will show that Cairo, Alexandria, and Memphis, were, perhaps, situated for a grander scale of commerce than any other great cities, not excepting Constantinople or London. From Alexandria, a sail of ten days brought them, with ease, into the Grecian islands of the Archipelago. Ten days more carried them through the Hellespont and Strait of Bosphorus into the Black Sea, whose great rivers, Boristhenes, Tanais, and others, collected the inland trade of Central Asia and northern Europe. West of this grand emporium lay all the northern shores of the Mediterranean, comprising the South of Spain, and France, and Italy, and the Islands; and the southern shores of the same sea, the northern coast of Africa. Besides, but a little distance from Alexandria, East, over land, lay the ports of the Red Sea, some of which had become famous in the days of Solomon and David. From Ezion Geber, or Berenice, as it was afterwards called, the Tyrians, Jews, and other nations, anciently, and the merchants of Palmyra, in latter times, carried on an immensely rich trade. From the ports of the Red Sea through the Straits of Babel Mandal, a few weeks, and a safe voyage, brought them to India and all its rich islands. [182] Those advantages were perceived by the pervading mind of Alexander the Great, who built Alexandria. Nor was he deceived; for in twenty years after he founded this city, which was to bear his name, it became the greatest emporium of trade upon earth. Whatever is known of the fertility of Egypt in our own times, it was once far more fertile and pleasant than it is now. It appears, from various observations, that the sands of the African deserts are gradually spreading further North, and intrenching more and more on the states of Barbary. Probably the indolence and vice of those nations invite the empire of sand, and hasten its dominion, by neglecting their soil, and laying it open to the desert.

      What settlers arrived in Egypt after the Deluge, it is impossible to say. I shall, however, follow the general opinions of ancient writers on this subject, and consider the kingdom of Egypt as founded by Menes, or Misraim, the grandson of Noah, one hundred and sixty years after the Deluge. And from this datum shall submit to your consideration the following

      I. From the foundation of the monarchy by Menes, 160 yeah after the Flood, to the end of the reign of Psammenitus, who was conquered by Cambyses, king of Persia. This period contains 1663 years. During this time, Egypt was governed by dynasties of its native princes; in the scriptures generally called Pharaohs.

      II. From the death of Psammenitus, A. C. 525, to the death of Alexander the Great, A. C. 321. This period contains 204 years; during, which time the Egyptian history is involved with that of the Persians and Greeks.

      III. From the death of Alexander, A. C. 321, to the death of Cleopatra, Queen of Egypt, A. C. 20 years. This period contains, 301 years. At this time Egypt becomes a Roman province.

      Egypt remained a province of the eastern Roman Empire, and was subject to Constantinople, till it was seized by Omar, the third caliph of the Saracens, in the year of Christ 640: the seat of his empire was Babylon. This dynasty of princes continued till the year 870, when the Egyptians set up a caliph of their own, to whom the Saracens of Spain and Africa were subject. But the government of Egypt was soon after seized by the governors or sultans of Babylon and Cairo, and the authority of caliphs or priests was abolished.

      In 1160 Assarredin, general of Norradin, sultan of Damascus, subdued the kingdom of Egypt, and usurped the government of it. His son Saladin conquered Mesopotamia, Palestine, Damascus, and, in the year 1190, took Jerusalem from the Christians. This prince formed a military corps, composed of boys taken in war, chiefly from the christian nations, and also purchased of the Tartars. These youths, trained to severe labor and strict discipline, formed, in time, a powerful army; and they were called Mamalukes, which word signifies slave. The Janizaries, afterwards formed by the Turkish emperors, were procured and trained much in the same manner. [183]

      These Mamalukes became the scourge and terror of the times in which they lived, till, in 1242, they set one of their number on the throne of Egypt. The Mamalukes governed Egypt till 1501, when they were conquered by Selimus II. emperor of the Ottoman Turks. Since that time Egypt has been a Turkish province, governed by a viceroy from Constantinople.

