[Table of Contents]
[Previous] [Next]
Alexander Campbell, ed.
The Millennial Harbinger, Vol. I, No. X (1830)


{ Vol. 1. }
      I saw another messenger flying through the midst of heaven, having everlasting good news to proclaim to the inhabitants of the earth, even to every nation and tribe, and tongue, and people--saying with a loud voice, Fear God and give glory to him, for the hour of his judgments is come: and worship him who made heaven, and earth, and sea, and the fountains of water.--JOHN.
      Great is the truth and mighty above things, and will prevail.


      TIME was when Doctors, and Teachers, and Rabbims, interrogated me, argued with me, and even furnished essays and communications in opposition to the reform which we plead. Time was when Editors were lured to offer an argument for themselves, and an argument against us. We replied--they responded. They resumed their pens--we resumed ours. One, by one, they withdrew from the contest. They left us with all our premises and with all our conclusions, illustrated and confirmed by their opposition. We found ourselves deserted, the arena cleared, and in possession of all our cardinal positions. When reason and argument triumphed, we vainly expected the controversy was over, and that in the lath century no other arguments than reason and scripture would be resorted to. But the calm was a deceitful one, and our hope was vain.

      The time for argument, and reason, and proof, appears to be past. A new mode of warfare against us is now adopted. But no new mode of defending traditions can be adopted; and, therefore, since our opponents abandoned the field of investigation, since they deserted the arena of rational discussion, they have entered the magazines of the Chaldean armory, and have come out panoplied from head to foot in the regimentals of the veteran corps of Mystery, Babylon the Great. Like good soldiers of the old Roman line, each man has his shield embossed with the dogmas of the elders; his head covered with the helmet, the hope of human applause; his heart covered with the breastplate of pride of opinion and lust of power; his loins girded with the belt of detraction; his feet shod with a preparation of religious experience; and brandishing in his hand the sword of isms, which is the creed of his fathers.

      Thus the champions of human isms in religion march forth. The war-song is sung, and the trumpet is heard in our land. The ultima ratio regum, the last argument of kings, the thunders of proscriptive decrees, "No reading--No examination--No discussion," is heard every where; and we must now submit to martyrdom, with all due deference to those who erect the scaffold or bind the faggots in bundles for our religious destruction. Such is the crisis. [433]

      Allegory apart. The precedents set by the Man of Sin are those followed--implicitly followed, every where. The priests and presses have got the people under their control; they have made their consciences and shaped their religious taste after their own models; and they are determined to keep them under their shackles. While there was any hope that we might project, or take up a piece of some human system, providing in it pulpits, salaries, and high places--requiring consecrated heads and hands; while there was any hope that we might have mysteries, and interpreters of mysteries, like other sectaries, there was some leniency shown us--some semblance of fair play, and a few grains of impartiality in a pound of opposition. But now it is, "Touch not, taste not, handle not." The priests and presses now say, "Read not anything written by the Reformers!" What did Mystery Babylon say or decree more tyrannical than this? Pull out your eyes and stop your ears, you sons of the Clergy! "Read not, hear not a reformer!" Read our side! hear us! says Dr. Noel, Rev. Clopton, and Messrs. A, B, and C, religious Editors.

      It is a fact that some Baptist Doctors and Editors have not only virtually, but in due form, advised the public, on pain of their displeasure, not to read any thing we write, nor to suffer us to speak to the people in their vicinities. What did the Popes of Rome, in the darkest ages, more than this? What can be done more than this to lead the people blindfolded to perdition. Would not Satan's triumphs be complete could he have all the writings of the christian Prophets and Apostles proscribed from human yes and human ears! And is not this the same policy in miniature? Who conquers by darkness? Who but the Devil, the Pope, and regal tyrants, ever attempted to gain, retain, or secure an empire by putting out light and covering the earth with darkness? And does not every man who says, "Read me only, and read nothing else than what I direct," in fact put out your eyes, and take from you the means of light which God has given you. Every editor, speaker, and preacher, who shuts a meeting house door, excludes from his columns that which opposes his own views, proscribes the books he does not like, and anathematizes the man who calls him to an account--only wants room to be a Boniface, a Leo, or a Pius III. The authors of the Beaver, Franklin, and Appomattox Decrees, would just as certainly act the part of the most intolerant Popes of the darkest ages, as a kid will become a goat, or an egg become a serpent, in congenial circumstances.

