[Table of Contents]
Alexander Campbell, ed.|
The Millennial Harbinger, Vol. I, No. VI (1830)
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.
|REVIEW OF "A HISTORY OF CLEAR CREEK CHURCH, AND
CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED."--BY JOHN TAYLOR, Frankfurt,
1830--Containing 60 duodecimo pages.
PAUL no where commands old men to govern their passions. This was his charge to the young. The aged he exhorts to be sober, grave, temperate, healthy by faith, love, and patience. He presumed it unnecessary to say a word to old men on governing their passions, because experience and the decline of animal vigor would most likely divest them of that excitability which appears in youth.
To see an old nan, who has filled almost his four score years, coming forward in the gravity and affection of an aged disciple, full of the fruits of that wisdom which comes from above, affords quite a different entertainment from that which this aged disciple has furnished. We must ascribe it to the system rather than to the man; or, perhaps I should add to the system, his dotage.
Much has been said of a christian spirit, and the want of a christian spirit, by our opponents. We shall look to them for a model, and who amongst them so likely to furnish that model as old John Taylor, who boasts much of having been killed by the law, quickened by the Spirit, and is just waiting for heaven. He counts nearly or quite two years for my one. Mellowed down with the christian charity of his system, we may expect in him the perfection of love. We shall only premise that his object in these 60 pages appears to be threefold:--1st. To attribute all the troubles of the Clear Creek Church to the brethren Creaths and some other reforming brethren--to lay all the divisions, swellings, and tumults, to the friends of reform. 2d, To prejudice the public, the christian public, against the reforming preachers and people; and, in the third place, to produce a division of the Elkhorn Association--to have all the friends and advocates of reform cast out of that connexion. These constitute the burthen of the little book. Concerning the 1st object: I have seen in Kentucky a certificate signed by some of the first members of the community, attesting the injustice of the first charge, and proving, from  unquestionable documents, that the difficulties in the Clear Creek Church originated not from any preaching upon the subject of reform. Indeed, the pamphlet itself is full proof of this matter.
I know my readers in general will feel but little interest in this matter, and we will proceed to let this old disciple speak for himself. In the prosecution of his great object he says many things, of which the following are a fair specimen:--
"I ask leave of the friends of Campbell to make a comparison," page 8. "It may be remembered that Daniel's goat was Alexander the Great. The same goat pretty well figures out our Alexander. Daniel's goat killed a ram with two horns, and then conquered the world. Our goat, as he thinks, has, in public debate, put two Presbyterian ministers to flight, and after that conquered the infidel Owen. Daniel Parker is another goat like himself. One we will call the East Goat, the other (Daniel Parker) the West Goat." In page 43 he calls Jacob Creath, Sen. and Jacob Creath, Jun. his "brothers Creath." Of these brethren he teaches the young thus to speak:--"If the cunning of one Jacob could beguile and obtain the birthright from an elder brother, by deceit obtain the blessing from a patriarchal father, and over-reach a wary father-in-law, what has not religious society to apprehend from the combined cunning of two Jacobs?" "Why should Creath be thus mischievous? I did not before know that my old brother Creath was so near a kinsman, or so much like Jeroboam the son of Nebat; for I have never seen this wicked man and his sin so fully exemplified as in the present case," p. 41. "They set men to baptizing who do not preach at all. This is Jeroboamism connected with Campbellism," p. 42. "The two Jacobs have lately set up another golden calf at Benson: for Jeroboam set up two--one at Bethel, and the other at Dan," p. 42. "My young Jacob I have ranked with king Abimelech, of whom he has a great favor. My grey-headed Jacob I have connected with King Jeroboam," p. 43. "Should he now step in, I would, perhaps, unwittingly say, How'do, brother Jeroboam Creath;" p. 44.
Concerning other very distinguished men who have been the instruments of much good in converting men, and in reforming society, he speaks in the same style. "I have named Morton as one of the intruders. It may be he is the most innocent man among all the intruders at Clear Creek, for it is probable he knows no better; for being very self-willed and self conceited, he only takes notice of one side of the question; and should he never have felt the power of godliness, he is more to be pitied than blamed. From all that I can hear of him he deports himself well, so that I am willing to consider him a well meaning man with all the chaff that is about him," p. 21. "Those revolutionizers, Creath and Morton." "Where was the grey-headed Creath, Bullock, James Sullivan, and others?" "About two years ago Jacob Creath, Sen. and W. Morton had what is called a great revival of religion at Nicholasville. More than 100 were baptized." "One thing their zeal prompted them to do was preaching against all creeds and confessions of faith." "Has Bullock changed since that time? I highly esteem Bullock, and am afflicted that he should be a man given to change." "John Smith was in company. I have long known him, and had a high opinion of him as a minister of Christ. "These reformers must have a contentious noise, from mere love to that kind of noise." "Who would do this but brazen-faced Baptist Reformers?" p. 26. "What is all this but disgusting bravado--a mere puff of filthy scum." "O when will the Baptists behave more like christians!" With such examples before them, I cannot think it will be far hence.
The old man reserves his best blessing for me. Speaking of an interview with me 1824, not the first but the second time I visited Kentucky, (in the date he is mistaken, he says, "Had I known (at the time l looked in his face and look leave of him) what the Prophet Elisha knew when he settled his countenance on the face of Hazael and wept, I should have wept too. This Hazael  was servant to the King of Syria. The Prophet knew he would be King and greatly afflict Israel; therefore he wept. The first exploit done by Hazael was to kill his master, and then overturn the kingdom of Israel. What mischief Campbell did before he left the Presbyterians, I am not fully apprized; but that he has been a second edition of Hazael among the Baptists we know at least," p. 48. "I am constrained to think of the whole plan as infidelity under a mask. I call it an apostacy such as we never have before known among the Baptists, and a prelude to their own eternal overthrow." "Piety to God and good order in a church they have an aversion to; anarchy and confusion seems to be their element." p. 49. "Deluded mortals! They talk of government by the Scriptures!" "That there is a change in these outlandish renegadoes is evident; but whether for the better, is another thing," p. 51. Speaking of his law-work, he says of me, "Campbell, from every thing we can hear from him, has always had the art of dodging his neck from God's killing knife (the law,) and no wonder that men should shun this deadly blow: for a common hog will dodge his throat from the killing knife, and except it go to the heart you will not hear the dying groan," p. 57. Speaking of the reforming brethren, he adds, "Those buzzard men smelled the putrid carnage of contention--having a particular pleasure in mingling in this kind of filth." [So writes and speaks this christian minister in his old days! These are they who talk of a christian spirit.]
If such a Hazael as I dare approach such a venerable disciple as the aged John Taylor, I would say to him, Is it thus that you have learned Christ? Is it thus that you imitate the Apostle John, whom you call your "namesake?" Are your last works, your speeches, and this pamphlet in the spirit and temper of the last productions of the aged disciple and Apostle John? Will not the young men be emboldened by your example to abound in all clamor, and bitterness, and evil speaking--to hear you say, that you are just waiting to be released--ripe for heaven, like a shock of corn in full harvest--that you are about to repose in Abraham's bosom, while such reproaches, calumnies, and slanders are flowing from your trembling fingers, and dropping from your feeble tongue? What sort of license do you afford to the young disciples, and what countenance do you give to the uncourteous, indocile, and daring rebel, who refuses submission to the yoke of Jesus? "Few of us speak with less courtesy," they will say, "few of us are more rancorous, frothy, light, giddy, scurrillous, than an old man panting to be glorified?" I heard a gentleman say the other day that you told him, some years since, you wished to die; that you were afraid to live longer lest you should dishonor the cause. He has not yet obeyed the gospel, and the frothiness, wantonness, not to say the maliciousness, in appearance at least, of your production, not only emboldens him, but warrants many others in continuing in the excesses of the Gentiles who know not God. Does not James say, "If a man bridle not his tongue his religion is vain?" And may not some say, "If old John Taylor has bridled his tongue, then has mine been bridled all my life." I would, if one so criminal and so young as I, dare entreat or beseech one so faultless in his own eyes, and so near the confines of the eternal world--I say, I would beseech him to repent and publish a recantation to the world. I would not for the whole commonwealth; nay, for the universe, appear before the Judge of All with my tongue and my hand polluted with such reproachful  words against the saints of the Most High; leaving among my last works on earth a monument, a memorial of the gall and wormwood of my unsanctified passions and affections. I would not for the wealth of Crœsus, the eloquence of Demosthenes, the wisdom of Solomon, appear in a company of angels (to say nothing of the God of angels) with that pamphlet in my hand as its author, filled as it is with calumnies and reproaches against the most exemplary and useful christians in the commonwealth of Kentucky--I will not say a word for any out of that commonwealth implicated in the accusation. I only ask, or would, if I might he permitted to ask, Who in the commonwealth of Kentucky, either among the teachers or taught, are more worthy of christian affection and esteem than the persons named in this pamphlet? Who among the public men have led more exemplary lives, exhibited more intelligence and piety, than the advocates of reform? Who have been more useful, more devoted, and more successful than they? Were I to travel out of the record, and array the advocates of reform in the bounds of your immediate vicinities, taking some ten of the counties adjoining you; taking into view the public and private men, to say nothing of the sisters who have in all reforms been among the first to stand up for the Lord and his cause; I say, were these to be selected, and some who are so much in favor of reformation as to be afraid to go with you, out stand on middle ground--how many would you have left to boast of for talent, information, and piety! You say brother Vardeman is for the middle ground, and some other influential men are for the middle ground. I will not stop to inquire into the meaning of these middle ground brethren. In general the middle men have their judgment on one side, and their affections or feelings, or passions or interests, or something not intellectual, on the other. Whether their judgment is on the side of reform, or their affections, I will not at this time inquire. But so soon as you exclude all the reforming brethren, public and private advocates of reform, your society assuredly will have lost much of its saltness and its seasoning, as well as its members.
But to the most interesting point in this pamphlet. It is this: The author's great object is to produce a division, a schism, in the Baptists in Kentucky. He wishes the Elkhorn Association to excommunicate the Reformers, as he calls them, and then the other Associations will follow their example, and thus make a new sect or heresy from North to South in Kentucky. When this rent is perfected, then the Reformers are to be blamed for it--as Nero, when he fired Rome, blamed it on the christians.
John the Apostle said, "He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now. He that loveth his brother abides in the light; but he that hates his brother, is in darkness, and walks in darkness, and knows not whither he goes, for darkness has blinded his eyes. He that loves not his brother, abides in death. Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loves, is born of God and knows God. He that loves not, knows not God; for God is love. We ought to lay down our lives for the brethren." Now let us hear his aged "namesake;"-- 
"I well remember that I find it recorded" [not in the writings of John, but] "in the Minutes of the Elkhorn Association of 1786, that when a church refuses to take the advice of the Association she shall be denied a seat there, provided the advice is not contrary" [to the Apostle John? No:] "to the terms of the General Union." "I ask, Will she now suffer herself to be imposed upon by" [her brethren] "a few headlong or headstrong men?" p. 38.
Love suffers long and is kind, bears all things, believes all things, endures all things. Love never fails, said an Apostle.
"In this flagrant outrage on good order, what is to be done? Let each church aggrieved make themselves well acquainted with their affairs, and send on a request" [for the excommunication of these brethren] "and let the Association act on it promptly," p. 39. [Yes, let the Association act promptly. What thou doest, do quickly.] "At next Elkhorn Association they will be sure to be put out of their stewardship," p. 43. "Other Associations will follow the example." "My brother Creaths will not be displeased with this plain course I take with them," p. 43.
No: good-natured men, they will not be displeased with their brother John Taylor, who wishes to see them beheaded for their testimony before he goes to heaven. They could not be so hard-hearted as to refuse their good old brother Taylor the sweet satisfaction of keeping the garments of those who would stone them to death. It would be cruel in them not to let this aged disciple smell the sweet savor of their blood. They would not be guilty of hating their brother Taylor: for the old Apostle said, "He that hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him."
Those on the vantage ground can easily settle the question of truth and error by singing a war song, and by crying, "To your tents, O Israel!" Bring them before the Association, and there we shall count noses, and on which ever side there are the most noses, that is the side on which stands the truth. I never had much faith in Sanhedrims, because they have, to say the least, been oftener wrong than right. In the Sanhedrim which condemned the Messiah to death, the votes stood for crucifying, 70; for releasing, 2, (Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea.) Jesus had two votes out of seventy-two. This event has incurably prejudiced me against ecclesiastical councils.
But why this proscription? Have any of the Reformers denied any one of the seven pillars on which Wisdom has builded her house? I speak after the manner of men. Has any one of them denied the one Lord, the one faith, the one immersion, the one God, the one Spirit, the one body, the one hope? Touching the one faith, have they denied any of the gospel facts: and do they, as concerning the one hope, deny the literal resurrection of the dead? If not, why denounce or proscribe them? Do they not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh literally; that he is the only begotten Son of God, and that he died for our sins, and rose again for our justification? But they will not dogmatize nor suffer others to dogmatize for them. They will not call John Taylor Father, only because of his age; not because of his opinions. Do they not live piously, humbly, honestly, and behave themselves courteously. If they do not, admonish them, reprove them; and if they do not reform exclude them. But for thinking,  thinking differently from old John Taylor, why decapitate them? If the brethren Creaths, Morton, Smith, Boon, &c. &c. are all too long for Elder Taylor's iron bedstead, cut off their toes, but save their heads. Procrustes, cruel as he was towards those who were too long for his bedstead, never decreed, that I have read, at which end they should first begin with the knife. I hope Elder Taylor will not make a decree that the knife shall be always applied to the head because the head is the thinking organ.
But really, why charge the Reformers with divisions, while they say, You may indulge all your opinions, only let us enjoy our opinions; and so long as we are of one faith, let us walk according to that one faith? But up comes the Church Covenant, and it says so and so, "These Reformers will not let us keep our Church Covenant." I am of opinion this is not the fact. Keep your Covenant, all who like it, but do not impose it upon them who do not like it. Here is a church of one hundred members: they have a Covenant: sixty approve the Covenant, and forty do not. What is to be done? Exclude the forty! By whose authority? Not by Jesus Christ's authority. If you presume to cut off forty of his members because of your human contrivance, he will fight against you with the sword which proceeds out of his mouth. If you do, you are the schismatics, the heretics. You being sixty, and they being forty, alters not the case. "But the forty will not commune with us while we hold the Covenant." In this they may be wrong. If the Covenant be all that is in the way, if your behaviour be as becomes the gospel, they ought to bear with your Covenant. I would sit and let you read your Covenant till you got tired, if you will cut off its horns; or, if it happen to be a muley, you may turn it loose every day in the year, Sundays only excepted, and let it butt whom it may, so long as it cannot gore. Yes, I would let you have your plaything; but you must not turn your wooden fish into a living scorpion.
"But we cannot depart front our usual order." Well, be it so; but let those who feel disposed to obey God rather than men, meet every Lord's day, and worship God according to the New Covenant. Go and look at them. If you have better memories and warmer affections than they, that you need not so often commemorate the Lord's death, it would be cruel in you to say that they who are weaker christians than you, have colder affections, and more imbecile memories, shall have to keep as long from the Lord's table and the worship of his house as you, who, because of your greater affections for the Saviour, and stronger recollections, need not to meet at his table more than once in a quarter. Bear with the infirmities of the weak. We are opposed to division. We will hear all things, only let us have the liberty you claim for yourselves--the liberty of worshipping our Father and our God according to our own consciences. In this tolerant and charitable way we will all come together who are friends of Jesus Christ. A little familiarity with christian usages, and with one another, will draw us to the living head, and warm our affections towards one another. On these premises if there be divisions and  schisms, charge them not against us. If you do, charge cold and darkness upon the Sun.