      There is not a regular account of the rise and progress of Egypt, into a kingdom, to be found in history, on which full reliance can be placed. The expanded narratives of Herodotus and Diodoris open before us a wide field of conjecture, in which are interspersed many important facts. But Egypt first comes to our hand in history a powerful monarchy, full of people, of prodigious wealth, learned, superstitious, and august.

      It is impossible to say whether Ham, the second son of Noah, conducted this settlement in company with Misraim, his son; but it is certain that Egypt was anciently called the land of Ham: and by the Arabians and others it is still called the land of Mesre, from Misraim, its king.

      Ancient Egypt lay in three divisions: Lower Egypt, or the Delta, as the Greeks called it, because shaped like their D, lay next to the Mediterranean sea, and was formed into that shape by the branching of the river Nile. The ancient capital of this was Heliopolis (City of the Sun.) Middle Egypt lays South of this. Its capital was Memphis, very anciently; and afterwards Cairo, which rose out of the ruins of the ancient Memphis, and stood on the West, as Cairo stands on the East side of the Nile.

      The southern division of Egypt, which lay bordering on Ethiopia, at first made the most splendid figure in history; and Thebes, allowing half for exaggeration, must have been a greater city than is now in Europe.

      During the first period of Egyptian history, mentioned in the preceding analysis, the reigns of nearly thirty princes are mentioned, but not in the exact order of succession; that, with many other things, is buried in the oblivion of antiquity. The first distinguished event, in this period of 1668 years, was the invasion of Egypt by the shepherd kings.

      I. The invasion of the shepherd kings is but very imperfectly known. It was about this time that Abraham, the renowned patriarch, arrived in Egypt, with his consort, Sarah, the fame of whose beauty attracted the notice of the king of Egypt. But the sequel of that simple and eloquent story, as related in the book of Genesis, showed Pharaoh to have been under the influence of a purer morality, than usually governs arbitrary and despotic princes.

      But from the history of Abraham, it appears that shepherds in those days were both powerful and opulent. Abraham, with his three friends, and their collected train of servants, were able to pursue and rout an army, commanded by several kings. The shepherd's occupation was then great and honorable, and it was by a confederation of powerful pastoral princes that Egypt was at length invaded, [184] and all Lower Egypt subdued. These shepherd kings were followed by a hardy, robust, and warlike race of men, whom the dangers of the wilderness had rendered brave and active, and frequent encounters with the fiercest of the beasts of the forest, had made skilful in the use of arms.

      The people settled on the luxurious plains of the Nile were, indeed, numerous, but ease and abundance had made them effeminate. And what nation can resist the fascinations of wealth, or the circean cup of luxury? We have before us the cause of the downfall of all the powerful nations of antiquity. Luxurious wealth cannot contend with abstemious poverty. Idleness must fall before industry, and indolence before activity. The shepherds of Palestine, or, which is the same thing, the Philistines, invaded and conquered Lower Egypt, and remained in possession of that fertile region 260 years.

      II. The second important event, which falls under this period of Egyptian history, relates to its connexion with the history of the Hebrews; I mean the removal of the family of the patriarch Jacob into Egypt. This event, according to Archbishop Usher, took place in the year before Christ 1706.

      III. The reign and conquests of Sesostris forms, by far, the most splendid era of this period of Egyptian history. Whilst he was on an expedition against the Arabians, his father died, and immediately, it is said, he formed the vast design of conquering the world. This was about the year 1491 before Christ. The officers of his army were formed out of those youths who had been educated with him, trained to every martial exercise, and inspired with the love of glory. He first subjugated the most considerable nations of Africa, and made them tributary.