      What in the face of common sense does that man claim (and every council of men is composed of units) who says, "Hear me, and them only whom I command you to hear." Does he not mean, 'I am infallibly right, and all my associates are infallibly right;--my soul for yours, if you hear me and me only, all shall be well;--only permit me to judge for you as you cannot judge for yourselves; and as I am always correct in my conclusions, you must be always safe and happy in regarding my decisions in the light of an oracle from God!'

      Might I not ask such religious demagogues, Did not the Roman Catholic clergy fight with your armor against the first Reformers of [434] Popery? Did not the Church of England use the same weapons against the reformers of British Episcopacy? And may I not add, If the laity had taken the advice of their teachers, and heard and read according to their commands, would not the same barbarism and superstition have covered this continent which once covered all Europe, and which yet covers all those parts of the earth where the people refused to hear and judge for themselves? Those who feared "the Pope's bulls" and "the Inquisition," lived and died ignorant and polluted Papists; and those who are governed by the Beaver, Franklin, and Appomattox Decrees, will live and die in the ignorance, enthusiasm, or superstition of sectarianism.

      Christians, true Christians, never persecuted. They never erected tribunals for orthodoxy; they never proscribed men for matters of opinion; and they who call themselves Christians, and mimic the Mother of Harlots, had better pause and examine their title to the denomination Christian.

      But will the people pluck out their own eyes, and stop their own ears at the hint or anathema of such men who claim to be their infallible monitors! Will the people suffer themselves to be sold? nay, will they sell themselves? Will they formally covenant and agree to give themselves up for ever--conscience, understanding, will, and affections to the care of Messrs. Clopton, Noel, and Brantly, who have now drawn the covenants, the bills of sale, with the blanks for signature? Stop, my fellow-citizens, and think before you sign and seal the bond of your eternal slavery to Fullerism, Calvinism, and humanism, under the sponsorship of such godfathers! Let your real friend, whom they denounce because he will offer them no incense, nor lay a victim on their altar--I say, let your real friend, who seeks your present and future salvation, remind you of Peter's and Paul's exhortations: "Whether is it better in the sight of God to hearken unto these men rather than unto God, judge you." "Prove all things, and hold fast that which is good "


      III. According to the plan adopted, we are to give a view of the great events, or epochas, from Cyrus' accession to the united thrones of Media and Persia to the conquest of Babylon by Alexander the Great. This period extends from B. C. 534 to B. C. 330, comprehending 204 years.

      1. The first transaction worthy of notice in this period is the celebrated edict of Cyrus, granting liberty to the Jews to return and rebuild the temple of Jerusalem, which had been destroyed 70 years before by Nebuchadnezzar. Daniel, who was anxiously waiting for the close of the period allotted for the captivity to expire, knew that the time was come, and by showing to Cyrus that his own name had been already standing upon the rolls of Isaiah's prophecy upwards of 100 years, as the chosen instrument of this glorious deliverance, obtained from him a royal privilege to restore the captive Jews, and renewedly to consecrate a temple to the Lord of Hosts.

      2. The next circumstance which engages our attention is the death of Cyrus, which happened 7 years after the death of Cyaxares, 9 years after the fall of Babylon, and 30 years after he began the war with the Assyrians. After a life of 63 years, filled with great actions, he was permitted but 7 years to wear a [435] crown. Cyrus died at 75 years of age. He left two sons, Cambyses and Smerdis, the former of whom was appointed his successor. To enter into a particular narration of the actions of every succeeding king, would be beyond the design of this lecture. I shall just state the order of succession, with the length of the several reigns, and then proceed to the consideration of the most important events. Cambyses reigned 7 years; Smerdis, 8 months; Darius Hystaspes, 36 years; Xerxes I 21 years; Artaxerxes Longimanus, 41 years; Xerxes II. 45 days; Sogdianus, a few days; Darius Nothus, 19 years; Artaxerxes Mnemon, 46 years; Ochus, 21 years; Arses, 2 years; Darius Codomannus, 6 years.