And now had John Taylor, the aged, thrown himself into the breach; had he brought the weight of his years and all his remaining energies into the field of conciliation; and, had he a tear to spare, shed it over the first disciple who would not submit to such arguments, his memory would have been embalmed in the hearts of ten thousand christians, and he would have heard the Saviour say, "Happy the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." But now he sings the war song--now he sounds the note of preparation--now he flings arrows, firebrands, and death into the camp, and calls upon his warriors to gird on their swords and hasten to the field.
I take no notice of any thing doctrinal in this pamphlet; there is little of any sort of doctrine in it except it be that of the capital I and the little u. He talks of some interviews with me, none of which are strictly correct. I attribute it to his treacherous memory. He has confounded events one year apart in time, and the coloring he has given to some conversations is quite bilious. I am sometimes mistaken in men, but I was not much mistaken in old John Taylor. I found him wayward, dogmatical, opinionative, and what some call self-willed. To this he had a right, perhaps, from his age; and, like most old men, he remembered and admired the scenes, and sentiments, and exploits of his youth, more than of his advanced years. He was converted to the views of immersion exhibited in my debate with Mr. M'Calla--but he was too old to stay converted. And now that he has apostatized from them, his last state is worse than the first.
Could I entreat him to atone for the ills he has done--could I induce him to do what a martyr once did--put that hand into the fire which in an evil hour signed his recantation, I am assured it might contribute to his happy exit, and wipe off a dishonor which otherwise will survive all his other indiscretions and tergiversations, which in a long life are the common lot of men. Should he, however, persist in this downward course, I need not the inspiration of a prophet to foresee the dark cloud which will not only obscure his setting sun, but also cast its dusky shade upon his tomb.
To conclude this notice of a work, already too long, a work which needs no other passport to the fabled river Styx than its own ghastly hue; I would ask its author to ponder well what wraths and strifes, what swellings and tumults he is about to create should he succeed in making a new division. And there is one question, the solution of which he ought to have prepared and proved; and that is, should he divide the Elkhorn Association, whether he will not contribute more to build up the cause he would pull down, than to sustain that which he says is so near to his heart. But I expect the old retort--"You were born in sin, and do you instruct us?" But neither the Trojans nor Agamemnon would believe the predictions of Priam's daughter. Cato, when a very old man, learned Greek; but all history affords no instance of an old man becoming prudent after he had filled up his threescore years and ten.
Being part of an Address from M. M. Carll an the subject of Education.
PUBLIC INFANT SCHOOLS.
I SHALL, previous to closing these remarks, propose a plan for your consideration, which will in a great measure, though not perhaps entirely, meet the difficulty in question: it is a system of infant instruction. Statesmen have strangely overlooked the subject of early culture as it stands connected with political economy. If it is the obvious interest of every family to have their children instructed, and to train them up in the way they should go, it is no less the interest or true policy of the state, to take its sons and daughters under its fostering care, and provide the means necessary for the proper developement of their intellectual and moral nature. Every child is and ought to be regarded as a component part of the state, liable to punishment if found violating the laws, but entitled at the same time to instruction and protection. There seems to be an inconsistency and even a sort of injustice in visiting the offender with punishment, without first placing him in a condition to distinguish fairly between right and wrong. We make ample provision for correction, but little for prevention; like an angry and cruel mother who suffers her children to grow up in neglect, and then punishes them for doing wrong. As mercy is a more endearing attribute than justice, so prevention is better than punishment. But the policy of governments hitherto appears to have been to provide millions for punishment, not a dollar for prevention;--a very narrow and unwise policy, and well calculated to enhance the expences of the government and increase taxation. It is wretched economy to spend our money for the erection of prisons instead of school-houses. The interest of the sum that has been expended on the new prison, in the neighborhood of our city, would afford ample means for the constant instruction of from eight to ten thousand children, on the infant school plan. What a nursery of intelligence, virtue, and usefulness, would thus be provided,--what blessings and ornaments to society!
Our neglected children that are suffered to run wild, exposed to the blighting influence of corrupt associations, and to acquire the vagrant habits attendant upon idleness, form those nurseries which supply their annual crop, (with the same certainty that the leaves of the forest put forth,) to pray upon the community, and by a sort of retributive justice repay society for the neglect which they have received. There is neither wisdom nor policy, nor economy, in this course, and whilst it continues we can have no reason to expect a remarkable alteration for the better.
It is asserted that every three convicts which England sends to Botany Bay, costs her a sum sufficient to support an infant school of three hundred children for one year! Something has already been said in this address, on the importance of beginning aright in this matter: and the observation was made with a view to infant instruction. It is my settled conviction that no  plan you can adopt will be intrinsically valuable or efficient in its operation, until you begin here. You have petitioned the legislature on the all-important subject of education; you have drawn up with much labor, care, and ability, a plan not only for the establishment of these schools, but you have also suggested the means of raising the funds for their support, in a way that must meet the approbation of every reflecting man in the state, inasmuch as it will place every citizen upon an equal footing, without compromising either his self-respect or that valuable feeling of independence, which is the proper and legitimate right of an American citizen.
I say without compromising his self-respect and that sentiment of independence which ought to be cherished by all; for I hold that charity schools, though founded and supported by the best feelings which man can boast, are not in accordance with the spirit of our constitution, the nature of the government under which we live, nor the true dignity of man.
System of instruction.
This you have done in the measures already taken; thus far it is well done; but your work is not finished; nay, if your plan were to go into operation to morrow--if the doors of your school-houses were then to be thrown open and the children about to enter, the most important part of the work would still remain to be performed. I mean a proper system of instruction. Permit me to say, that society is yet in its infancy as it regards the subject of education. And in this bold assertion, I do but respond the sentiments of those whom experience has best qualified to form a correct judgment.
Any thing deserving the name of a system of education, must be based upon a knowledge of the philosophy of the mind; its constituent faculties must be understood, their arrangement, their subordination, and the proper order of their developement. When this is known, we can then adapt our instructions to these faculties, and an appropriate scholastic discipline be brought to bear upon each faculty in its proper place and order. To form such a system ought to be your next object; all that is known on the subject of mental philosophy, should be carefully consulted; that which has received the sanction of experience preserved; all that is fanciful rejected; and let there be a congruity between the instruction to be received and that which is to become the recipient.
It is lamentable to see the very limited attention which has been paid to the subject of mental philosophy, even by those to whom the knowledge is most necessary, and the nature of whose profession renders it a solemn duty. How few instructers are there, whose investigations and researches take this direction, and who make themselves acquainted with those faculties to which their instructions are to be applied!
What would be thought of an anatomist, who should attempt to instruct a class and to explain to them the arcana of the science, when at the same time he was himself ignorant of the constituent parts of the human body? And yet the one is not a whit more absurd  than the other! Were this matter better understood, we should not see so many of those cards, which remind one of a bill of fare, containing from twelve to twenty different branches, obtruded annually upon the public; and which are calculated to make the judicious grieve, or excite his compassion, it is difficult to say whether most for the master or the pupil on whom they are about to be inflicted.
I know not a greater benefit a wealthy individual could confer upon the community, than that of laying the foundation of an establishment for the express and undivided purpose of teaching the philosophy of the mind, as connected with education; that what is already known of this science; but which knowledge is confined to a few, may be more generally known; and that those especially who are called to direct the minds of youth should at least become acquainted with the materials upon which they have to operate as well as the instruments with which their operations are to be performed.
The course heretofore pursued, in a few words, is this; a young man passes through a certain routine of instruction, acquires some knowledge of the dead languages, perhaps to the neglect of his own, and a few of the sciences; thus qualified, if no other employment offer, he commences a school; generally, not as a matter of choice, but of necessity; the science which of all others is the most important, he is as ignorant of as the pupil the formation of whose mind, and future character, are in a great measure at his disposal. This is a statement in no wise exaggerated; nay, I think many of you will be ready to acknowledge that in thousands of instances it falls far short of the truth; for it is well known that there are many teachers who do not possess even the slender qualifications above enumerated, and whose example in the important articles of morals and of gentlemanly deportment falls far short of that which a parent ought to be desirous of having presented as a pattern for his child to imitate.
Revolution in Teaching.
These infant schools have already effected an important change in the method of imparting instruction to children. They are destined to supersede the old system entirely, and to introduce one more in accordance with the philosophy of the mind. Without entering into any tedious disquisition, it may not be out of place to observe, that there are in general two faculties, under which, all the particular faculties which constitute the nature of man, are arranged, viz: his will and his understanding. To the former, belong all his affections, appetites, and feelings: to the latter all his ideas, thoughts, reflections, and reasonings. The former comes into immediate exercise; the latter is much slower in arriving at maturity. It is the former, therefore, namely the will, with its affections and appetites, that first claims our attention, and solicits the kind hand of an assiduous care, to guide in difficulty, to sooth in grief, and to restrain in passion. This faculty requires the more attention, from the circumstance of its being the governing and ruling faculty; that which in truth constitutes the man; excites the thoughts; and to which the understanding and reason are entirely subordinate. It is  here that those good affections and feelings are stored up during the period of innocence, infancy, and childhood, which prompt to neighborly love and kindness, which stamp the future character and form the future man.
But how is this branch of education neglected both in families and in schools? Our children are treated as though they had nothing but heads to cultivate; the best and principal part of the man, the heart, is almost wholly neglected. This is the true reason, why the business of education, has become such a formidable task; a task so irksome both to the teacher and the pupil, instead of being, as it surely ought to be, one of the most delightful occupations on earth! a scene where love, hope, and patience, ought ever to reign with mild and beneficent sway.
We do not commence at the proper place with our instructions; the great book of nature with its broad and expansive page, stands wide open, as if to solicit attention as soon as we open our eyes; our other senses, too, stand open to convey their appropriate impressions to the brain. But we set this book aside; we close it and open another made up of artificial characters and arbitrary signs. The poor infant is put to his a, b, c, as soon as he can lisp, and from thence, winds his weary, toilsome way through all the mazes of syllabication, until the task of reading is accomplished.
Letters is one of the noblest inventions of man, and an indispensable medium in the acquisition of knowledge; but there is a better and a readier way of accomplishing the end, a way that would substitute pleasures for irksomeness, and smiles for tears. Artificial language should not be permitted first to engage the attention of a child; it is at least four removes from the point of beginning. Thus the objects of nature are the first that address themselves to the senses--the ideas or impressions made by those objects, the second--the names affixed to each object, is the third, and the arbitrary sign which represents the object, is the fourth. Now it is absurd to begin in the fourth place instead of the first, and here lies the difficulty. Afford children an opportunity of becoming acquainted with the objects, themselves, their more obvious qualities and uses; let them acquire a habit of observation and reflection, and all that remains will become comparatively easy; you will then no longer see them like parrots, repeating words, the signification of which they do not comprehend, and which convey no specific idea to their mind; let them become familiar with the thing, and they will soon master the name.
The mind may be compared to a magnificent structure or tabernacle of three compartments: the portals are the senses; in the outer court reside the imagination and the memory; in the middle compartments are the understanding and judgment; in the sanctum sanctorum, is an altar dedicated to reason and religion; the memory, the understanding, and all the intellectual powers, are the vestal virgins that minister here and supply it with a perpetual fire,a fire of a brighter and a purer flame, because kindled by love and holy affection, flowing from a renovated and grateful heart.--[Philadelphia Recorder.] 
THE preceding essay is not from my pen; I adopted it. Sitting down to write one upon the education of infants, and happening to lay my hands upon the Philadelphia Recorder of the 5th inst. and seeing the views ably sketched, which I wished to offer to my readers; I therefore adopted them. In the millennial order of society a system of education in accordance with the true philosophy of the whole man, mental and corporeal, will doubtless universally obtain. I have doubted, seriously doubted, for at least fifteen years, whether the present mode of training the human mind in common schools--whether for infants or young men--was not almost antipodes to reason, and sailing against the wind and tide of human nature. It is worse than wrong end foremost. We begin in metaphysics, and end in physics. The natural sciences, in the present course, are for young men, the last years of their academic, and the unnatural science, (pardon the antithesis) are for infants and children! The infant schools now in experiment are approximating very much towards reason; or towards the philosophy of human nature. We want another class of infant schools for young men. I made something like an experiment of this sort when superintending a classical school, in which mathematics, and what are called the natural sciences, were taught some seven or eight years ago. It was sufficient to convince me that more than half the time spent in the collegiate way was lost, and less than half the acquisitions were made during the whole course, which might, under a rational system, be obtained at the age of from sixteen to eighteen. I rejoice to see the advances which every year is making towards that perfection of education, which is necessary to the millennial order of society. But of this hereafter.
Our present object is more with the moral and religious training than with the literary or scientific education of the infant mind. And first of all, the views of God, which are first imparted to the infant mind, claim our regard. This is the all-absorbing topic in the present essay. I have much feeling on this subject, because I have experienced the bitterness of the popular catechetical course. I was compelled to memorize almost the whole New Testament, and many passages in the Old; but along with it I had to memorize and digest the Assembly's Catechism, together with Brown's explanation of it. This required as much of my time as to acquire the rudiments of the Latin and Greek tongues. The good effects of memorizing the New Testament were neutralized by the trash which the "Westminister Divines" had obliged me to interlard with it. This gave a coloring and a taste to all that I learned from the scriptures. It was the same as if the oracles of God had been translated into the catechism; as if the spiritual meaning of the living word was decocted into it. I need not tell again the doleful tale. I was alienated from the life of God by the very means which men had contrived to reconcile me to it. Much observation and intercourse with those indoctrinated in the same way, have convinced me that this course has been to many  others what woful experience proved it to me. It is true, I have much reason to thank the Heavenly Father that it was not to me so ruinous as it has been to some others. Many have found life insupportable under it, and sought refuge from themselves in death. Moral and religious men have become suicides under this system, carried out by their preachers and writers. Within a few years past in these vicinities a number of persons have been alienated, not only from God, but from reason, and from themselves, and have become their own murderers by this system. These were not flagitious sinners. They were the most orderly members, and some of them elders, of Presbyterian and Seceder churches. A few days since I heard of two very religious men, one, if not both, elders of churches--a Robert Bovard and a John Alexander, I think, of Beaver county, Pennsylvania. The former read Dickinson on the five points until he concluded that he was a reprobate; he hung himself. John Alexander was the admirer of the same system, and reasoned himself into absolute despair. He killed himself in the closet in the most deliberate manner. These instances have occurred within the last two or three years. With a little trouble a list of such cases, of fearful extent, might be made out. No person from reading or studying the New Testament only, ever fell into despair. But yet men will not be weaned from systems which they learned from their pious mothers and fathers, notwithstanding such is and has been their tendency. Conceit or despair are the alternatives of hyper-Calvinism. One conceits he was one of the elect from all eternity--he triumphs. Another despairs, because he can find no reason to assure him that he was one of the eternal favorites--he hangs, or shoots, or hardens himself for the day of slaughter.