      A fleet of 400 sail was equipped, and hastened down the Red Sea, the ports and shores of which he took care to secure; and, after vast preparations, he moved into Asia, through the Isthmus of Suez, with an army of six hundred thousand foot, twenty-seven thousand chariots, and twenty thousand horse. How this immense army could be supported in a march to India beyond the Ganges, the writers of history must leave for their readers to discover, if they can. Herodotus declares, that in every part of Asia Minor he saw the monuments of the victories of Sesostris. History makes him victorious wherever he went. He returned, at length, to Egypt, enriched wide the spoils of the most opulent nations in the world, together with an immense multitude of captives. Sesostris drew a plan of his marches and encampments; and this, it is believed, was the first attempt of any thing like a general map that ever was made. Eratosthenes, the first Grecian geographer, was aided by this rude outline of Sesostris. The name of Sesostris is ranked with those of Hercules, Bacchus, Semiramis, Cyrus, Alexander, Gengis Khan, and Tamerlane, each of whom, in their day, marched through these countries, spreading misery and desolation, covered their souls with blood of millions, and seemed determined to wrest from death himself his legitimate title of king of terrors. [185]

      The reign of this great prince was long, and marked with signal prosperity. It is recorded, to his honor, that he was as mild and benignant to his subjects as he was terrible to his enemies; and though he filled Egypt with splendid monuments of his power, he imposed no labor nor exorbitant exactions on his subjects.

      IV. If we except Sesostris, the ancient kings of Egypt were not remarkable as warriors. Their successive reigns were, however, distinguished by those monuments which have been able to resist the rage of elements, the desolations of war, and the lapse of numerous years. Very many of them still triumph over time and decay, and, for any thing we can discover, might last a thousand ages. But in, viewing these lofty remains of antiquity, we are led to reflect on the mind, temper, and genius of the people by whom they were constructed. Egypt is very beautifully styled the cradle of science: and the Egyptians were a stately, grave, and contemplative people. Their ideas of dignity bordered on solemnity and superstition. A gloomy grandeur overspread their minds, which were fond of mystery, religion, and especially of the occult sciences of astrology and divination.

      V. From the reign of Sesostris the Egyptian monarchy rather declined in power and splendour; and in the latter periods of the Assyrian empire, it was partially, if not wholly, subjected to Babylon, though not permanently. Egypt preserved its independence till in the reign of Cambyses, the son and successor of the great Cyrus. Invaded by that prince, it made a feeble resistance, and Psammenitus was taken with his capital, Memphis, and Egypt become a province of the Persian empire; in which state it remained 204 years. This forms the second period of Egyptian history.

      Egypt, during the period before us, presents us with the struggles and conflicts of the Greeks and Persians for empire. This great contest was terminated and closed in the triumph and death of Alexander. Conquest, in ancient times, was more easily made and lost than at the present day. The Egyptians, in the troubles that succeeded the short and disasterous reign of Cambyses, revolted and threw off the Persian yoke; nor were they fully reduced and provinciated till in the second year of the reign of Xerxes the Great, 484 years before Christ. About 40 years after the partial conquest of Cambyses, Xerxes the Great marched into Egypt, completed the conquest of that once flourishing kingdom, and reduced it to a state of extreme bondage and depression. Eighteen years after this, the Egyptians were aided in another revolt by the Athenians, having made Inarus, prince of Lybia, their king. Artaxerxes, who was then on the throne of Persia, after losing one great army, reduced them once more to a state of abject submission. Thus during a long period, while the energies of the Persian empire were wasting away, this unhappy people made successive attempts to regain their freedom. But we shall pass over this unpleasant period, and proceed immediately to the Grecian dynasty, in which this famous people rose once more to dignity, honor, and independence. In the [186] partition of Alexander's extensive dominions, Egypt fell to Ptolemy, This celebrated prince and accomplished general was one of the four officers who shared the spoils of the world, which had been laid at the feet of Alexander. There are few princes mentioned whose history abounds with more interesting events; his whole life may be said to have been a series of great actions. He was considered, by historians, as the natural son of Philip, king of Macedon. Educated in the same court with Alexander, and personally attached to him, he resembled him in bravery, but was less cruel and ambitious. In the conquest of Persia and India, he attended Alexander, and was generally near his person, in every form of danger. He slew one of the kings of India with his own hand, and was instrumental in taking the rock Ornus, always before deemed impregnable.