      3. Cambyses was of a disposition directly contrary to that of his father Cyrus. He undertook two expeditions, one against Egypt, the other against Ethiopia. Succeeding in the first, and fully glutting his vengeance by the most unprovoked cruelties, he attempted the latter. An immense army was raised, and ambassadors sent to the king of Ethiopia, demanding submission. The king, in return, presented Cambyses with a bow of great strength which he used, adding, that until the Persians could learn to use such arms, they must not hope to conquer the Ethiopians. Enraged at this answer, Cambyses ordered his army immediately to march, unfurnished with provisions for such an undertaking. Several days they traversed the desert in quest of the Ethiopians, till, at length, hunger reduced them to the dreadful alternative of killing every tenth man as food for the rest. A great part of the army being lost, Cambyses returned to Egypt, where he appeased his mortified pride by redoubled cruelties towards his innocent subjects. He murdered his brother, his sister, his friends, and his enemies, with the same unmingled and relentless malice. He was succeeded by Smerdis, the usurper, who was taken off by a conspiracy, after having reigned but 8 months.

      4. The family of the great Cyrus becoming extinct, Darius Hystaspes, a distant branch of the royal family, was elected to the crown. Under pretence of revenging an irruption, Darius collected a vast army of 700,000 men, and marched to the Bosphorus of Thrace, a narrow strait between Europe and Asia, near which is now situated the city of Constantinople. Baffled in his Scythian expedition, he tried his fortune in another direction, and was successful in subduing the greater part of India to his dominion. After his return from his Indian expedition, he found that the Grecian colonies of Asia Minor, which had long before been established upon the eastern shores of the Mediterranean, and were become powerful, had revolted under Aristagoras. An army of Ionians, being joined by a body of Athenians, burnt the city of Sardis; but were soon after defeated and dispersed, and the Asiatic Greeks again reduced to their former state of subjection.

      Darius, from that time, resolved to make war upon Greece. The Persians were routed; but were pursued by the Athenians with unremitted destruction, till they finally arrived in Asia, having lost a great part of their army and fleet. Thus ended the second endeavor of Darius to subjugate Greece.

      5. Darius died soon after the battle of Marathon, and was succeeded by his son Xerxes the Great. As soon as he was seated upon the throne, he resolved, contrary to the advice of his wisest counsellors, to revenge the flames of Sardis and the bloody plain of Marathon by the annihilation of the Grecian states. One million seven hundred thousand foot, and 80,000 horse, composed his land army, while the naval forces amounted to 517,610 men, the whole attended by an equal number of servants, woman, grooms, &c. so that the whole was found to consist of the astonishing number of 5,283,220, falling little short of the census of the whole United States for the year 1800. While viewing this vast collection, with the greatest transports of joy and self-gratulation, Xerxes was observed suddenly to burst into a flood of tears. Being asked by his uncle the cause of his sudden transition, he is said to have replied, "One hundred years hence not one of this immense multitude will remain alive." In seven days, without intermission, the army was transported from Asia to Europe. Xerxes was advancing from the North, and threatened, ere long, to [436] deluge Attica and the Peloponnesus with his millions, when Leonidas, with 4,000 men, seized the pass of Thermopylae, the only way by which Xerxes could come into Attica, and determined to perish rather than yield the pass. Xerxes approached, and, observing this handful of men, sent heralds to demand their arms. Leonidas returned in answer, "Come and take them." Stung with this reply, the king ordered the Medes to go with manacles and fetch them to him bound. But after a short conflict, they were obliged to seek safety by flight. The famous immortal band, consisting of 10,000 brave soldiers completely armed, next attempted to subdue the stubborn courage of the Greeks; but were repulsed with great loss. The Persians then tried their fortune; but met an ignominious defeat. Xerxes began now to be sick of his expedition, and to despair of being able with his millions to conquer these 4,000 Greeks, when a perfidious deserter informed him of a secret passage round the mountain; 10,000 men were instantly despatched, who appeared in the rear of the Greeks. Leonidas, perceiving that all was lost, resolved to sell his life as dearly is possible, and sending away the auxiliaries, he remained with his 300 Spartans and about as many Thespians, and prepared for battle. In the first onset that was made Leonidas fell. Five times they were attacked on all sides, and five times the Persians were driven back with dreadful slaughter. At length, overpowered by numbers, and literally buried under the weapons and bodies of their enemies, they all fell, except one who escaped to Sparta to announce what a bloody trophy his countrymen had raised to their memory. Leonidas holds the palm of courage; nor have the annals of time found his rival.