But to return. The views of the divine character communicated to the infant mind generally alienate from the life of God. This alienation is generally ascribed to the total depravity and inbred enmity of the human heart. The natural enmity is depicted in strong colors--"Conceived in sin and brought forth in iniquity"--"children of wrath even as others"--"dead in trespasses and sins"--"the carnal mind is enmity against God"--"that which is born of the flesh is flesh," are quoted with great emphasis in support of the allegation, in proof of the position, that infants naturally, perfectly, and cordially hate God. That they are fallen and so imbecile as to render such a state possible, few men acquainted with the Bible or human nature will deny. But that this is under the christian economy not unavoidable, is not distinctly seen by many. Christianity does what Judaism and Paganism could not do. It puts it in the power of christian parents to present a different character of the God and Father of all to the infant mind, from that which Judaism and Gentilism afforded. Let us examine this matter a little.
Can a person, old or young, love, fear, or hate a person of whom he is perfectly ignorant? I will venture to answer NO. If then a child has never heard or learned any thing of God, it cannot naturally hate him, fear him, or love him. Whether a child shall love  or hate God is educational, and not natural. For until taught something of God, it is affirmed (and no man in his senses will deny it) it can neither love nor hate him. Education, then, and not mere natural birth, is the cause, and the sole cause, of the love or hatred manifested by infants or children towards God. According to the picture presented to the eye, so will be the image on the retina; so according to the character of God exhibited to the mental eye, will be the image of God to the infant and its feelings or affections towards him. So far, we think, we stand upon a rock. And here we shall pause for an illustration.
It happened at one of the Olympic Games, that Philemon was introduced to a large assembly of Athenians convened at a public festival. So soon as Philemon was announced by a Lacedemonian, the assembly arose as they were wont to do in honor of a respectable stranger. Omicron did more--he fell upon his neck and embraced him. Philetus immediately left the room, and the assembly. Neither of them had ever before seen Philemon. The Lacedemonian who had introduced Philemon was curious to know why Omicron thus saluted the stranger, and why Philetus upon his introduction withdrew from the festival and the assembly. He was informed that the father of Omicron had been intimately acquainted with Philemon, and had given such a character of him to his son--had represented him as a paragon of all the civic virtues, as having greatly loved him, and been his well tried friend in a hundred misfortunes, and that it was to him he was indebted for all the distinctions and honors which his fellow citizens had bestowed upon him more than to any real merit of his own--that so soon as he saw him and recognized him, an inexpressible affection for his person impelled him to salute him as he had done. On the other hand, the father of Philetus had conceived an aversion against Philemon without any real cause; but seeing the father of Omicron distinguished and elevated above himself, and, as he supposed by the instrumentality of Philemon, he represented Philemon to his son as a misanthrope, a creature of the most unjust partialities, withal his decided enemy, and some way the cause of his humiliation and degradation. This was enough, Philemon was loved by Omicron and hated by Philetus. By all the other Athenians at the festival he was viewed with indifference.
Is it not evident to all that the character of Philemon drawn by the fathers of Omicron and Philetus, and represented to their sons, was the reason of the affection of the one and the antipathy of the other? There was no innate hostility in the one, nor predilection in the other towards the person of Philemon. Had Omicron had the character of Philemon presented to him which Philetus had, and had that character been represented as bearing upon his condition and circumstances as it did upon Philetus, he would have hated him as Philetus did. And had that character been drawn to the mind of Philetus as it was to that of Omicron, and made to bear upon his condition as it did upon that of Omicron, he would have loved Philemon as Omicron did.  We use this comparison to show that the enmity or love to God conceived in the mind of a child, depends upon the character of God drawn out and figured forth to its mind. This far, we say, and no farther, do we apply this similitude. This being conceded, (and who will not concede it?) it follows that this enmity or love is created, and not born with the child. But every child comes into the world with a susceptibility of being filled with all enmity and hatred against God. In this miserable plight is it introduced into existence. But how it shall conceive of God is in the power of the parents, or of those from whom it receives its knowledge of God. Hence it is that so many injunctions are found in both Testaments on the subject of the nurture and education of children. If then, such a character of God can be given to a child as will be amiable in its eyes, it will love him; if not, it will be filled with enmity.
Some, like the Athenians towards Philemon, being ignorant of his character, have neither much affection for him, nor antipathy against him. So some are alienated from the life of God through ignorance of him, and others still more alienated through wicked works.
These remarks are designed to call forth the enquiries of christian parents on their duties to their children, rather than to decide any question relative to the fall and degradation of the human family, or to explore the amount of depravity and enmity which ordinarily exhibit themselves in the human heart. That children are corrupted by education, and that evil communications corrupt good manners, all see, all feel. That the minds of children are capable of being shaped after almost any model and cast into any mould, universal testimony and observation prove. Of how much consequence then is it, that parents should know the amount of formative influence which God has given them--that that influence may he wielded to the good of their offspring, and to the happiness of the human race. What arguments christianity puts into our mouths, and what powers it bestows upon us in bringing up our children in the knowledge and love of the Lord, we shall reserve for our next essay.
|FOR THE MILLENNIAL HARBINGER.|
GOD is a spirit. Eternity and immortality are amongst his attributes; and glory and majesty surround the throne of the peerless Author of the Universe.
Man consists of body, soul, and spirit. By the two former he is related to matter, and to the animal creation. As it respects the latter he resembles God. Formed of the dust of the ground, possessed of appetites and passions, material and animal relations first occupy his attention. His senses, the only inlets to knowledge with which he is furnished, limited entirely to the discovery of that which is in its nature material, are altogether incompetent to detect that which is spiritual. Thus constituted, he can acquire a knowledge of those substances with which he is not acquainted, only through  the medium of the ideas originated by those things which he already knows; while his spirit, the peculiar and ennobling attribute of man, the pure and perennial source of true enjoyment, can investigate the harmonies and behold the glories of a spiritual or intellectual world only through the images afforded by that which is material.
No one ever saw God. In his own nature invisible to man, he hath condescended to reveal himself in the only manner in which our nature enables us to recognize him. He uttered his voice, and the Universe sprang into existence. By the things that are made hath he clearly manifested to all who would reflect upon them, since the creation of the world, his invisible things, even his eternal power and divinity.
Having in various ways and on different occasions exhibited himself to the human family, in the latter times the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father hath made him known. The Word which was in the beginning, God, and with God, by which the worlds were made, assuming the body which had been prepared, became incarnate and sojourned among men. God was his Father. As he resembled his mother Mary in partaking of flesh and blood--of material substance; so was he the effulgence of his Father's glory and the exact image of his substance. As the Father had life in himself, so had he given to the Son to have life in himself. Partaking of Deity, the chains of Death were incapable of retaining him. He was in the Father, and the Father in him. Commissioned by God, he related God's own words, for the Spirit was not given by measure to him. Full of grace and truth, he exhibited to men those testimonials of the truth of his pretensions which their capacity enabled them to receive. The same divine power displayed in creation issued from his finger, accompanied his voice. Divine wisdom flowed from his lips--love and pity shone in his tears. Unlike the first Adam who was of the earth, earthy, and who could communicate nothing but animal life to his posterity; the second Adam, the Lord from heaven, was made a quickening Spirit. As the children of the earthy man hear the image of their parent in disposition as well as body; so are those who are begotten of God to have the same mind which was in Christ Jesus, and each of them shall be finally clothed with a house from heaven, fashioned like unto his glorious body.
Every one who believes that Jesus is the Christ, has been begotten of God. The evidence necessary to produce such a belief was exhibited by God (who is a spirit) in Jesus Christ, who being glorified and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, communicated the gift according to measure to those men who were thus empowered to proclaim to all the world the glad tidings of the renovation of mankind; of that reign which consisted in peace, joy, and righteousness in a holy spirit; the privileges of which could only be enjoyed by those who receiving the words of Christ which were spirit and life, thus had spiritual life implanted in them--by those who received him, believing in his name, to whom he granted the  privilege of being children of God, who derive their birth not from blood, nor from the desire of the flesh, nor from the will of man, but from God.
THE REMOVAL OF THE INDIANS.
THE Southern politics of the "Columbian Star," do not suit the Baptists to the North any better than does the superciliousness of its Editor the genius of the christian profession. The Editor of the Star formerly cautioned the friends of slavery in the South to take good heed how they countenanced this work. Again, he stands up for the Georgians in the Indian question. But his Baptist brother editors cannot so well endure his denunciations, as not to wince under his delicate touches. The Editor of the New York Baptist Repository of the 12th of May, thus mildly remonstrates against his brother Brantly.
"Our readers are, no doubt, aware, that this disputed question, which had produced a commendable agitation of public feeling, and called forth the manly and independent expression of public sentiment, is at length decided by the senate, in favor of removing the Indians.
"The Yeas were 28, and the Nays 19--majority 9. This majority Mr. Brantly, of the Columbian Star, pronounces "respectable and decided"--and we feel no disposition to dispute their claim to that appellation. But we think it due to the talents and conscientious integrity of the gentlemen who opposed the measure, to pronounce the minority as equally respectable and decided. We find it impossible to conceal our astonishment at the insolence which the Editor of the Star displays in his last paper, while speaking of that numerous and respectable body of his fellow-citizens who dared, during the pending of the above question, to differ from him in their judgment of the case. Their private sentiments and public memorials he denominates "lugubrious forebodings of self-constituted judges!" and the editorial remarks of such journalists as opposed the claims of Georgia to the Indian territory, he modestly calls "the formidable denunciations of petulent cotemporaries!!"
"We beg the pardon of our sarcastic and magisterial brother, for calling his conduct on this occasion "insolent"--but we cannot recall the expression.
"The true definition of the word, "petulant," is "saucy, perverse, wanton:"--now we would ask the good sense of our readers, whether it is becoming the character of a christian, or a gentleman, to heap such railing epithets upon the conductors of twelve or twenty of the most respectable religions, literary, and political journals in the nation? and we may ask Mr. Brantly, by whose authority did he conduct his side of this controverted question, since all who have expressed a different view of the subject are unceremoniously rebuked as "self-constituted judges?"
I cannot but observe how consistent with himself is the editor of the Star: for the present order of things; for the removal of the Indians,  from their own lands in defiance of all treaties; for "the benevolent enterprizes of the day;" and only against the circulation of the Harbinger in the South because of its supposed anti-slavery character. For the clergy; for the national covenant-breaking; for "the benevolent enterprizes of the day;" for sectarianism and only against disturbing the repose of the South on the subject of slavery. Things look this way a little, it is true. But concerning the motives we dare not say a word. I might have added that there is another congruity in his course which I have not noticed. He is very much against his readers hearing both sides of the question. All this, however, is, on his principles, just what it ought to be.
IMPRUDENCE OF REFORMERS.
SOME of the friends of the restoration of the ancient order of things are introducing matters entirely extraneous in their pleadings for this cause. To what purpose is it to preach their views of a Millennium, or of civil government, when contending for the faith formerly delivered to the saints? In making much ado about Millennial matters, do they not see that their opponents will identify their views of a Millennium with their ancient gospel and ancient order of things? and if there should be a discrepancy, or a peculiarity in their views of the latter day glory, will not their artful opponents connect the most important items of reform with said discrepancy or peculiarity, and thus endeavor to consign them together to one and the same fate? Remember Paul's resolutions in Corinth. "I determined," says he, "to make known nothing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified--declaring to you the testimony of God." Other topics at other times, but this was enough for that time and people. The ancient gospel and order of things, with the matters necessarily connected therewith, are sufficient to engross all the energies of the ablest proclaimers in the field.
INJUSTICE OF ANTI-REFORMERS.
SOME anti-reformers attack our pleadings for a return to primitive christianity, through our remarks upon Bible, Missionary, and Tract Societies. If at any time they should think, or get others to think, that there is some flaw in our reasonings against these benevolent hobbies, then they flatter themselves and persuade their followers, that, as a matter of course, all our views upon all other topics are chimerical, wild, heterodox, or some way defective and dangerous. This is unjust. These human institutions may be supported or not by good reasoning, and still the question is undecided; nay, every other question concerning the doctrine of the Reign of Heaven is just where it was. My being wrong in saving there never was a grey swan, will not prove that I am in an error when I alledge that there  is not in this land a white crow. Our opponents too often seem to proceed upon such a principle. We would wish to see them discriminate with more accuracy and examine with more candor.
Why Mr. Clopton should solicit from Mr. Ball his notes of a speech delivered by me on christian immersion, and from the apochryphal cyphers of an unauthorized reporter, profess to give my views of immersion, when he has them from my own hand--from my own pen--I leave it to all candid gentlemen and christians to decide. To a similar arbitrament I would refer some of the Baptist Missionary Board friends, who give such representations as the Dialogue in a late Religious. Herald, of some anti-missionary arguments. Why not meet the reasonings already published in vol. 1. C. B. on this subject. rather than have recourse to fireside chit-chat for documents to obtain a sham victory over an absent opponent? And what has this to do with the matters on hand? We are not now debating upon missionary affairs; and suppose our missionary friends were all in the right, and we in the wrong, how would this affect the great question concerning faith, repentance, immersion, and forgiveness of sins? Just as much as if the Catholics of Spain should argue that because one item of their faith is correct, therefore every thing which they hold and which they teach, either from the apochryphal books, or the Old Testament, is indubitably true. We wish to see more honesty, sincerity, and candor displayed by all who presume to lead the people.
CHRISTIAN EXPERIENCE--No. I.
AT an early period of our editorial labors we had occasion to remonstrate against certain hackneyed phrases, such as "experimental religion" and "christian experience." These canonized phrases we found were misleading the religious community and imperceptibly substituting an artificial and inoperative religion for the pure and undefiled religion of the gospel. Many of the teachers and of the taught, either misapprehending or disliking our strictures on these darling themes, supposed or represented us as opposed to every thing in religion, that touched the heart, moved the feelings, or controlled the affections of men. We were traduced as the advocates of a "head religion," a speculative religion, and as denying even regeneration itself, because we attacked the divinity of a human religion. After seven years close inspection of the religious world, and the operation of these systems, we are only the more confirmed in the views presented in the first volume of the Christian Baptist upon this subject. To the phrases and the ideas attached to them we must still conscientiously object. But in so doing we should much regret if any sincere disciple of Jesus Christ should suppose that we opposed or disliked a religion which captivated the heart, moved the affections, purified the soul, and reformed the behavior of its votaries. So far from it, it is because of the manifest deficiency in these respects that we object to the systems, and the experimental religion of the popular leaders. A  religion that fills not the conscience with peace, the heart with love, the affections with joy, the soul with hope, and the life with good works, is not worth an untimely fig. But to call the confusion, agitation, or remorse of a legally convicted sinner, or the enthusiasm of a disobedient professor, "experimental religion," or "christian experience," is only to captivate the heedless and produce false impressions upon the minds of the unsuspicious and unwary auditors. To call any thing christian experience which transpires or is felt before a person obeys the gospel, or, in other words, before he submits to the government of Jesus Christ, appears to me as absurd as to talk of the experience of an American citizen who lives in Great Britain, and who has never been naturalized or politically regenerated, who only intends or wishes to expatriate himself, and to become one of us; or to talk of the conjugal experience of an unmarried person, or of the fraternal experience of an unborn child. When an unborn child experiences fraternal feelings--when an unmarried person experiences conjugal affection--when a subject of the Autocrat of the Russias experiences the liberties of an American citizen--then may the disobedient, untrained, and unreformed legalist, the sin-convicted, gloomy, and disconsolate anchorite, the zealous devotee to religious systems and human traditions, have and enjoy christian experience.
To feel the heat of the Sun, we must place ourselves under its rays; to enjoy the comforts of a fire in a cold winter evening, we must approach it; and just as certain it is, that, to feel like a christian, we must first be a christian--we must come to Christ, and take his yoke upon us, before we can find rest and peace to our souls.