      This prince brought with him a great accession of territory to the Egyptian monarchy, although not remarkably ambitious of conquest. His reign was equally long and prosperous: and he had the art of uniting the glory and happiness of his subjects with his own fame. Nor were the Egyptians less happy in his successor, Ptolemy Philadelphus. This monarch restored Egypt to its ancient ascendancy over all kingdoms, as a school of philosophy and science. By the assistance of the celebrated Demetrius Phalerius, he formed by far the noblest library the world ever saw: in the destruction of which, in the time of Julius Cesar, the interests of literature sustained an irreparable, as well as an incomparable loss.

      The dynasty of the Ptolemies, from the accession of Ptolemy (Soter, as he was surnamed) till the death of Cleopatra, continued upwards of 290 years, the whole of which period comprehended but eleven reigns. The Ptolemies must have reigned, on an average, twenty-seven years; probably, the longest average reigns known in history.

      The fortunes of this ancient and powerful people were now verging towards their last and interminable decline. The nations whom the Greeks conquered were made better; those conquered by the Romans were utterly ruined. After the two first Ptolemies, no one of that race of princes was distinguished by any very remarkable virtue or excellence. Several of them were remarkable for nothing but their vices.

      The unfortunate Cleopatra, thought by some to have been the most accomplished and fascinating woman in all antiquity, was the last of the successors of Alexander, who governed Egypt. In the fame of her beauty, and the extremity of her misfortunes, she bears a strong resemblance to Mary, Queen of Scotland; and we must say, with the eloquent Hume, her vices are forgotten in her unparalleled sufferings. Julius Cesar had already partially conquered Egypt. But the final conflict for the empire of the world was to take place between Octavius and Mark Antony; and that conflict was occasioned by the arts of this perfidious beauty. Antony had abandoned the virtuous and accomplished Octavia, the sister of Octavius, afterwards Augustus. Their quarrel was decided in a battle [187] at sea, near Actium. Antony, defeated, fled into Egypt, and there put an end to his own life. Cleopatra, to avoid the disgrace of being carried to Rome in triumph, caused herself to be bitten by a serpent, of which she died.

      Of the revolutions of Egypt, after she became a Roman province, we take no notice in the analysis of history.

      It is with nations as with individuals, they have their youth, their childhood, their decline. A glance, into the vale of antiquity, where we may survey the fleeting forms of nations and empires, inspires a pleasing melancholy. We are ready to say of a Sesostris, O that he had been as good as he was great; and of a Cleopatra, O that she had been as virtuous as she was beautiful. Let us rise up from this contemplation of other times, with the reflection that this is our day--our time and place of action."