      On the same day of the battle of Thermopylae, the Grecian fleet of 120 sail had an engagement with the Persian, of about 1,000, in which the Greeks had considerably the advantage. A short time afterwards the two fleets came to another engagement at Salamis, where Themistocles was completely victorious. The Greeks lost 40 ships, and the Persians 200. Xerxes who was an eye witness of this battle, now took the alarm, and leaving Mardonius with 300,000 men, hastened back to the Hellespont, for fear the Greeks would break down his bridge of boats, and forever cut off his return. His army being pressed by famine, and he more pressed by terror, he left them behind, and arriving at the Hellespont with a few attendants, found his bridge had been dispersed by a storm, and was obliged to cross in a small fishing-boat.

      Mardonius, with his 300,000 men, after having ravaged the open country of Attica, came to a general battle with Aristides and Pausanius, the Grecian commanders at the city of Plataea. Although the Persians appeared to be animated by an unknown courage, and Mardonius signalized himself by his personal valour, yet they were utterly routed and Mardonius slain. On the same day of the battle of Plataea, the Grecian fleet, agreeably to the direction of the oracle, "to defend themselves with wooden walls," obtained an equally illustrious victory over the remainder of the Persian fleet at the promontory of Mycale. This final stroke annihilated the Persian force, and, from among such a constellation of patriot heroes as the world has seldom seen, gained for Themistocles the prize of the most glorious achievement. Thus closed the famous invasion of Greece by Xerxes the Great, B. C. 479.

      6. The retreat of the 10,000 Greeks from the heart of the Persian Empire, forming one of the most brilliant actions recorded in history, will, for a moment, engage our attention. Considering the difficulties to be surmounted, this is universally allowed to be the noblest retreat through an enemy's country that was ever performed; and has placed the name of Xenophon on a level with that of the greatest commanders. Darius Nothus dying left two sons, Artaxerxes Mnemon and Cyrus the younger. Artaxerxes was no sooner seated on the throne, than he detected a conspiracy to depose him, at the head of which was his brother Cyrus. Cyrus was seized and condemned to death; but by the influence of Parasatis, his mother, Artaxerxes was prevailed upon to send him back to his government in Asia Minor. Cyrus, as soon as he was at liberty, pursuant to his object of dethroning his brother, pretended a quarrel with a neighboring satrap, and openly collected forces wherever they were to [437] be obtained: 113,000 men were collected, of whom 12,000 were Peloponnesian Greeks, commanded by Clearchus the Spartan; and after a tedious march of 93 days, or nearly 1,800 miles, Cyrus arrived at Curraxa, a small town not far from Babylon, where Artaxerxes lay with an army of 1,000,000 men. A battle was fought, long and bloody. The Greeks were victorious wherever they struck; and had it not been for the impetuous valor of Cyrus, might have gained the field. But he suddenly perceiving his brother at a little distance from the edge of the battle, cried out, "I see him, I see him!" threw himself into the midst of the king's guards, and cutting his way, attacked Artaxerxes in person. The fate of the day depended upon the issue of this unnatural conflict. Seldom, or never, have mankind witnessed such a shocking scene. For some time the royal brothers fought with desperate fury for the crown of Persia, like a lion and tyger contending for the empire of the desert. Artaxerxes' horse fell under him, and he received several wounds, when his guards discharged at once a shower of arrows at Cyrus, the moment he raised his faulchion to give the fatal stroke; at length, covered with wounds, the sprang into the arms of Artaxerxes, who received him upon the point of his javelin; Cyrus fell and instantly expired. His army thus deprived of its leader, fought for a long time with an ill-directed valor, till being surrounded by overwhelming numbers, they were cut to pieces or dispersed, except the Greeks, to the number of 10,000, who, repulsing every attack, still maintained their ground and refused to capitulate.