I have no idea of sowing wheat and reaping barley. They who sow to the Spirit will reap a spiritual harvest; and they who sow to the flesh shall reap a harvest of corruption. Neither can we conceive how a person can feel like a christian who does not act like one. Some complain of not feeling as they could wish. Our answer to them is, Act as you approve, as Scripture and reason teach you, and you will feel just as you would wish. If you would rejoice in the Lord always, always obey him. If you would dwell in the presence of God, you must walk with him. And remember that he only who dwells in love, dwells in God, and God in him.
As the apostolic writings afford no example, and sound reason furnishes no argument to require candidates for immersion to relate a christian experience before they have obeyed the gospel, we protest against the custom. To require candidates for marriage to relate conjugal experiences before they have entered upon that relation, is not more egregious than to ask candidates for immersion to narrate a "christian experience." Faith must be professed, and faith must be possessed, and faith must he obeyed, before its fruits can he felt or seen. But the instant a person puts himself under the government of the Prince of Peace, he begins to feel the peace of God; and then, and not till then, does his christian experience commence.
THE APPOMATTOX DECREES;
THE USE OF ECCLESIASTICAL COUNCILS EXHIBITED.
WHEN Error fails, to sustain itself in the field of discussion and fair investigation, the strong arm of ecclesiastical councils is its dernier resort. These can denounce whom they fail to confute, and they can slander whom they cannot convict.
After a preamble from the Beaver Anathema, the following decrees are signed by Abner W. Clopton, Clerk:--
1. "Resolved, That it be recommended to all the churches composing this Association, to discountenance the writings of Alexander Campbell.
|ABNER W. CLOPTON, Clerk."|
This, Mr. Clopton, is a summary way of ending the controversy, and an easy way for you to gain a complete victory. A generous, highminded opponent, armed with the weapons of argument, on entering the field of discussion, says, "Now you convince and refute me, or I will try and convince and refute you." Is this the course of Mr. Clopton? He proposes to write against my views, but says he will not sustain his own assertions, should they be assailed, nor reply to my defences, but he will write against them: and here is his name, and the only name, affixed to the decree prohibiting the reading of my defences in my own writings. On reading this, who will not exclaim, "How courageous, manly, generous, and high-minded are the advocates of the present popular traditions!" With this fearful odds we have to contend for the faith once delivered to the saints. They pretend to reason against us, but their papers must not publish our replies nor defences, and they must decree that our writings be discountenanced. What conscious imbecility do they exhibit! The Philistines could approach Sampson when they had cut off his hair and put out his eyes. Children may approach a lion in a strong cage. Who fears to encounter an adversary, fettered, manacled, and gagged? If my opponents can only get the people to read their calumnies, slanders, and misrepresentations, and will neither publish my defences in their papers, nor permit the people to read mine--the victory is theirs. But will they not reflect, or do they not care, that such measures are a trophy to the cause I plead, and to me an honor, the nighest approach to martyrdom to which any man under this government can attain. Messrs. Brantly and Clopton have honored me more than all my other opponents. They are vouchers, strong vouchers for the evidence and force of truth in my writings. They fear the publication of them: and the reading of them is not to be endured, says Abner W. Clopton in the decree.
But the New Version is also proscribed:--
2. "Resolved, That it be recommended to all the churches in this Association, not to countenance the new translation of the New Testament." And
3. "Resolved, That it be recommended to all the churches in this Association, not to invite into their pulpits any Minister who holds the sentiments expressed in the Beaver Anathema." 
If this were my cause I might feel aggrieved. I might murmur and complain against such treatment; but as it is, I will not--I dare not. They who oppose it are either to be commended or condemned by the Lord. I will not be blamed by him for withholding my efforts where they are proscribed. What he puts not in my power to do, I cannot feel myself condemned for not doing. I have nothing to retaliate. The injury, if it be one, is not done to me personally, and therefore I cannot personally resent it. But I am greatly mistaken if these measures will not aid the cause they are intended to impede. They resemble so much the Jewish, Pagan, and Papal expedients to retard the gospel, that it appears to me they must share the same fate with them. I must, however, remark, that it seems to me that the Regular Baptists' ecclesiastical councils, called "Associations," in issuing such decrees act more unjustly than any other ecclesiastical tribunals on earth; that more unrighteous ecclesiastical courts do not assemble than Regular Baptist ecclesiastical councils. All ecclesiastical councils in christendom, not excluding the Roman Catholics themselves, give every person a trial whom they presume to condemn. The accused is allowed to make his defence before his accusers, and (excepting the Spanish Inquisition) no person is condemned upon mere rumor. The Beaver and Appomattox Associations have condemned upon rumor, and have never permitted, summoned, nor invited the accused to defend themselves. What do the members of Appomattox know of the new version of the New Testament, and how many of them know any thing about my sentiments or writings from my own lips or pen? Not one in ten who vote upon such matters. To them it is all rumor. They are complete tools in the hands of a few designing men. Abner W. Clopton could have any decree passed he wished when the jury is packed to his mind. From such courts I view an anathema as more ridiculous, or malicious, or unjust, than a papal bull; and though not so potent in mischief as unchristian, being equally without the forms, as well as without the reality of impartiality and humanity.
I presume nothing in the history of the world has been more undeviatingly uniform than the opposition of church courts to the spread of evangelical and liberal principles. They act as though they apprehended their own destruction in every effort to liberate the mind, and as if they feared nothing so much as an inquisitive spirit. The proscribing spirit never yet was found on the side of truth. All the renowned Associations of ecclesiastics in the annals of time have built up the cause of the priesthood against the people; and no instance on record of one of there turning out in favor of reform, so long as the people would sustain them in their errors.
Will the Editor of the Richmond "Religious Herald," as he publishes the decrees of Appomattox, be so republican, I do not say so christian, as to publish this notice of them?
PAUL'S FIRST WORK.
IN glancing over the History of Ten Churches from the pen of Elder John Taylor, we discover that he has put on record the views exhibited in our debate with W. L. M'Calla on the import of christian immersion. These sketches were written while we were in better standing with Mr. Taylor, than at this time. The old man is a little given to change, though so much opposed to it in others. I would give more extracts from this work, if it was worthy of it, or if the occasion required them. These have already been extracted by the Christian Examiner. The import of christian immersion, as exhibited in that debate and in the Christian Baptist, is considered our greatest error. Into this John Taylor has fallen. Ere long we shall present this matter in a new form to our readers. If christian immersion does not convey, sign, and seal to us, through faith in the blood of Jesus, the forgiveness of all previous sins, it has no meaning; nor is the christian scriptures intelligible to mortal man. But of this more clearly and fully in a few weeks. Elder John Taylor is, with us, in the most heterodox of our sentiments.
|Ed. M. H.|
"ARISE and be baptised, and wash away thy sins. This text is recorded in Acts xxii. 16, on which a very short comment will be given. Saul's conversion is stated three times in this book, as in 9th and 26th chapters, so also in this: The malice of this mighty sinner, is fully. expressed in first of the 9th chapter, for while breathing out threatenings against the disciples of Christ, being exceeding mad, he goes with great eagerness to the high priest, desiring letters of commission from him, to go to Damascus a distant city, and drag to Jerusalem both men and women (who called on the Lord Jesus) and treat them as he had done Stephen a little before. The whole circumstance of his conversion, and call to the ministry, is made explicit in these three chapters when he literally saw the Just One, (the glorified humanity of the Son of God) the brightness was so great, it took away his natural eye sight for a season--he trembling on the ground, inquired, (Lord what wilt thou have me to do?) the answer was, Arise, go to the city, and it shall be told thee what thou shalt do, 6th verse. That Saul was converted, before he rose from the ground, or went to the city, we have no doubt--and we have as little doubt, that the guilt of his sin was not removed, till he was baptized. I have heard many questions, and answers, and preachings on the meaning of the above text--I think I have seen one printed sermon on the text, and the construction of the whole has been, the sin of omission was washed away; and though Doctor Gill somewhat differs from the above meaning, I have been still left in the dark. How could Saul omit a duty, till he was commanded to do it? for where no law is, there can be no transgression! Moreover, it is not sin in the singular, but sins in the plural, that is said to be washed away. The Lord's own time is the right time to do his own work; when Saul asks, What wilt thou have me to do? why did not the Lord tell him, Be baptized, for he was as worthy of it then as he was three days afterwards--but God chose he should labor under a sense of his guilt, 'till the moment he was first under the water, for I presume he was buried with Christ in baptism; for if sprinkling or pouring would have done, be might have sat or lay where he was, and though his eyes were miraculously opened, that he should see his way to go to the water, his guilt was not removed 'till he was baptized; neither did he partake of any sustenance 'till after he was baptized, though he had neither eat nor drank, or seen one object with his natural eyes for three days; continuing incessant prayer 'till Annanias came to him; neither is this all the instances in which great things (under God) have  been done by gospel baptism; as in case of John's baptism in the third chapter of Matthew: (for this I call gospel baptism,) for they were baptized of him in Jordan confessing their sins. This is all they know of, that they did say; though he did say to them in Acts xix. that they should believe on him, that should come after him; as also on the day of Pentecost 2d of Acts, when they cry out, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Peter's answer was, repent and be baptized--every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
"Though we believe nothing can radically remove the guilt of a man's soul but the blood of Christ, yet this blood may be applied by the instrumentality of baptism, and through which the comforts of the Holy Ghost may and often does flow. Should it be said, this is placing a little too much stress on baptism; the answer would be, God has connected salvation with baptism, as also with prayer; so that for a person to profess hope in Christ, and be indifferent about baptism, is to me a very dark mark of his discipleship. I consider it a first, and greatest duly of a believer in Christ; hence we can account for three thousand being added by baptism to the church in one day--and that the first day they believed, the relation of their experiences must have been very short, perhaps only to confess their sins, and say, Baptize us in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of them, that we may receive the comforts of the Holy Ghost, or, as the blessed Eunuch here says, Here is water, O do not hinder me from being baptized! See what a heavenly hurry Saul, was in, though weakened down by a distressing fast; behold him with great weakness of body, and load of his guilt staggering along to the water. I almost fancy that I see the dear little man--(he was afterwards called Paul, which signifies little,)--hanging on the shoulder of Annanias, and hurrying him up with his right arm round him; and as they walked on, saying, Be of good cheer, brother Saul; when you are baptized your sins, or the guilt of them, shall be washed away. And it may be that the Lord Jesus, in his all-governing providence, directed him to the street, which was called Straight, and to the house of Judas, water being at hand there. I am far from believing that water (even instrumentally) is made subservient to the washing away of sins, or the removal of guilt, only under God's own arrangement, and never without regard to the blood of Christ. Saul's was a very peculiar case--and yet I have known baptism, in many instances marvellously efficacious, in the comfort of poor limited believers in Christ."
IN a word, there is no sufficient certainty but of Scripture only, for any considering man to build upon. This, therefore, and this only, I have reason to believe. This I will profess. According to this I will live, and for this, if there be occasion, I will not only willingly, but even gladly lose my life, should any take it from me. Propose me any thing out of this book, and require whether I believe or no, and seem it never so incomprehensible to human reason, I will subscribe it with hand and heart, as knowing no demonstration can be stronger than this; God has said so, therefore it is true. In other things, I will take no man's liberty of judgment from him, neither shall any man take mine from me. I will think no man the worse Christian; I will love no man less for differing in opinion from me. And what measure I mete to others, I expect from them again. I am fully assured that God does not, and therefore men ought not to require any more of any man than this, to believe the Scriptures to be God's word, to endeavor to find the true sense of it, and live according to it.
|BLOOMFIELD, Ky. May 27, 1830.|
YOUR third number of the Millennial Harbinger was received in due time. From various nameless causes I have till now been prevented from sending you my first objection to your writings. But before I present my objection, I will name a mistake or two into which I think you have inadvertently fallen.
You were certainly mistaken when you supposed me to be "too much under the control of my brother Editor and some person near Frankfurt." I hold myself individually responsible for the course I have pursued in opposition to your sentiments and views in the "cause of reform." What I have said and done, you will please, hereafter, impute to my own free volition and premeditated judgment.
'Tis true that brothers George Waller and Silas M. Noel have not been friendly to the sentiments advanced by you. They, with myself, have, for years, believed that your course would not terminate in a manner the most to be desired. That I entertain for these brethren sentiments of esteem and christian love, is also true. Indeed, I think they deserve to be loved and honored for their work's sake; for they have faithfully labored in the vineyard of the Lord--they have planted and built up large congregations of believers--they have turned many to righteousness--and will, I hope, have a crown of rejoicing in the day of the Lord Jesus. My prayer to God is, that you and I may be found equally faithful and successful in the promulgation of the gospel. If they have opposed your course, are they, therefore, to blame? Did you not first oppose the sentiments which they hold, and which, in their judgment, are of vital importance? or have you an exclusive privilege to censure the opinions, sentiments, faith, and practice, of your fellow-laborers in the Lord's vineyard? I think not.
Again, I think you are mistaken in the supposed authority which you derive from the example of Christ and his Apostles, of conferring upon some of your brethren the epithets applied by Christ and his Apostles, to the scribes, pharisees, false teachers, &c. The individuals concerning whom the Saviour and the twelve thus speak, were enemies to the gospel and the institutions of the Christian Dispensation. They opposed the revealed will and statutes of the King of Kings. Not so with the brethren who oppose your writings: they love and obey the laws of the King--they are his friends--his faithful and devoted servants. That a vast difference exists between your writings and the Oracles of God, needs no demonstration. What is your Christian Baptist but the sentiments of A. Campbell, et cetera, on a variety of religious subjects? It contains, as you must acknowledge, many errors--many deviations from the apostolic rule of charity. What is it but "a human contrivance"--the invention of men--an unsafe guide in religious inquiry?
To it as a mere human contrivance, as the invention of man, may not, with propriety, urge the following objections:--
1. As "an instrument of instruction, it cannot be relied on." 2. As "an instrument of instruction, it is unsafe." 3. As "an instrument  of instruction, it is unauthorized." 4. As "an instrument of instruction, it has neither uniformity nor perpetuity."
Now if these and many other objections, equally well founded, can, with propriety, be urged against your Christian Baptist, I ask you, in the name of candor and honesty, have not the brethren deserved praise instead of censure for their opposition to your writings? Ought they not to have opposed a human invention in religion? Your Baptist is nothing, neither more nor less, than a human invention--an invention, too, which cannot be relied on--which is unsafe and unauthorized--which has neither perpetuity nor uniformity. This is your own doctrine in relation to human inventions in religion--its application to your Baptist is just and unavoidable. It stands self-condemned. Why, then, should you censure your brethren for their opposition to what you must--you do confess to be unauthorized by the Lord Jesus? Why should any human being undergo a castigation for his rejection of what is unsafe? Come, tell me.
But not to detain you. My first objection to your writings is this: "They have produced divisions in the churches of God, and are calculated to produce divisions. That such is the tendency of your writings you and I have the most ample testimonials. You have seen with your eyes, and heard with your ears the dissentions, confusion, and distraction of the churches in Kentucky, produced by your Baptist. Instead of love, peace, joy, long suffering, gentleness, brotherly kindness, and all that adorns the churches of God; we see Discord, with her gorgon attendants, envying, strife, confusion, emulation, evil speaking, evil surmising, heresies, (airesis,) backbiting, clamor, and wrath. Such is the state of society in many churches in Kentucky. My heart mourns over the desolations of Zion--I am grieved for the daughter of my people. O Lord God of Israel, how long shall these things continue? Poor Baptists! they are becoming a by-word and reproach: their enemies point the finger of scorn, and say, "See how these brethren love one another!" Oh, my brother, if there be any bowels of mercies, any consolation in Christ; if fraternal love is yet pleasant to thee, hearken to my voice, give audience to my word: Exert with me all thy powers to heal the wounds under which the churches bleed and groan. A soft answer turneth away wrath.