DEAR BROTHER CAMPBELL,

      I HAVE no doubt that it is your wish to know how the Millennial Harbinger is generally received by your readers, and the community at large that examine it. Your essays upon the different topics treated upon, as well as your strictures upon Clopton and Converse's brotherly communication before published, and Mr. Rogers' "mountain in labor," are read with much interest. We believe you have exposed the hypocrisy and mysticism of these gentlemen. I need not apprize you of the great efforts that are made (by those who have played the sleight of hand with the people for such a length of time) to render you and the friends of the ancient order of things and the ancient gospel, as obnoxious to society as possible. The little Christian Baptist having shaken them to their very foundation, they have concluded, I suppose, by the Rule of Three, that if this little work has produced such effects, double its size will certainly dethrone them. You will see two little writers have appeared in the herald against "A Disciple." Could these gentry have stated the truth, I should not have thought any thing of their strictures. Look at the Religious Herald of the 4th December last, under the signature of "A Disciple," and the correct remarks of the Editor on the views of "A Disciple." Then look at the same paper of the 12th of March, and behold the palpable misrepresentation of "A Disciple's" views in the very sentence under the signature of "H." The whole of his communication is as true as the first sentence. Look at the Religious Herald 26th February, under the signature of "Rechab." See his statement contradicting the statement of "A Disciple." Then look at the Religious Herald of the 19th March, at "Explanation," and you will see how much truth these gentlemen can sneak in behalf of a friend and brother, who has the independence to resist the traditions of the elders. This last, "Rechab," was the little man, with you at my house, and at the Bowling Green, who said you perverted the word of God by saying that in the 26th and 27th verses, Rom. viii. the spirit there mentioned was not the Holy Spirit, and he wanted no [188] fellowship with you or any of the friends of such doctrine. "H." is one of the most dogmatical men that can be found in the neighborhood. Often he has to spell his words before he can read a sentence correctly. This at least was the case when I heard him some three or four years ago. These men have many of the members of their church (as they belong to the same church) under their thumb. They dare not go to hear you, or any friend to the ancient apostolic gospel, without incurring their frowns. They are using unhallowed means to prejudice the minds of all against you; they catch at straws; and by some magical art make a fiery serpent of them to alarm the people. This being the case, and knowing the condition and opposition of Old Virginia against those who attempt to meddle with what they call their civil rights, I have thought it my duty to inform you that your readers are not pleased with your touching the subject of slavery any further than the New Testament authorizes you to teach the duty of servants and masters to each other. This is a delicate question among us. You can offer no argument that could convince us more than we are already convinced of the evil. It is like a painful sore--it will not bear either a stroke or pressure of the hand without rousing the angry passions of our nature. It is unavoidable now--we were not the cause of it. And the great question with us, in our private circles, is, How shall we relieve ourselves from this curse? To discuss this matter publicly would he productive of serious consequences, in the opinions of many. This your opponents know. If they sacrifice their own veracity and wrest the word of God to carry their point to sustain themselves, I should not be surprised if they were to make use of your sentiments, among the slaves, to produce an excitement in order to raise the hue and cry against the friends of the ancient order. I have found that, on several occasions, the public mind was fast progressing in ameliorating the condition in which slaves are placed, and has been thrown back by the agitation of this question by some of the eastern states, or in congress. The state of this class is such that they will not bear any hint in their favor without becoming rebellious. Their masters have been compelled to use rigid means to keep them in subjection. The agitation of the question has always terminated to the injury of the slaves. Though they are slaves, thousands and tens of thousands are happier than their masters, and much better off than nine-tenths of the free negroes. I heard a slave not long since arguing about the condition of free negroes. He remarked that "these poor devils, as he called them, were half naked and half starved, and were obliged to be sold every year to pay their taxes; while he had no trouble to provide his food, or raiment, or pay taxes or physicians; his good master fed and clothed him well. When he was sick he had a physician and all the necessary comforts of life. He took a pleasure in doing his master's will." Society with us frowns upon the man that does not feed, clothe, and treat his servants well. Their dress and appearance on the Lord's day demonstrate their superior advantages above the free negroes and poor white people. [189]

      I am opposed to hereditary slavery, as you know. My sentiments are before the public, and frequently discussed in private. If we are left to ourselves we hope that the light we are enjoying from the press on the christian religion will enable us all to unite, in a private way, to open a door for the ultimate release of this people. I consider slavery incompatible with our free republican institutions. The greatest evil that the slaves labor under, is, they cannot be educated to raise them to a standing in society, without some danger of a serious consequence to their owners. This is one proof to me of its being impracticable in this enlightened age. While the Macedonian cry is about heathens, &c. &c. with the thousands of dollars spent to no good purpose, if we would look under own noses and hands, we should see objects that have a greater claim upon our philanthropy. I have, a few days past, received a letter from an intelligent Bishop of the Baptist church, who knew my views towards this people, desiring that we should unite our councils in opening a door to give a tone to society, privately and prudently as possible, for the ultimate release of them and us from the condition in which we are placed. I wrote him that I was ready to unite with all that were friendly to such a course, upon the following conditions:--That we should enter into an agreement, binding ourselves and heirs, that, after the year 1835 or '10, as may be agreed on, we would make a record of all our female slaves then living, and every child born after that day should be born free, and should be free at the age of 21 or 24, as agreed on; that they should then receive $25 or $50 to emigrate directly to St. Domingo, or to Africa, as they chose, and not to be considered free so long as they refused to leave the United States. This is a short sketch of my plan. It cannot affect materially the present generation, nor can I see any evil consequences growing out of it, any more than a poor father's poverty would produce unhappiness to him at the prospect that his sons and daughters would one day be rich. I find in our private circles many are disposed to enter into such an agreement. My apprehension is, if much is said in our public journals, it will retard, instead of promoting our noble object. You will see, from my communication, it will be best to say as little as possible upon that subject.