      Artaxerxes, perceiving that the Greeks were determined to resist to the last, gave them permission to depart to their own country; secretly giving orders, however, to his generals and the nations they were obliged to march through, to intercept them, and, if possible, to cut off their retreat.

      The generals of the Greeks being all cut off by treachery, they first choose several persons to conduct the army in this dangerous adventure. Among these was Xenophon, a voting man of extraordinary talents as a soldier, a statesman and scholar. The narrative he has given us of this expedition is justly ranked among the noblest historical efforts, and has obtained for him the title of the "Hume of Greece." Without any delay, they commenced their march, in the form of a hollow square, the baggage and attendants in the centre. Having continued a few days, marching with little molestation, the Persian army appeared behind them, ready to take every advantage, and throw every obstruction in their way. Often they were suddenly attacked; but the convigilance of Xenophon, aided by the intrepidity of the Greeks, defeated every attempt, and prevented every ambuscade.

      The broad and deep river Tigris at length stopped their progress, and having no boats to cross, this band of heroes resolved to cross the lofty ridges of the Carducian mountains. Leaving behind their beasts and slaves, they began to ascend the mountains. The heights and narrow defiles had been seized by the native mountaineers, and detachments of the Persian army, and thus every summit was to be gained by dint of valor, every defile to he cleared by the edge of the sword. After a continued struggle for seven days, they crossed the mountains, and descended upon the plains of Armenia. But here a new trial awaited them, upon the bank of a river, 200 feet broad, which they must cross. The Persian army was close upon their heels, and another Armenian army was posted upon the opposite bank to dispute their passage. They crossed, however, the water in some places up to their armpits, beneath showers of missile weapons, drove the Armenians, and gained the open country.

      After traversing several deserts, and passing the Euphrates near its source, they were obliged to face death in a different and more dreadful form. The snow lay upon the ground to a great depth, at the same time a cutting North wind blew in their faces, and almost prevented their breathing. Many lost their eye-sight--many had their hands and feet frozen, so that they perished--many died of hunger--many sunk in the snow, "stretched out, bleaching in the northern blast," a miserable prize to gratify the exasperated Persians. Thus they marched for several days. They crossed the territories of the [438] Phasians and Chalybes, the most fierce, barbarous and warlike people of Asia, defeating them in several engagements; and constantly struggling with the winds, and sleet, and snows of that inhospitable region, till they gained the summit of Jecqun, the highest mountain in that country. Suddenly a confused shout was raised by the van which soon prevailed throughout the army, mingled with the joyful exclamation "The sea! the sea!" The soldiers in an extacy of joy, embraced their general, and dropping upon their knees, testified their gratitude to their gods with floods of tears. The distant prospect of the Euxine, whose heaving bosom would soon bear them to heir native shores, melted their hearts, always inflexible in toil, in hunger and in blood. They erected a pile of stones upon the top of the mountain as a trophy to tell their story to succeeding generations.

      After surmounting one more ridge, the mountains of Colchis, and defeating a final attempt to oppose their return, they descended upon the shores of the Euxine. Here they embarked, and after a prosperous voyage, again landed in Asia Minor, whence they had started 15 months before; after having accomplished a retreat of 2,325 miles through an enemy's country. Although constantly harassed by their enemies, and pressed by various other misfortunes, they triumphed over all, and performed one of the most illustrious exploits in the annals of military fame.
Whelpley's Lectures.      


      Amicus.--WELL, friend Alexander, the Philistines are upon you. Your Regular Baptists, you used to say, were like the sheep: they could not persecute. Methinks the sheep are now making war against the goats.