Though I have said your writings are calculated to produce divisions in the churches of God, yet I am unwilling to impute to them, as some have done, all the confusion, strife, and turmoil, with which the Western churches are now afflicted. Much of the present confusion I attribute to the pravity of human nature--to the want of information--to a destitution of piety and devotional feeling--to the manner in which your peculiarities have been opposed--and a little to "Who shall be greatest?" These, in connexion with your writings have resulted in bitter envyings and strife in many parts of the state. Thank God, that among the churches of the Salem Association, to which I belong, peace, harmony, and love abound. So far as I am acquainted with the brethren among us, none desire to destroy the  felicity of the saints by raising the standard of heresy, (airesis.) You understand my meaning.
To my objection you may, perhaps, make this reply: "'Tis true my writings have produced divisions in the churches of God--so it was when Christ and the Apostles first taught christianity to the world--so it was when Luther and Calvin proclaimed the word on the continent." Not quite so, my brother. The gospel is one thing--your Baptist another. The former is authorized--the latter is not. The rejection of the one ensures exclusion from heaven--to the rejection of the other no penalty is annexed. You, then, from scripture precedent, cannot plead justification.
Luther and Calvin cannot bear you out. They caused divisions in the church of Rome; ergo, you are authorized to sow the seeds of discord among the churches of the living God--to set the disciples of Christ at variance--to separate chief friends--to erect from the ruins, the fragments, the shipwrecked churches of the Holy One, churches after your ancient order of things. But if the truth effected the mighty reformation in the days of the European reformers, why is it that you dissent from them? Is not truth unchangeable!
Do you wish the Bible to be better understood, more loved, and less neglected than it is? So do I--so do all my brethren. I will venture to affirm that the great body of the Baptists have for the Bible a love and a veneration equal to yours.
How do you account for this one thing: the brethren all love the holy Oracles; yet many do not love your ancient order of things? Is there not, then, a discrepancy between your order and the apostolic order? Their order was safe--yours is not.
Again, if it be maintained that the Scriptures alone are sufficient; that they are as plain as heaven designed they should be, why attempt elucidation? why publish to the world in an unauthorized form and manner, the ancient order of things, when the real ancient order stands forth in all its native beauty in the apostolic writings? Surely, my brother, you could not hope that the disciples would forsake the gospel order as laid down in the book, and follow the ancient order of your Baptist. However highly I might wish to honor you, I cannot leave the New Testament to follow you. Christ is my master--I call no man master. You will therefore consider my preference for the New Testament no dereliction from the strictest rules of charity.
To sun up the whole matter, let me ask, Is it not shameful, and injurious for the churches of the Redeemer to engage in a civil war with each other on account of your opinions? Before the publication of your opinions peace generally reigned. Bishops who now bite and devour each other, then lived in peace, labored pleasantly together in the harvest of the Lord, or, as soldiers, they fought the common enemy. But now they present the spectacle of another Gaul to lure the ambition of another Cesar. A kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. I consider the Baptist churches as the kingdom of God--by their own dissentions, it is feared, they will destroy themselves.
|SPENCER CLACK. |
REPLY TO SPENCER CLACK.
WHETHER your communication, a moiety of which only I have had room to insert in this number, be such as was to have been expected from your first letter, I shall leave others to judge. For my own part I feel much disappointed in the want of argument and objection in the communication as far as printed. By objection, I mean pertinent objection. Had I set up the Christian Baptist as a term of communion--had I made it an infallible instrument of instruction--had I claimed for it the authority of any part of revelation, or of even a church covenant--then you might have had some pretext for writing as you do. But unless you wished to insinuate (and charity forbids the imputation) that I was placing it upon a par with the apostolic writings, I can with difficulty imagine what motive governed you in proving that it is not the Bible. If you had written an essay to prove that Jerusalem was not Babylon, or that a square was not a circle, I could have discovered as much pertinency in it as in the greater part of the communication before me. This remark disposes of all the objections save one, indicated in the pages published.
Your encomiums on Messrs. Waller and Noel are no doubt sincere, and as a proof of your affection for them, and high opinion of them, it was quite expedient for you to make this work the medium of their publication. Concerning these gentlemen, neither their labors nor their success, apart from other considerations, pass with me for any thing. I could mention some living men who were as renowned for success as either of them, whom few now suppose to be eminent christians. I make not this remark to their discredit, but as a caution to you in judging of men from some accidental circumstances; and as a reason why I cannot thank you for praying that I may be found equally faithful and useful as they. I cannot object to your praying that you may be as faithful and as useful as they; for you are a much better judge of your own faithfulness and usefulness than I can be, and you may have a right to set up for yourself in your prayers a standard which may not be equally acceptable to others. Brother Clack, when you think me worthy of being named in your prayers, pray that I may stand perfect and complete in the will of God, and that I may be a follower of the Holy Apostles as they followed Christ.
I never censured any man for opposing my course. It is for the manner in which those persons have done it. And I think you have the means of knowing that I was traduced by one or both of these exemplary christians before I ever named them in my paper. It was for their alledged departures from the law of Christ that I called them to account. Who was it, under various signatures, in your paper, that abused me, nicknamed me, and imputed to me sentiments and practices which I abhorred! I have some of these papers yet on file. I need not tell you that some of them, and the most scurrilous too, are imputed to Dr. Noel. 
In what temper of mind, or from what sportive fancy, you ask me, "Have not the brethren deserved praise instead of censure for opposing my writings?" I do not conjecture. It is so farcical I will let it pass. Your calling my Baptist a human invention in religion is certainly a catachresis, a perfect abuse of speech. Is every book and every sermon, and every conversation about religion, a human invention in religion? If this be your mode of reasoning; if this be the latitude and longitude of your intellection, I despair of rendering you any service whatever.
These remarks bring me on to your first formal and emphatic objection: "My writings have produced, and are calculated to produce, divisions in the churches of God." This is your great and capital objection. I will therefore attend to it with all seriousness. This objection lies against every sermon you have pronounced and against every paragraph in your paper, and against every Protestant and Catholic book, pamphlet, and tract in christendom, according to the most common acceptation of the phrase "churches of God"--all, all tend to make divisions in the nominal church of God. Your writings about creeds, and the creeds themselves--about baptism--your preaching up grace, and faith, and works--every thing tends to make divisions in the church of God according to the fashionable import of that phrase; and as you have not defined it I am authorized to take it in the most fashionable and usual acceptation. There is the Methodist, Presbyterian, and Baptist church of God, and every word spoken or written in favor of any one of these, is calculated to make divisions, or to keep up divisions in the church of God. And mind what follows, brother Clack: it is just as sinful to keep up divisions as to originate them. He that separates husband and wife, and he that studies and labors to keep them apart, are, if not in the order of time, in the order of crime, equally guilty. The Presbyterians, Methodists, and many other sects call the Jewish polity "the church of God," and from that consideration plead for infant baptism. Now this their "church of God" was divided by the preaching of John the Immerser, Jesus, and all his disciples.
It is a morbid, ricketty conscience, which is excited only because of divisions in Baptist churches. I presume you contend for what is called "close communion," and yet you believe in the regeneration of those you exclude from your peculiar "church of God." This may be all well enough on your principles; but is it not somewhat eccentric for you to be so squeamish upon the tendency of the Christian Baptist, when your whole life and labors directly tend to keep up divisions? And with regard to a division in the Baptist sect I am guiltless. 'Tis those who plead for church creeds and covenants that make divisions in the Baptist church. The direct tendency of every such instrument, as all christendom is compelled to acknowledge, is either to make or keep up divisions.
Accuse not the Christian Baptist for tending to divisions. It has less tendency that way than any religious work I have read. Is it not the most tolerant and liberal in its views? Does it not lay the least  emphasis on opinions and on agreement in opinion of any work you can mention! "Poor Baptists," you say--and I say, poor Baptists, too; how your leaders break you to pieces; how they sow discord; how they publish anathemas and bulls of excommunication! How fierce anal headstrong are they who issue inhibitory decrees, shut up meeting houses, and denounce what they never read, and what they do not understand!
Blame me for endeavoring to recommend and enforce the reading of the Scriptures--for opposing the moonshine speculations of mystic teachers--blame me for extolling the perfection, simplicity, intelligibility of the New Testament; blame me for simplifying the christian profession. To this I do plead guilty; but you might as consistently blame moral evil upon the Fountain of all Good, as blame light for creating divisions. Have not the increase and dissemination of light always been accompanied with divisions?
You can excuse the Apostles, the first promulgers of the faith, Luther and Calvin, for creating divisions and giving rise to contentions, swords, and fightings; but you can find no excuse for me! Brother Clack, I know you have the spiritual jaundice, not incurably I hope; but your symptoms are decisive. You assume too much: you call every Baptist congregation a church of the living God. I cannot assent to this. I call no society who meets once-a-month only, as a church, to hear a sermon and attend in the usual way to something called "business"--I call no such fraternity a church of the living God. Christians they may be; but a christian church they are not. The Lord threatened to unchurch several congregations in Asia who are models of perfection in comparison of many of these you call churches of the living God. But remember I am now descanting upon your assumption, and not upon the right to divide. I am for building all the disciples upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ the chief corner. Have any of the reformers passed decrees, shut up meeting-houses, published anathemas, excommunicated churches? You talk of my ancient order of things as if you had an ancient order of things of your own. You would insinuate that I have no more scripture warrant for the items of christian worship in christian assemblies on the first day of the week, than you have for text preaching and expounding, or for monthly communion, &c. You will call this my opinion! In this way you expect to shear me of any more scripture authority for celebrating the resurrection and death of Jesus once a week, than you have for semi-annual sacraments. I understand you! The invidious questions you ask me about how much I love, and how much the Baptists love the Bible, are all of the same cast. "The brethren all love the Holy Oracles, yet many do not love your ancient order of things." This also requires a little proof. All the brethren who are acquainted with the New Testament are for the ancient order of things. I have no ancient order of things. What the Apostles say I am willing to hear and do. If you are of the same mind, then the question is, What do they say? To this question I will always lend a willing ear; and here I  challenge all who say they love the Apostles' testimony as well or more than I, to show they do, by doing the things the Apostles teach. We must love in deed as well as in word. You talk much about my order of things as different from that of the Apostles. You would lead us to think that you are the ancient order man and that I am not. Be it so. I call upon you to show a single item in your ancient order of things named by the Apostles to which I object. Only name the article. I will follow you in following them.
Some of your objections are to me apparently quite of the ludicrous cast. You ask me, Why publish to the world, in an unauthorized form and manner, the ancient order of things? If this came from some other quarter, I could find a better way of explaining it. "However highly I might wish to honor you, I cannot leave the New Testament to follow you!" This is a little in the laughing mood. Who ever asked you thus to honor me? What is the item in the New Testament I asked you to leave behind you! As pertinently you might have said, 'Excuse me, brother Campbell, I love you, but I cannot give you my farm or my house.' Who asked for it?
Brother Clack, I do not expect that you can profit me nor the public by any thing you write in the spirit of cavil, insinuation, or reproof. You have abounded in insinuation in the paragraphs which I have reviewed. You would have it that I have castigated your good Brothers Noel and Waller because "they oppose what is unsafe." You would now saint them or make martyrs of them. I know it is natural enough. Fellow-soldiers, whether victorious or vanquished, who have fought side by side, have a fellow-feeling for one another. You and they did your best to keep the people in the same darkness in which you found them. Had you succeeded in your opposition to me, you would not have deigned me a letter nor a reply. You might have had peace and quietness in your churches. I know of nothing so conducive to peace and quietness as darkness and death. Hence a graveyard is the most peaceful spot in the world. I cannot give you the least credit nor praise for your course in the campaign. I know you were opposing you knew not what; and I am sure that had you and Messrs. Waller and Noel pursued a different course, the divisions of which you so bitterly complain would not have existed.
Had you or they given me a patient hearing, and heard me out before you agreed to oppose the cause which I plead, I could have had a much better opinion of you and them as sincere and prudent men--as lovers of peace, union, and harmony. But no, they gave the alarm. I did not do them homage as teachers; nay, if the brethren hearkened unto me, they feared they would worship them no longer. Hence the war song was sung--the war dance got up--and the busy note of preparation was heard. It would not do to say they opposed me, because if the people regarded me they would not honor them as they had been wont to do. No: this would never do. Zeal for truth and opposition to damnable heresy, would sustain them before the people; and if they could only flatter themselves that I was in one error, their consciences would justify them in going all lengths in opposing me.  I saw this, felt this, and lamented over this, before the campaign was begun. I could have wished it had fallen into other hands; but it became my duty to go forward; and they, unfortunately for themselves, more than for the cause which must triumph, mistook the path of wisdom and honor.
And, brother Clack, only read the Baptist Chronicle, and say, was there ever a more puny, ill-natured, wrathful, acrimonious, and vulgar little paper published, having the word Baptist upon it, than this same Georgetown Baptist Chronicle. Alas! for the poor Baptists: "How are the weapons of war perished!" Is it true, as reported, that the Rabbis advised Elder Taylor to write, and chose a lawyer to chronicle the events of the crusade, against reform? Instruments they are. Ministers of God they may be. For God's ministers are so numerous as to include those of vengeance us well as those of mercy. An Atilla, a Cyrus, and a Paul, are sometimes found among God's ministers. You had better, brother Clack, if you have any influence with your friends, Noel, Waller & Dillard, throw a little oil upon their troubled sea, and get them into calmer waters. They are determined to divide "the poor Baptists!" They will cast out some twenty or thirty preachers of the ancient gospel--and what then? An endless strife, envy, evil speaking, detraction, until the excluded take the whole country; and this they will do, just as certain as the waters descend the Ohio, if the excluded betray not the Lord's cause. I beseech you, brother Clack, until you hear from me again, exert every nerve to keep these headstrong brethren from breaking up not only, churches, but Associations.
You may also whisper into their ear, that there is a charm and a power in the ancient gospel which they know not of. It is only beginning to be proclaimed in Kentucky yet. It is producing wonders. Churches are springing up like the corn all over the country by its influences. It loosens the tongues of the dumb, and turns out preachers in scores. Believe me, brother Clack, that you Kentucky folks have no idea of what you oppose in opposing the ancient gospel. Its preachers will come upon you like a torrent from the mountain, and unless your preachers repent, they will all be stricken dumb. In some parts of the country they can now only speak to a few old men and women, whose minds are indented with every protuberance in the system. The young and rising generation will as soon drink lukewarm water as here a humming textuary lilt over his experience and quote from Gill and Fuller.
ABNER W. CLOPTON'S NO. 2. ON THE PREFACE OF VOL. 1. C. B.
Appeared under date of 29th May.