      All your readers around me are pleased with the Harbinger, except upon slavery. So far as I have heard from the dictatorial persecuting priesthood (who know it will expose their ignorance and folly in attempting to teach the christian religion, and yet stand more in need of being taught themselves than their hearers) you may expect opposition from them and their tools. We know you regard not their revilings, nor their anathemas. They cannot maintain the present order of things, either by reason or revelation. It can be done in no other way than that adopted by the Pope of Rome and his minions--prejudicing the people against hearing, reading, and understanding the simplicity and purity of the gospel. The great innovator Time, will put them all out of the chair, and the kingdom "shall be taken by the saints of the Most High, and they shall possess the kingdom, and reign even forever and forever. Amen."

T. [190]

      I NEVER was deterred from doing what I conceived my duty, because of a patronage promised for not doing it; or threatened to be withdrawn if I did it. Such a character has not marked my course. But I only request my friends to wait till I have transgressed the rule which christian benevolence and christian prudence teach. A very considerable part of the object I contemplated to gain will be gained if the course suggested by this brother is only begun. I rejoice to know that this subject is so well understood by our Eastern brethren, who are surrounded with this population; and I have been long of the opinion that the impertinent interference of some in the free states has rather retarded than advanced the amelioration of the condition of slaves. I only again request not to be condemned in anticipation of what I may say. When I have spoken amiss, then call me to account, I hope not to afford cause to my opponents to illuminate their houses, because I have defeated myself in a great enterprize--to restore true religion and true humanity to a people spoiled through philosophy and vain deceit, by the traditions of men, and by a subordination to the rudiments of this world.

EDITOR.

      Bishop Campbell--PLEASE correct, in your next number, the name Samuel to Ebenezer Rogers, who is the writer of the Mount Pleasant Circular. I am personally acquainted with him. He is considered by those best acquainted with him, to be an honest, upright, industrious man, possessing but little of this world's goods--not a hireling; for although he has been laboring in the Missouri as an Evangelist for nearly ten years, he has probably not received for his services altogether one hundred dollars.

      You also do him injustice in connecting Doctors Noel and Wilson with him in writing the Circular, as he is, perhaps, as good, if not a better scholar and writer than either of them; and they live nearly 400 miles apart. It is to be hoped that you will afford him an opportunity, through your columns, to defend his character and principles; and if you should be able to manage him, you need not fear the Doctors.

      Further, you have promised to give your opponents a chance. Let Ebenezer Rogers have fair play, and I shall be deceived if he does not convince you and your readers that he is neither a dishonest man, nor a novice in the scriptures.

S. M.

      DIED, at Spanishtown, Jamaica, on the 21st of November, Mrs. Judith Crawford, aged one hundred and fifty-one years. She had the powers of her bodily strength, as well as her faculties, until within a few years since, and they were not so much diminished as to reduce her to second childishness; She remembered the dreadful earthquake of 1692.

Religious Herald. [191]