      Editor.--True, friend Amicus, I have said that the Quakers and Baptists were not addicted to persecution, except with the tongue; and that, you know, deserves not the name of persecution: for the Saviour distinguished persecution from reviling, and speaking evil against a person. "Happy are you," said he, "when men shall revile and prosecute you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely for my namesake." But the Baptists of this day are degenerate, compared with the Baptists of other times. The Baptists differ nothing from the most aspiring sectaries in our country, save in immersion. They are immersed Presbyterians and Episcopalians, and, with some exceptions, are as worldly and as secular in their managements as the sects from which they sprang. They have the same thirst for colleges, theological schools, splendid meeting-houses, pew rents, vestry rooms, singer choirs, and presbyteries, according to their means, as any other sect in this country. If they have not as many fine things as their neighbors, it is because they have not so much money as their neighbors. Not so were the Baptists of former times. But having become more popular, in this country within forty years than in former times, and having many proselytes from other sects, they have in their fraternity the leaven of all other sects working in concert with all the passions of human nature; and, therefore, it is not surprizing to find them as secular as the Presbyterians.

      Am.--But, were you not apt to say that the system would not permit them to go as far as other sects in persecuting, and do you not say that the system is the cause of persecution rather than the people under it? [439]

      Ed.--True, I have thought so: but those who proscribe end anathematize reformers and reformation, have transcended the system, or rather abandoned it; and, in so doing, act more in accordance with their own spirit than with the spirit of the system which they acknowledge. Besides there are but a few individuals, compared with the aggregate mass of the community, who exhibit this spirit, and the system affords a few such spirits an ample opportunity to carry out their proscriptive measures to a greater length than any other system in the christian world. I now speak of the high courts, called advisory councils or associations. There is much democracy, in appearance; but, in reality, much tyranny is exercised in these high courts. The French democracy issued in the most relentless tyranny and cruelty ever exhibited amongst a civilized people; and the Baptist high court democracy is capable, and sometimes issues in scenes, of proscription and despotism, as incompatible with christian liberty and liberality as the despotism of a Tripolitan Dey is with the freedom and liberty of an American Republic.

      A government of law is always a safe government. But when a government of men, controlled only by their own will, passion, or prejudice, is supreme, there is an end of personal liberty and safety. Such is, in fact, the government of a Baptist high court. This I beg leave to explain.

      The Baptists, in theory, say that an association has no power over individual professors. The constitution of their advisory councils, therefore, makes no provision for the trial of any individual christian. But it so happens that associations are composed of churches, and churches of individuals, and sometimes an individual becomes obnoxious, not only to a church, but to an association of churches, and the particular church to which he belongs cannot, or will not, control him to the good will and pleasure of the whole association. What, then, is to be done? The constitution makes no provision for such a case, and, therefore, if the association wish to reach him, they must do as Dr. Noel did, in the so called Franklin Association, make a law for the case. This law being made for the case, and by the person or persons opposed to the individual, we may naturally expect it more to favor the accuser than the accused.

      There is no possibility, while human nature is as it is, that the accused can obtain justice, when his accuser makes the law for his trial, and is both judge and witness in his case. The decree comes out in the form of an "advice," or a "recommendation." If, however, the advice is not taken, and the recommendation is not well received, there is an excision of the church for the sake of the individual. A non-fellowship is declared, which is the highest censure in any sect not having an inquisition at its command. The reputation of the church is attacked, she is called heterodox, and an exclusion from pulpits and meeting-houses are the compliments which follow this ceremony.

      In such cases the accused neither appear in his own person, nor by proxy. He is not heard in his own behalf. They make a creed [440] for him, and then anathematize him for the sake of the creed, which they have put into his mouth. Such, in fact, is the system in detail.