THIS essay is as spiritless, as vapid, and as impotent as the preceding. Before he makes an extract from the preface he tells the story of some wandering knight of English grammar, who preached and lectured in some town of North Carolina. After informing the readers of the Star to the middle of his second column upon matters and things concerning this preaching grammarian, whose divinity and grammar appeared to be no better than other preachers, though sold for much less by the sermon, he comes to the preface and cites the following  words:--"In this place I must cite the words of the justly celebrated Dr. George Campbell, author of the best translation of the four gospels which ever yet appeared in our language." On this period he writes more than two brevier columns of the Star, and never once denies the proposition. Had I supposed that reading men like Mr. Clopton were so little acquainted with the reputation of Dr. George Campbell's version of the four gospels, I might have produced some testimonials, and not have taken it for granted that every person knew it. I think there are few literary persons who would ask me to adduce testimonials in support of this proposition. But as Mr. Clopton is so illy informed on this subject, I will just say to him, that so just, so correct, so philosophic, and so classic are the criticisms of Dr. George Campbell on the whole text of the four gospels, that even the dictionaries, since 1782, have been new-modified, corrected, and altered according to Dr. Campbell's norma interpretendi. Even Parkhurst, in publishing his second edition of his Greek and English Dictionary of the whole New Testament, acknowledges that errors in his former edition were expunged, and many renderings altered on the authority of Doctor George Campbell, Michaelis, and Pearce. Doddridge and Macknight are also adduced by him in support of his translations. But Campbell stands unrivalled amongst the authors cited by Parkhurst. How high must be the reputation of a critic in the literary world when even lexicographers new-modify their dictionaries according to his versions and criticisms! This is true of Parkhurst, whose praise is in all the schools, and especially among the Divines. For the reputation of Macknight and Doddridge as critics, both inferior to Dr. Campbell, see all the commentators since published, particularly that of Thomas Scott who speaks for the English clergy. But when any person of literary attainments attacks this version and presents his criticism it will be time enough to attempt its defence. This Mr. Clopton does not yet pretend to do. He only shows how much pleasure it would give him if he could do such a thing--if he were able to point out some defect in it.
Nothing that I have ever written or said authorizes Mr. Clopton to say what follows: "In disclaiming the views of true religion as held by the Baptists in general, and by those who in the main accord with them, the Christian Baptist rejects the common version of the New Testament as leading to these views." This is an accusation which a christian ought to tremble to make. To say that I disclaim the views of true religion held by the Baptists and all like them in sentiment is uncharitable and unjust enough; but not so cruel as to say that I reject the common version because that version is favorable to those views and against mine! This I positively deny. Although I can point out hundreds of mistakes, and some of them very gross and flagrant, in the common version, I hold not a sentiment nor an item of religious faith or practice which I cannot well sustain from the common version; nor do I oppose a sentiment which I cannot disprove by it. I think it would be as well for Mr. Clopton to put himself under his Appomattox decrees, and do to himself as he has done to others--prohibit himself from reading my writings. If he can read no better he had as well take the benefit of his insolvent law, and put himself on the list with those who are neither to read the New Testament nor the Christian Baptist.
The next column is written upon the following extract from the preface to vol. 1, C. B. "That the conversion of the heathen to the christian religion is an object manifestly good all christians will acknowledge, but every one acquainted with the history of the means employed, and of the success attendant on the means, must know that these means have not been blessed." This he thinks he has refuted if he can only show that one soul has been converted by all the missionaries in forty years. Be it so. One thing is plain, that if the Lord blessed the first missionaries, he has not, in any degree comparable thereunto, blessed the modern. Some error exists somewhere; for give to the warmest advocates of missionary labors all the converts made by missionaries in forty years, and make each and every one of them true and genuine converts, and the aggregate would not equal the labors of one of the first missionaries in a very short period of his labors. But this only by the way. After another  column of declamation upon missionary means, in which reference is had to no portion of scripture, but to the common talk of the pulpits about pecuniary matters and things, next come two extracts from the notes of "the Rev. Eli Ball of Henrico, stenographer and reporter by special grace to the Rev. Abner W. Clopton of Charlotte." These extracts are said to be the marrow and fatness of two sermons pronounced by myself in Richmond last winter, and taken down by the said Mr. Ball. Now why Mr. Ball should have given such a version of my sermon I shall not deign to inquire; but why did Mr. Clopton prefer these apochryphal notes to my written essays on the subject of immersion, I can guess. These he could manage just as he pleased, and improve as suited his object. I will, however, say this much in passing: that Mr. Ball was under promise not to publish those sermons until inspected by me; and I now assert that such extracts as Mr. Clopton has published by the special favor of Mr. Ball were never uttered by me in ipsissimis verbis. This any person who only heard me speak a few times must know. They are rather a caricature of my sentiments and expressions than my words.
Should Mr. Clopton ever present any thing in the form of an argument against any religious sentiment I have published, I will give it in full as I have done two pieces already. The last has not the semblance of reason or argument about it. It is mere declamation throughout, and I cannot think of publishing irrelevant declamation at the expense of excluding valuable correspondents, unless some great object is to be gained by it. If, however, Mr. Brantly will publish my replies to Mr. Clopton, which not only I, but even those in opposition to me, say he ought to do, I will, whether argumentative or declamatory, insert his essays.
Before I close these remarks I would propose a query to the Appomattox disciples--whether they ought not to require Mr. Clopton to desist from reading my writings; or ought the clergy to have the privilege of making laws for others to which they are not to be subject themselves? If they will answer this question satisfactorily, I may feel specially called to visit them in person. As they dare not read, perhaps they might hear me.
|Near Mount Sterling, Ky. May 15, 1530.|
Dear Brother Campbell,
YOU are no doubt much annoyed with scribblers of every description, from every part of these United States, which no doubt takes much of your time in reading them, without taking further notice of their contents. This consideration has prevented me from writing to you as often as I otherwise should have done; but the times having become much more squally than heretofore, I thought I would just give another short history of events as they exist at present among us, not fearing any consequences that may result, for I am not a candidate for any office, nor do I intend ever to be again, and therefore I shall not be liable to lose between four and five hundred dollars which the publication of my first letter to you cost me; any thing, therefore, that I may hereafter write, which you may think worthy of notice, you may make what use of you please.
I feel greatly concerned on account of the present state of affairs in the religious world. This concern is increased from seeing those who I believe love the Saviour and love his people, arrayed against each other, as though Christ was divided and Paul was crucified for them. At our last Association, although I had refused to be sent as a messenger from our church on account of the strife that existed in that body, my name was publicly read out as a heretic in a letter from one of the churches, and an extract of the letter I wrote to you given as evidence of the fact. Not being a member of the Association, I deemed it my duty, in self-defence, to reply to the charges in writing, which the Association received and read to the great mortification of my accusers. But that which has destroyed the happiness I once enjoyed in society, is the schism that  has taken place in the church where my membership is, on account of an old written creed, as old as the church itself, called the "Church Covenant," which held forth in 11 or 12 articles the old system of John Calvin, and which a majority of the church, with brother John Smith at their head, were determined no longer to put up with; and after voting it out they asked for letters, and constituted, in less than two miles where they meet, to themselves, and have as little to do with those they left as Jews and Samaritans.
I plead with these Campbellite brethren, as they are called, to be patient, and let the old Covenant alone. I disbelieved it as much as any of them, but rather than produce a division of the church I was willing to let it die a more lingering death; for I had no doubt but that brother Smith's preaching the ancient gospel, as he was constantly doing, would kill it without any other aid; and I thought it would be better to take the fort by siege than to risque the lives of our men; but I could not prevail, and things are as above stated. I am yet in the old camp, viewed with a jealous eye by both parties, and not very popular with either; and although my views as respects the gospel of Christ are pretty much in accordance with these reformers of yours, I am afraid to venture myself on board their boat, lest they run foul of a sawyer.
I spent an evening with brother Smith lately. I told him it was in vain to profess and preach reformation unless the world could see it in practice; for if those who have professed to have got out of Babylon do not manifest more of that love and humility, and the spirit of meekness and forbearance which dwelt in the Divine Saviour than those they have left behind, they will make but little progress in doing good; and this temper and spirit I am afraid are much needed among them. The war seems at present to be waxing very hot, and I think this summer the great battle will be fought, which will drive every one to his proper standard. The North District Association has already had a swarm out of her hive. A foxy old man who has long been Clerk to that body, and had possession of her papers and records, has lately took it into his head to call a counsel of such churches as he thought would favor his designs, seven of whom attended by their letter and messengers. These have, according to his designs, advised him to keep possession of the records of North District, and have appointed an Association to meet on the fourth Saturday in next month, and have invited all the churches or parts of North District Association that favor their designs, to meet them, and they will consider themselves North District Association. I was instrumental in stopping the church as Grassy Lick from sending to their first meeting, but I am of opinion I shall not succeed in stopping them again, as a majority that your reformers left behind are of the old Calvinistic stamp, so that no doubt remains when the North District Association meet at the time and place appointed last year, their records and papers with eight or ten churches will be missing.
I was delighted to see your and old brother Semple's correspondence in the last Millennial Harbinger. He writes like a christian, and I love him, though I have never seen him; and whether you had patience to read it or not, if I had room on my paper, I would give you some of my christian experience too, which would accord somewhat with brother Semple's, and then I would ask you some hard questions why and how it was that things were thus and so? but if I am not considered troublesome perhaps I may write about it some other time. Till then believe me to be your affectionate brother,
|Brother A. Campbell.|
[THE following article was inadvertently commenced in the 9th number of the Christian Baptist; and as it is a document worthy of much consideration, we republish the part which appeared before, that the whole may be considered together, and be entire in this work.] 
To the Editor of the Millennial Harbinger.
IT is very possible that there have been in use among the people called Christians, for upwards of seventeen centuries, two instruments of religious instruction, very different in their origin, character, tendency, and effects.--Of these one has been devised, digested, fitted for its purpose, and transmitted to his perishing creature man, by an unerring and compassionate God. In this divine instrument there is no mistake, no misconception, no misrepresentation, no inconsistency, nothing false, nothing fictitious. In it truth, and nothing but truth, is to be found. While engaged in searching its divine contents, the honest inquirer is in no danger of imbibing error, or of swallowing falsehood. Here no poison is mixed with his spiritual food, nothing which can conduct his soul to hell, while sincerely seeking here his way to heaven. And this incomparable instrument of religious instruction is no other than revelation just as it has been arranged and worded by its unerring author, the Holy Spirit, untouched, unaltered, unmixed, uncorrupted by any debasing intermixture of human conjectures, fictions, and conceits.
The other instrument is a human contrivance, most likely first devised and introduced by the heathen orators and Jewish priests, who at a very early period embraced the religion of Christ, and corrupted it. It consists generally of some portion, more or less, of revealed truth, mixed up in a huge mass of human fables, conjectures, opinions, and fancies. In this horrid jumble of divine and human conceptions, the discordant elements are blended together in almost every possible proportion. Nor are its external forms less various than the proportions of its ingredients: sometimes it assumes the form and title of sermons, speeches, discourses, orations, arguments, lectures, commentaries, expositions, paraphrases, economies, catechisms, creeds, confessions, and whole bodies of newfangled divinity, &c. Sometimes it appears in the shape of a pamphlet, or tract of ten pages, and anon in a folio of a thousand, and in every intermediate magnitude. But, perhaps, the most astonishing fact in its astonishing history, is, that it should, however little impregnated with divine truth, or however much crammed with human falsehood, nonsense, and reverie, be termed by its inventors and patrons, God's Word and the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and be almost universally preferred to that Word and Gospel by a deluded, credulous, unthinking multitude, who greedily devour the pernicious fiction, and defend it with all the fury of an excited bigot.
After this general view of the nature, origin, tendency, and effects of these two instruments of religious instruction, we proceed to inquire more particularly whether that provided and sent us by God, and just as he has sent it, or that fabricated by men, and made up of the materials just mentioned, be best entitled to our confidence and employment.
First, then, God's instrument of instruction is the only one that can be relied on as perfectly fit for its purpose. In it we are sure that there is no deficiency to he found. Its order, its connexion, its diction, its quantity, its perspicuity, are all the work of an unerring God, and therefore must be the fittest for its intended purpose possible. Its declarations are all true, whether yet accomplished or unaccomplished. Its declarations are clear, just, and beneficent. Its motives are the most interesting and powerful that the boundless wisdom of a God could make them. Its counsels, admonitions, reproofs, and threatenings, are full of wisdom, utility, and kindness; and its examples and histories are peculiarly impressive and instructive. In short, like its Divine Author, it is in all respects perfect, and therefore no change can possibly be made on it without destroying, in proportion to the magnitude of that change, its fitness to accomplish its most benevolent and important purpose--to enlighten the mind, regenerate the heart, and rectify the external conduct of mankind.
2. God's instrument of instruction is alone safe. When we resort to any human composition, written or spoken, for religious information, we are in constant and imminent danger of imbibing more or less of that soul-destroying error  from which no human production is exempt. But when we consult God's word, we are absolutely certain that we can meet with nothing dangerous there--nothing to mislead or deceive us--nothing untrue--no insidious mixture of truth and falsehood--nothing pregnant with evil tendency--no mortal poison blended with our spiritual food.
3. God's instrument of instruction is alone authorized. For the employment of any other we have neither precedent nor command within the Book of God. During the patriarchal ages we hear of no uninspired teachers, nor means of religions instruction, but the inspired declaration of an unerring and omniscient God. During the Mosaic Institution, before its gross corruption after the Captivity, God employed none but his own inspired teachers, nor means of religious information but his own inspired word. The Prophets who addressed the people in the name of Jehovah, delivered his messages in the very words in which they were communicated to them by the inspiring Spirit; and the Priests and Levites, who were constituted the national instructers in conformity to God's express command, (see Deut. xxxi. 11-28.) read for their instruction the written law in the hearing of all Israel. Josiah pursues the same prescribed mode of instruction, (2 Kings xxiii. 3.) and Ezra follows in his steps, (Nehem. viii. 3-8.) translating the original Hebrew, which few of his hearers understood, into Chaldee, which, from their long residence at Babylon, had become in a manner their vernacular tongue; and we find the same mode of instruction still in use among the Jews, and among Christians even in the time of Christ and his Apostles, (Acts xv. 21. xiii. 15. Ephes. iii. 4. Col. iv. 16. 1 Thess. v. 27. Rev. i. 3.) although after the Captivity uninspired men had arrogated to themselves the honor, functions, and authority of God's inspired instructers, and employed their own crude, pernicious, and unauthorized institutions and notions for the edification of the people, a fatal innovation to the Jewish nation. For their uninspired teachers, presuming to comment on and explain the passages of scripture that related to the Messiah's person, character, and kingdom; mistook their meaning, deceived and misled the ignorant multitude, and by inducing them to form false notions of his character and office, led them to reject him when he appeared among them. (From this awful fact let commentators, expositors, explainers--in short, intermeddlers with God's word, of every name, receive warning, and learn modesty and wisdom.) Nor under his new institution did God intrust the religious instruction of his perishing creatures to any but men rendered infallible by the gifts of his Spirit, till he had caused an inspired system of religious information to be committed to writing, and so rendered permanent, uniform, and transmissible to all parts of the world and to all generations of men--a device by which, as we shall soon see, the continuance of immediately inspired instructers became unnecessary. As, then, we have no precedent to authorize us to employ any other instrument of religious instruction than that which God has himself directly furnished us--so we have no command. He whom God commissions to teach, speaks or relates God's own Words, not man's--John iii. 34. and men are every where commanded to read, meditate, and search the scriptures, hear what the Spirit says to them, and earnestly desire the unadulterated milk of God's word; but no where, to the best of my knowledge, are they commanded to listen to the speeches or read the writings of uninspired mortals, in order to gain religious knowledge. This seems to be entirely a human invention, and a most dangerous one.