      William Hayden paid for S. Edwards, 2 dollars; D. Hook, Louisville, Ga. paid 2 dollars; J. Young, Pittsburg, Pa paid 2 dollars; S. M. Bagby, paid for himself and G T. Wood, 2 dollars each; G. W. Trabue, Glasgow, Ky paid for W. Ritter, J. Eubank, F. M'Millan, J Wooten, and S. C. Scrivener, 2 dollars each; Thomas Bullock, Versailles, Ky. paid for S. G. Henry, D. Craig, W. L. Griddy, S. Nuckles, and J. M Dupey, S2 each; J. W. Jeffrey's, Jeffreys' Store, paid for himself and J. A Hatchell, 2 dollars each; J. Neal, Pleasant Grove, Va. paid two dollars, T. M. Henley, Lloyd's, Va. paid for J. Lumpkin, G W. Gatewood, W. Temple, S. C. Gatewood, and L. Striggle, 2 dollars each; S. G. Shropshire, Augusta, Ky. paid 2 dollars; R. M'Clure, Wheeling, Va. paid for S. Bowry, 2 dollars; W. Shepherd. Georgetown, Ohio; paid $1; J. Mendal, Wellsburg, Va. paid for J. Hunter, Jun. It. Starr, and J. Berry, 2 dollars each; also, I dollar for R. Moore; W. Bootwright, Richmond, Va for himself, J_ Bootwright, J. Shock, C H. Hyde, M. Baker, J. Winn, T, H. Fox, B. F. Lester, J. D. Davis, C Carter, O. Ellison, S. D. Crenshaw, A. Thomas, W. D. Wrenn, J. L. Tate, W. B. Clark, J. Winston, Short Pump, J. Jennings, Cartersville, H. Eidson, Staunton, N. H. Coleman, Mount Horeb, W. C. Nelson, and T. Hunt, White Chimneys, 2 dollars each; Charles King, Sen. Irville, Ohio, paid 2 dollars; J. Radford, Oak Grove, Ky. paid for A. Titterington, G. W. Dais, E. A. Lucy, and J. Thacher, 2 dollars each; A. T. Payne, Washington, Ky. paid 2 dollars; S. Carpenter, Bardstown, Ky. paid for himself and H. Gore, 2 dollars each; W. Poston, Winchester, Ky. paid for r. C. Gordon, H. T. Chevis, O. Collins, and J. Morton, 2 dollars each; J. T. Jones, Cincinnati, Ohio, paid for J. Sparks,. W. Robinson, and B. Lawson, 2 dollars each; M. P. Wheat, Columbia, Ky. paid for himself, J. P. Smith, W. Dudley, B. F. Hall, Thomas Massie, sen. and J. Steel, 2 dollars each; G. Brite, Waynesville, Ohio, paid 2 dollars; Amos Kirkpatrick, Meigsville, Ten. paid for J. Drasser and L. Bransford, 2 dollars each; B. Stanton, Mount Pleasant, Ohio, paid 2 dollars; N. L. Lindsey, North Middletown, Key. paid for E. Darnall, 2 dollars; J. Philips, Steubenville, Ohio, paid for J. Miller, 2 dollars; J. F. Bassett, Huntsville, Ala. paid for T. J. Sumner and himself, 2 dollars each; Nathan Ewing, Nashville, Ten. paid 4 dollars for vols. 1 and 2; S. D. Early, Thomas Rennolds, and Thomas Porter, Flemingsburg, paid 2 dollars each; Dr Charles Merriwether, Hadensville, Ky. paid for himself 4 dollars for vols. 1 and 2, and J. T. Gilner, 2 dollars; D. Kellong, Bloomington. Ind. paid for himself and D. Travis, 2 dollars each; J Warren, Leesburg, Ky. paid 2 dollars; H. Langley, Washington, Pa. paid for Elder C Wheeler, 2 dollars; F. V. Sutton, White Chimnies, paid for B. B. Wright, 2 dollars; Richard Seaton, Floyd's Fork, Ky. paid for R. Welsh, J. Mill, P. B. Garret, J. Pound, J W. Tyler, A. Horton, A. Rose. J. A. Sweney, G. Seator, C D Seator, and Mary Payne, 2 dolls. each; B. H. Payne, Mount Sterling, Ky. paid for three subscribers, 6 dollars; G Butler, Butler's, Geo. paid for V. H. Walker, 2 dollars; J. W. Jeffreys, paid for W. Richards, Spanish Grove, Va. 2 dollars; J. A. Watson, Prince Edward Court-House, 2 dollars; R. Sanders, Mile Grove, Va. 2 dollars; J. Eaton, Bennington, Ohio, paid 2 dollars.

      Several valuable articles, excluded from this number, will appear in our next. Orioli and Discipulus, we regret, came too late for this number. I hope these correspondents will often favor us with communications.

      Erratum.--Page 155, line 1, for "brother," read christian.

[The Millennial Harbinger, 1 (April, 1830): 145-192.]