4. God's instrument secures to inspired instruction both perpetuity and uniformity. By this glorious contrivance the instruction offered to God's ignorant creatures, is, in respect of certainty and substance, the same in all places, and at all times. To past generations it has spoken the same inspired language and presented the same inspired ideas which it addresses and exhibits to the present race, and to future generations it will present no variation. Like its unchangeable Author, it is the same to-day, yesterday, and forever. Here the never-changing nature of God shines forth in all its unclouded majesty. How unlike that discordant and ever-changing instrument of religious instruction invented by men. 
5. It displays the uniformity of the divine conduct towards all God's rational offspring. The great Common Parent has not allowed to one portion of his human family all the certainty of inspired instruction, and the advantages of inspired instructers, and to another all the uncertainty of uninspired harangues, and all the danger which necessarily attends the employment of uninspired teachers. No, he feeds the first rational production of his wisdom, power, and goodness upon earth, with the same inspired intellectual food, which he provides, prepares, and presents to the last men of the race, and to every intermediate member. He commands not his children to sit down at tables so different, and partake of nourishment so very dissimilar as inspired and uninspired instruction is. But with the same inspired knowledge of himself, the only true God, and of Jesus Christ, his glorious commissioner to our guilty and ruined race, he uniformly offers to feed and feast, delight and ravish every member of it. In his instrument of instruction are no different, conflicting, confounding, separating, and dividing creeds, confessions, formulas of worship, or terms of communion; no different catechisms, sermons, commentaries, expositions, or blotted bodies of human divinity; no different marks externally imposed on Christ's property, nor different elements required in the constitution of a christian. These motley, incongruous, discordant inventions, are left to decorate and commend the instrument of religious instruction contrived by bungling man.
6. It qualifies, or rather puts it in the power of the saints to execute the office, and discharge the great and difficult trust devolved on them. Danl. vii. 18. 22, Ephes. iv. 12. 2 Tim. ii. 2. From these passages it is manifest that the saints are charged with the work or labor called the service, and the building up of the body of Christ, which language figuratively denotes the further instruction of converts already made, and the augmentation of their number. Now who are the saints and faithful men, on whom this great, important, and honorable labor is devolved? Are they not the human beings, who, through the operation of the Divine Word and Spirit on their minds, have set themselves apart to the service of their God? And is not every believer equally a member of this blessed society--equally entitled to all its privileges, and equally bound to perform all its duties? Has Christ made odious and offensive distinctions among his friends? Is not each dear and acceptable to him in proportion to the zeal which he manifests in his Master's service? Is Christ's family the theatre of a senseless and unjust favoritism? Has he conferred any privilege or imposed any duty on one believer, which he has not conferred and imposed on all? I speak now of ordinary believers, not of inspired or gifted men, whose offices were arranged according to the gifts which they had received, and by which they were immediately and infallibly qualified for the performance of the several extraordinary functions which the prosperity of the Christian community in its infant state required. But if the privileges and duties of all uninspired believers be the same in kind, then it follows as a necessary consequence, that a share proportioned to ability and opportunity, of the work called the service and the edification of the body of Christ, is assigned to every believer; and every believer is of course not only authorized, but bound to perform it, whether the work to be done be of a private or of a public nature. But as God never imposes a duty or requires an action to be done without furnishing the means of its performance, he must have provided every one of his agents, or faithful men, with an instrument perfectly sufficient to enable him to perform the work assigned him; and this instrument we discover to be God's word, just as he has arranged and worded it, without any human addition, diminution, or alteration whatever. By the use of this inspired instrument, every saint or believer is enabled to become, not only, a teacher, but in reality an inspired teacher, just as certainly as Paul or Peter ever was; inasmuch as in his attempts to instruct, he employs the very same inspired words or doctrine which the Apostles employed in theirs. Yes, every person, who, in his attempts to impart religious information to his fellow-creatures, interlards no words, no notions of his own, but employs the inspired words of sacred writ alone for the accomplishment of his  object, is, to all intents and purposes, an inspired teacher; but no sooner does he abandon the words of sacred writ, or intermix them with words and thoughts of his own, than he forfeits all claim to the high, distinguished, and honorable appellation of an inspired teacher, and sinks into an uninspired fallacious babbler, in whose motley jumble of divine and human notions no confidence can, with safety, be reposed.
[TO BE CONTINUED.]
THE following is from the "JOURNAL OF HEALTH," a work in my estimation of very great utility, and possessing so much merit as to have strong claims on every house keeper and head of a family, for $1,25 per annum, for his own good, and that of his children, and domestics. It is an octavo of 16 pages, issued twice a month, making a volume of 384 pages per annum, for $1.25. It is edited by an association of physicians. Agent, Judah Dobson, No. 108, Chestnut street, Philadelphia. We will occasionally furnish an extract from it; but not as a substitute for taking the work. As a philanthropist I recommend it.
|Ed. M. H.|
THE FOUR GREAT SOURCES OF HEALTH.
One of the most pleasing of our duties is, to be able to direct into our own channel, and thereby circulate widely through the land, what we know to be wise counsel; as is our good fortune to do upon the present occasion, by laying before our readers the following chapter from a valuable work, entitled, "Simplicity of Health."
"The preservation of health mainly depends on early rising, temperance in eating and drinking, exercise, and cleanliness.
"These important advantages are distributed between the rich and the poor in a tolerably fair proportion, which accounts for the apparent equability in length of life between one and the other. The poor have early rising, which is of the very first consequence, and of which I shall speak hereafter more fully. From this the rich are almost excluded, because they have no obligation to compel them, and because they go to bed too late.
"The humble and often scanty diet of the poor,which they so much deplore, is yet of advantage to their health. True it is that, as they work hard, they could bear more substantial diet than they can generally procure. But luxurious living is very prejudicial; it vitiates the blood and humors, and lays the foundation of numerous complaints. From not being able to afford suppers, the poor enjoy sound rest, the want of which is so much complained of by the rich. But the poor injure themselves materially by intoxication, and that with drink of an inferior and hurtful quality. It is certain that every fit of drunkenness has its share in the shortening of life; for, however we may find men to whom it appears to do no injury, nothing is more reasonable than to conclude, that they would live longer by avoiding inebriation. Amongst the better classes, this vice has happily, for many years past, been gradually declining; and it is now a great reproach to gentlemen to be seen drunk. But they use rich wines, liqueurs, and spirits, of which, at their numerous meals, without getting tipsy or drunk, they take too much altogether. They likewise eat much more than is necessary or proper, and that generally  of things so artificially prepared, that the simple qualities are lost, and may almost be considered as a medicine instead of natural food.
"Of exercise, which is allowed by all as indispensable for the preservation of health, the poor have generally enough, but frequently too much; whilst, on the contrary, the rich, who, from their sumptuous living, really require more, can scarcely be said to take any. This is a heavy draught on the resources of longevity. The subject is of great importance, and will in the course of the work be treated with particular attention.
"But it is cleanliness that the rich have indeed inappreciable advantages over the poor. The word has too extensive a meaning to be considered, under all its bearings, in this concise sketch. It will suffice here to say, that it must be taken in something more than its usual signification, personal cleanliness. In the present view, it embraces numerous comforts, domestic and personal, and many valuable conveniences, presenting important securities against injury to the health. That personal cleanliness, a thing nearly quite disregarded or unpractised by the poor, is of the greatest utility, will be hereafter fully shown; but there are other serious disadvantages to which their poverty or want of means subject them. Clothes soaked with rain, and then sitting by a fire, and being obliged, from want of changes, to wear the same damp the next day--bad shoes--humid apartments from neglected roofs, washing of clothes, and other causes--foul air, from many persons crowded into a single room. Such are a few of the consequences of the privations of the poor as to cleanliness and comforts, from which result constant coughs and colds, asthma, rheumatism, and other complaints, which would preclude them from old age, were it not for their early rising, simple diet and exercise."
--"There is much difference between the labourer in the country and the working classes in large towns. If the former has to endure wet and hardships out of doors, he is accustomed to it from his infancy, and is descended from a hardy race; his hovel or but, be it ever so miserable, or so crowded, has the advantage of a much purer air than the room-keeper's garret in town; he has fewer opportunities of dissipation; his food, though poor, is wholesome; his hours of mealtime are more regular, and his work is more uniformly healthful.
"The country gentleman too has advantages over his equal in town. His exercise is of a rougher and more decided cast; his food is more plain, because the confectioner, the pastry cook, and the foreign fruiterer, are not always convenient; balls, parties, and theatres do not offer every evening, and if he drink more after dinner, he can bear it better, because his food is more substantial and simple. The balance indeed seems to be in favor of the country; and, accordingly, it is there that we mostly find instances of uncommonly extended life."
WE are glad to see intemperance in drinking on the wane. 'Tis a lame charity which does its work by halves. We want two or three combinations more to double our domestic comforts, and to quadruple our social enjoyments. 
A combination against Rum, Brandy, Whiskey & Co. we already have.
We want a combination against Tobacco in the three forms of chewing, smoking, and snuffing. No one can tell how many lives this would save, how many diseases prevent, and how many comforts it would secure.
We want a combination against luxuries in general, especially of other climes, and against gay and splendid clothing. The object of this combination would be to diminish labor, to reduce the burthens of life about three hundred per cent. and to substitute reading, conversation, and refined social interviews, for the parade, and pomp, and show, which beget and cherish pride, vanity, jealousy, and foster the worst and most tyrannical passions of the human heart.
To prepare the way for a combination against Tobacco, we insert the following notice of its deleterious influences.
|Ed. M. H.|
It is really surprising that a single individual could be found, who, after experiencing the distressing sensations almost invariably produced by the first use of tobacco, would be willing to risk their recurrence a second time: still more so, that any one should again and again resort to the "noxious weed," until, its immediate effects being lessened by habit, it becomes an article of luxury, from the use of which it is found difficult to refrain.
The extreme nausea--pain of the head, and vertigo--the cold death-like sweat, and general exhaustion, experienced by the novice in chewing, snuffing, and smoking, we should imagine would be fully sufficient to prevent the use of tobacco from becoming a habit. Yet, such is "the folly and infatuation of the human mind," and the power of custom and example, in opposition to prudence and the dictates of nature, that one of the most disgusting productions of the vegetable kingdom, "in all places where it has come," to use the quaint expression of Sir Hans Sloane, "has much bewitched the inhabitants, from the polite European, to the barbarous Hottentot."
Did this "modern herb" possess a tithe of the virtues ascribed to it by Dr. Thorns in his Pætologia; did, in fact, the least benefit result to the system from its habitual use, there would then be some reason why, "with all its loathsomeness of smell and taste," it should have become so general a favorite. But we know, on the contrary, that all who habituate themselves to its use, sooner or later experience its noxious powers.
Tobacco is, in fact, an absolute poison. A very moderate quantity introduced into the system--even applying the moistened leaves over the stomach--has been known very suddenly to extinguish life. The Indians of our own country were well aware of its poisonous effects, and were accustomed, it is said, on certain occasions, to dip the points of their arrows in an oil obtained from the leaves, which being inserted into the flesh, occasioned sickness and fainting, or even convulsions and death.
It must be evident to every one, that the constant use of an article possessing such deleterious properties, cannot fail, at length, to influence the health of the system.
In whatever form it may be employed, a portion of the active principles of the tobacco; mixed with the saliva, invariably finds its way into the stomach, and disturbs or impairs the functions of that  organ. Hence most, if not all, of those who are accustomed to the use of tobacco, labor under dyspeptic symptoms. They experience, at intervals, a want of appetite--nausea--inordinate thirst--vertigo--pains and distension of the stomach--disagreeable sensations of the head--tremors of the limbs--disturbed sleep, and are more or less emaciated.
According to Boerhaave, "when this celebrated plant was first brought into use in Europe, it was cried up for a certain antidote to hunger; but it was soon observed, that the number of hypochondriacal and consumptive people were greatly increased by its use."
Dr. Callen informs us that he has observed "several instances" in which the excessive use of tobacco in the form of snuff, has produced effects similar to those occurring in persons from the long continued use "of wine and opium;" that is, "loss of memory, fatuity, and other symptoms of a weakened or senile state of the nervous system, induced before the usual period."
The almost constant thirst occasioned by smoking and chewing has, in numerous instances, it is to be feared, led to the intemperate use of ardent spirits.
This thirst cannot he allayed by water; for no insipid liquor will be relished after the mouth and throat have been exposed to the stimulus of the smoke or juice of the tobacco: a desire, of course, is excited for strong drinks, which soon leads to intemperance and drunkenness.
The use of snuff destroys entirely the sense of smell, and injures materially the tone of the voice; while chewing and smoking vitiate the sense of taste. Hence those who make use of tobacco, to any extent, have certainly one, and frequently two, of the external senses less perfect than other individuals. But this is not all. Polypus of the nose, and other serious affections have been traced to the use of snuff.
Sir John Pringle, whom, we are informed, was very liberal in its use, experienced in the evening of his days, tremor of his hands and a defect of memory. Being in company with Dr. Franklin at Paris, he was requested by the Doctor to observe that the former complaint was very common to those people of fashion who were great snuffers. Sir John was led by this remark to suspect that his tremors were occasioned by his excessive use of snuff. He therefore immediately left it off, and soon afterwards the tremor of his hands disappeared,and at the same time he recovered the perfect exercise of his retentive faculties.
Cases could be mentioned in which epilepsy, consumption, and other serious diseases have been brought on in young people by the excessive use of tobacco.
We have ourselves known individuals in whom very severe and dangerous affections of the stomach, tremors of the limbs, and great emaciation, were referrable to excessive smoking and chewing, and which were removed only after these habits were entirely relinquished. One or two of those cases, we are sorry to say, occurred in females,  from the filthy practice of chewing snuff, and in a class of society where it was to be hoped a refinement of taste and exalted notions of female delicacy, would for ever have precluded the introduction of so detestable and pernicious a habit.
|Philadelphia, May 10th, 1830.|
MR. ALEXANDER CAMPBELL,
Dear Sir--ALTHOUGH a stranger to you in person, I have formed some acquaintance with your writings. One object of this communication is to obtain some further information touching the translation of the Scriptures under the authority of King James.
I have been engaged in an epistolary debate with a PedoBaptist, a student for the ministry, on the mode (as it is called) of baptism; and I confess to have derived much help from reading your debates with Messrs. Walker and M'Calla. I have asserted in my argument, that the translators were shackled by James; and received from him instructions in reference particularly to this word (baptize.) He doubts the fact, and asks for my authority, and then gives me as his reason of their not translating the word, that they found it difficult and impossible to express in any English word the meaning of the original; and, therefore, with great prudence and wisdom, left it as they did others similarly circumstanced, and merely clothed them in English characters. Now, sir, will you be good enough to give explicit information in reference to the above, with the authority, &c.
I wish to mention another as I am writing. Dr. Ely, Editor of the Philadelphian, has given at great length in his last number (which I presume you have seen) fifty five reasons for not becoming a Baptist!! Now, sir, although these reasons are unanswerable, still I hope they may be noticed, and not suffered to pass by without a comment from some of our editors; for no doubt many readers will think them unanswerable--it would please me to read in your next Harbinger a concise and scriptural rebut of every enumerated reason. If you please you may give through the same channel the information requested concerning the translators, all which will be gratefully received by
|Buckingham Court-House, April 15th, 1830.|
DEAR BROTHER CAMPBELL,
WE are sometimes much pained to hear reports about you which are well calculated to injure your usefulness in the cause of our blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. There is at this time, in full circulation, ceteris paribus, a report that you were, prior to your leaving Scotland, a member of the Presbyterian church, and a preacher therein: for some cause or other, was deposed; after which you left that quarter of the world (Europe) for America. Having arrived in the city of Norfolk, you applied to the Hanover Presbytery for admission or membership; but in consequence of that body having heard of what had transpired with respect to your conduct in the Scottish Kirk, refused you membership, or rather refused to admit you as a member of that body.
Dear sir, I do most sincerely and devoutly hope, that you will be good enough to give to us, and to the public an explanation of this matter; so that all may be perfectly satisfied on a subject in which we feel much concerned, and in the refutation of which we would feel the deepest interest. We know and so do you, that much of your ministerial success depends principally upon your moral character--prior, present, and after. This renders all apologies unnecessary for writing to you on this subject. If you were once a member of the church aforesaid, and a preacher in the same, please tell to us, multum in parvo, your reasons for leaving it: whether that body brought against you any accusation of misdemeanor, or whether it was simply and solely, because you differed with them in some of their articles of faith: and thereby brought  upon yourself the very appalling epithet of a recta fide alienus. There is also much said about your views respecting the Spirit. Some say you make the simple Word to be the Spirit--that the Word is the Spirit, and that the Spirit is the Word; or the Word and Spirit in the Scriptures, mean religious feeling--that you deny the operation of the Holy Spirit in the regeneration of a sinner--that the simple oracles in their original, native simplicity, are sufficient for all this without an impulse given immediately from God through the Holy Spirit's influence. If, sir, you hold to this, I must beg leave to differ with you; because I do most unequivocally hold to the operation of the third person in the glorious trinity, upon the heart of every individual of Adam's fallen race, who ever did, or ever shall hereafter believe to the salvation of his or her soul. If I were asked why was I made to hear the word of God aright, and enter while the offer was made to me, my answer, (and a very appropriate one too,) would he, "Even so, Father, because it seemed good in thy sight."
I wish you, sir, to give us through the Harbinger, a complete essay on the modus operandi of the Holy Spirit. This is your bounden duty. You have, by your several allusions to this subject, made it so; and beside this, we want to see some intelligible treatise from your pen on this subject, that will quell our own anxieties, and put an eternal quietus to all gainsaying.
I have read the two first numbers of your Harbinger, but could not understand all that I read. Therefore I say to you, Go on; but, if you please, let us understand you; for I have no notion of swallowing any food without pepper or salt; therefore, season your paper and its contents with plain scripture matter of fact, and we shall, and the public will be glad to receive it. When you write for us, give it to us in plain terms. Your patrons are mostly old-fashioned farmers. I will conclude by saying, Go on, alla quson th allhqia,1 and fear the frowns of none, nor regard the smiles of any.
|Your friend and brother in Christ.|
Miscellaneous Remarks on Letters not directly replied to.
BROTHER James Mason's letter deserves much consideration from all the reforming brethren. Let the reformation have its perfect work upon all its advocates. Let them remember it is not a mere reformation of sentiments or of systems, but of individual practice and behavior. What do you more than others? Aye, that's the question. We have, brethren, much need to take heed to this. Our enemies have good eyes--they can see thorns in our eyes which we cannot see ourselves. We are indebted to our opponents. Let us always thank them for pointing out our defects, provided they do not create any which do not exist. There is no need for this. Among the thousands who now plead for reform, there is no doubt but many defects may be seen. Let us, then, thankfully receive admonitions however tendered.
Brother Mason was a candidate for the Senate, at the request of his friends, when I, without his knowledge, published a letter from him in which he spoke too freely of the sectaries, as they supposed. The politicians got hold of this letter, and the newspapers, aided by sectarian feeling, used it to his disadvantage, and lessened his vote so much as to issue in a contested election, which was attended with much expense and vexation. I was sorry that I should have been the occasion of such an event. But I consoled myself that one century hence brother Mason's letter would be contemplated by himself and  others as a matter of much more importance than his seat for four years in the Senate of Kentucky. "Let him know that he who converts a sinner from the error of his way, shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins."--James the Apostle.
To the "Baptist" from Philadelphia I would say, Consult No. 16, vol. 1, page 302, 2d ed. Christian Baptist, for a copy of the instructions given by King James to the Translators, and he will find that the King prohibited the translation of certain ecclesiastic words into English. See the King's instructions, No. 3 and 4; also, the preface to the King's Translation, which says they "had avoided on the one side the scrupulosity of the Puritans, who left the old ecclesiastic words and betook themselves to others, as when they put washing for baptism," &c. This proves that they placed baptism among the ecclesiastic terms, and considered themselves forbidden by the King to translate it into English. See also the Preface to the King's Translation, as published in the Christian Baptist, vol. 7, pages 58, 85, 105, 135, 152, 198. As to Dr. Ely's 55 unreasonable reasons, I have not yet leisure to notice them. I have one reason for being immersed which outweighs more than five hundred and fifty such reasons. It runs in English in these words--"He that believes and is immersed shall be saved." Or, if it be required in the form of a command, Peter gives it thus, (Acts ii. 37.) "Reform and be immersed every one of you for the remission of your sins." I think it requires but very little sagacity to see that the Doctor's 55 reasons have not the semblance of a reason why we should not obey God rather than the traditions of men. The Doctor's 55 reasons remind me of a man, who, wishing to sell a farm, gave to his neighbor forty reasons why he ought to purchase it. His neighbor heard him gravely to the end, and said, "These might or might not be good reasons; but whether or not, he had one reason why he should not purchase it." "What is it?" said his friend, "Why," replied he, "neighbor, your title to the farm is not worth a pin!" One good reason of this sort is worth a myriad of such sophisms as those by which the Doctor imposes upon himself and his worthy hearers.
Brother T. M. of Buckingham county, will see in the 5th number off this work, the calumny against me noticed, which is the prominent item in his letter. Concerning my moral character, my most bitter enemies have attested, and I am willing to abide by their testimony. I will, whenever it becomes necessary to vindicate it, go for certificates to such of them as have known me for many years--I say, my enemies shall attest. But I must qualify this by adding, that I do not know that I have on the continent a personal enemy save one, and he is hic, vel haec, vel hoc, at times. But by my enemies, I mean the enemies of the cause which I plead, and of myself for pleading it. I cannot gratify my friend from Buckingham county with an essay on the modus operandi of the Holy Spirit. But I will tell him that I know of no person who does more honor to the Holy Spirit than I do,  because I contend, that had it not been for its operations, I am assured that no man could say or believe that Jesus is the Lord. I have written nine essays on this subject in the second volume of the Christian Baptist, which my opponents generally assent to as far as they go. They blame me more for what I have not said, than for what I have said. We shall, however, attempt still farther to disinter this subject from the mysticism of the schools. See my essays on Christian Experience, the first in this number; also, the essays of Discipulus on Regeneration as they appear.
The Editor of the Baptist Chronicle, to whom I cannot speak directly, so long as he exhibits the spirit which his Chronicle breathes, gives an extract from some correspondents, (one in Mississippi and two in Cincinnati,) concerning me. I hope I will not be considered uncharitable when I say that I have some doubts about the authenticity of these correspondents. They are anonymous, and I would require their names to be assured of their credibility and authenticity. The Cincinnati correspondents only differ 25 per cent. on my present value in that market. The one says I fell 75 per cent. and the other 50 per cent. in three weeks; in whose appreciation and in what market, he fails to inform us. Brother Clack, some months ago, it is said, announced that I had fallen 100 per cent. among the Baptists in Kentucky. I must be at this time, after such heavy depreciations, considerably below par. I am not so good a judge of these matters, it is true, as some others. But stockjobbers sometimes have an asking and a selling price; and these gentlemen have two prices for two sorts of customers. At one time the Christian Baptist was losing ground every where; at another, it has "a most prodigious run," and "an appalling" circulation. For the encouragement of these folks, I would inform them, that, as the Christian Baptist increased every day from its first appearance till its close, this work is marching in its steps with still more rapid strides, and bids fair even to outstrip the Christian Baptist, although it carries more weight. I would remind these speculators that "diverse weights and measures are an abomination" in the sight of Heaven.
But the Mississippi correspondent gives the following report from the death-bed of the worthy Dr. Cooper. The correspondent introduces his report with the following calm and dispassionate prayer:--"May the Lord rebuke Campbell! Our brother Dr. D. Cooper, left this world in March last, and on his dying bed stated to sister Cooper, that being a constant reader, or sufficiently so of Campbell, his opinion was that every one who continued in that belief would come out an infidel, and requested her to tell the brethren never to let a Campbellite preach in his pulpit," &c. &c. Now this may be so, and if it were so, it only proves to me that Dr. Cooper was not of sound judgment and memory when he said so. I think, from all the information I have that Dr. Cooper was a good man and a friend to pure religion. I have heard him well reported of for good works. Brother Jacob Creath, Jun. who was intimately acquainted with him, and  frequently proclaimed in his vicinity, gave me a very favorable character of him. But this correspondent comes much to the relief of the Chronicle, and as it will likely go the rounds, I deem it due to the memory of Dr. Cooper to publish the following extracts from a letter received by me from him in August last, six or seven months before his death. The Doctor did not coincide with me in every matter, but so contrary to the Chronicle's correspondent was Dr. Cooper of August last, that I cannot believe implicitly in this anonymous writer. I hope I will not be accused of egotism when giving the following extracts from Dr. Cooper's letter:--
"ELDER ALEXANDER CAMPBELL,
"Dear Brother--I have never had the pleasure of a personal interview with you, but have read many of the productions of your keen pen. In your Christian Baptist there are many things with which I am highly pleased, not merely because they are new, but because they are truths taught in the word of God, and in some of the principal standard works on divinity. In some material points, however, I differ with you in opinion." [He specifies my views of election as he understood them; also, some things about faith and immersion, and thus concludes:]--"I now affectionately invite you to visit our state and impart unto us some spiritual gift. I hope we shall be always open to conviction, and ready to receive the truth when we understand it. Should you find it convenient to pay us a visit, you will please make my house your home. We will welcome you in love and christian hospitality. You will find some friends and some enemies, but I trust God will open for you an effectual door. May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.
"I am, dear brother, affectionately yours, "D. COOPER." "Natchez, July 15, 1829."
Since writing the above a brother from Kentucky mentioned to me that Dr. Cooper had been delirious for some time before his death; and if so, should the correspondent have heard and written as above, it must have been as I supposed above. The Chronicle will no doubt accuse me of impudence, as he has done the Editors of the Christian Examiner, for daring to ask Elder Vardeman for a reason for his conduct, just as if Elder Vardeman ought to have, or give a reason for it.
BROTHER KEELING, Editor of the Religious Herald,
IN the conclusion of some remarks on missionary operations, says, "If the Apostle Paul were on earth, he would be a hearty defender of the Bible, Tract, and Mission Cause--of Sunday Schools, and other benevolent enterprizes, that characterize this age."--Richmond, May 14, 1830.
As brother Keeling knows what Paul would do were he once more on the earth, I should like to be informed whether Paul would prefer to edit the Columbian Star or the Harbinger, I would also like to have the following questions answered: Whether would Paul be President,  Secretary, or Treasurer of one or all of these benevolent enterprizes? Whether would he take a seat in the Baptist Board or Presbyterian Board of Foreign or Domestic Missions? What sort of Tracts would Paul most recommend--those written by the Methodist, Presbyterian, or Baptist Societies, or those written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? Whether would he be an advocate of the ancient or the modern order of things? As brother Keeling endorses for Paul, and the Bible, Tract, Missionary, and Sunday Schools, I will be much gratified to see him endorse for Paul in a few matters and things which bear more directly upon us. We all advocate the Bible, Tract, and Missionary Cause. But this in our version of it, is quite another matter. As I still cherish my affection unabated for brother Keeling, as did Paul for Peter when he said something about eating with the Gentiles, I do hope he will give us his reasons for Paul's conduct.
Monthly Receipts for the Millennial Harbinger.
T C Osbourne, Maysville, Ky. and S P Bacon, Nashville, Ten. paid vol. 1., by Edward Robinson to Wm. Tureman. Maysville, Ky. J Stephenson, Franklin Mills, Ohio, paid 2 dollars. E Clark, Huntsburg, Ohio, paid vol. 1, by S Hunt Esq. Mrs. Ogle, Somerset, Pa. paid vol. 1. F V Sutton paid vol. 1, for J Duval and Wm. Anderson, Caroline county, Va. E Brazleton, New Albany, Indiana, paid vol. 1. B S Hendrickson paid vol. 1. for R Scott, S Stiles and W Stiles, Rhineback Flatts, Duchess county, New York. Mrs. D Bohannon, Floydsburg, Ky. paid for Edward Pierce, Simpsonville, W C Bohannon, Jefferson county, G Owen, Louisville, Eleanor M Buckner, Middletown, P B Bohannon, Floydsburg Ky. and for herself. J H Garrard, Clay county, Ky. paid 2 dollars. P Price, Middletown, Ohio, paid vol. 1. J Whitaker, Lincoln county, Ten. paid 20 dollars for subscribers, names not stated. [ Agents will please always to forward the names. ] Samuel M'Cleland, Wheeling, Va. paid 2 dollars. S Robbins, Windham, Ohio, paid vol. 1. Abraham Drake, Warren, Ohio, paid vol. 1. G Atkinson, Holliday's Cove, Brooke county, Va. paid vol. 1. B A Hicks paid 2 dollars for I P Robinson; also, 2 dollars for S Hicks, Fayette county, Ky. D F Newton paid vol. 1, for J P Finch, W Hall, and Elder J Fife, Goochland, county, Va. Platt Stout, La Grange, Alabama, paid vol. 1 for himself and Elder D B Bestor. Wm. Chaffer, Hamilton, New York, paid vol. 1. Dr. John R Evans, Athens, Alabama, paid vol. 1 for D Coleman, P Barns, J W Hill, R Beaty and T Thomas. Wm. Poston, Winchester, Ky. paid for Edward Lutrell, Ben. Buckner, vol. 1. and 10 dollars for T V Bush, for himself and five subscribers, one of which is Samuel M'Murty, Cynthiana, Ky. J T Jones, Cincinnati, paid vol. 1 for I Sparks and J M'Cash, Mount Healthy, Hamilton county. Ohio; also, for A G Gano, I G Burnet, Esq. Mrs. At Eversole, Mrs. Arnetta Hotchkiss, Mrs. Mary Gano, vol. 1, and J Morrison, one dollar. W W Ashley paid for vol. 1 for John Mason, Thomas Haycock, Edward Baker, Thomas Parker, Archibald Henry, Jeremiah Fowler. and himself. Eastport, Maine. Moses Norvell, Nashville, Ten. paid vol. 1. for W A Eichbaum, Harriet Temple, Nancy R Owen, Nancy Childress, and Wm. J. Turbeville. William Bradshaw, New Orleans, paid vol. 1 to D. Hughes, Adams county, Miss. Simeon Briant. Crawford county, Ohio, paid by J Briant, vol. 1. Daniel Conner, Morristown, Ohio, paid for vol. 1.
In the receipts of last month the name of Owen Winns should have appeared instead of "J. R. Metcalf," Athens, Ky.
Receipts, crowded out of this number, shall appear in our next. 
[The Millennial Harbinger, 1 (June, 1830): 241-288.]
[Table of Contents]
Alexander Campbell, ed.|
The Millennial Harbinger, Vol. I, No. VI (1830)
Back to Alexander Campbell Page|
Back to Restoration Movement Texts Page