      A single individual, who is cunning and malicious enough, may bring a whole Association into his measures; and so it frequently happens that a majority of an Association may vote the reprobation of a church, or an individual, without knowing any thing about the person or persons reprobated. This was the case in the Appomattox, Franklin, and Beaver Associations. Even books which the nine-tenths of the voters never saw, have been proscribed and a character condemned of which they were perfectly ignorant, save through the representation of his accusers. Such is, such has been, and such must be the result in every court which assumes to judge men when the constitution makes no provision for such judicature. No man's reputation is safe under such a government. Such courts have not even the forms of justice. Indeed, it is a tribunal erected by the clergy, and in direct contravention of the principles of the congregations. They assume to be independent communities. And were it not for the clerical interest and influence these high courts could not be endured. They have generally been theatres of war and strife, or theatres for the gaining of popular applause. The preachers are as jealous of one another as rival suitors for the affection of a favorite mistress. And while they profess brotherly kindness for one another, they stand before the people as competitors for their approbation, and eager to seize the palm or place the laurel on their own brow. Much observation and an intimate acquaintance with the spirits which figure on these theatres has confirmed me in these conclusions.

      A.--Why, then, Mr. Editor, have you so frequently visited them?

      Ed.--For the same reason which led Paul to the Jewish synagogues.

      A.--I should think, from your representation, that a Presbyterian synod, or session, or presbytery, was likely to be a more just tribunal than one of these advisory councils.

      Ed.--In this you are correct. Before these tribunals the accuser has the forms of trial, and he may choose his own propositions if it be a controversy about opinion or faith; and if condemned, the error alleged is in such terms as he will assent to. But not so in a Baptist Association. I am represented by Dr. Noel and Abner Clopton as avowing that John Calvin was a teacher of deism, without any specification, leaving it to every one to imagine whether it was his predestination or final perseverance; whereas I spoke of his views of natural theology. But I need not specify; almost every opinion or article of belief is presented either in a distorted, mutilated, or garbled form, so as excite the odium theologicum and the religious nausea in the minds of the uninformed and superstitious populars.

      A.--I never thought that ecclesiastical councils, however constituted, differed much from one another. They are one and all for the benefit of the clergy. During my short life I have visited all sorts of Sanhedrims in this country, and the amount of my observation and experience has been this:--They are all traps for honest and able [441] men. If a man be immoral and unworthy of public confidence, it requires not these tribunals to break him down. He falls either by a single congregation, or by his own hands. Neither can synods nor advisory councils long keep him up, if grossly heterodox or indecently immoral. But I have seen the most able and the most honest men almost invariably the victims of these tribunals. It has been so in the bounds of my acquaintance. If any man should overtop the common growth of his species, these Sanhedrims are a happy invention to put him down, and to keep him down. 'Tis easy to find an excuse, a signal for an attack. Some unsoundness in the faith, some expression which savors of heterodoxy, which, in another person of humbler endowments, would never have been noticed, is constructive treason in him, and a crime of such malignity as to doom him to the higher excommunication. If once devoted to the clerical anathema, it matters not how unblameable his life--how scriptural his teaching and views--he must be put down. The forms of trial and justice are all that may be expected in the best of these tribunals. A respect for public opinion makes these forms necessary; and that their acts may have weight with the community, it is necessary to have the sanctified aspect of much "zeal for the divine glory," and prayers and sighs are requisite to consecrate the procedure. Without the machinery of such courts such measures would be unavailing.

      They are of other uses: for even excommunication is but subservient to the ambition and covetousness of the clerical fraternity; and these high courts consult for the good of the class called teachers. This is most obvious in some of them, and inferable from the acts of others. They often go on peaceably for some years. So do the most ambitious monarchs in the world. There is a calm even in the most boisterous climates. Peace now prevails among those who have been belligerents for years. Ambition has its objects, and ambitious men must have their rivals before the storm of war gathers all its furies. Look over your peaceable Baptists, in the present crisis, and only see how the war spirit rages among the mighty chiefs.

      Ed.--It rages, it is true, with considerable fury; but it is only some half dozen of spirits which have raised the storm of war. But the system affording them such facilities, there is no telling where this scene of pride and enmity may end. Two or three spirits, one of them since excommunicated for gross immorality--one of them now lying almost a sot in every tavern--another of them living with another man's wife--were among the first to stir up sedition among the people. At that time they made long prayers, and wore a sanctified appearance, and had some influence among the people. A bull of excommunication was issued by one Association--re-echoed by another--and so the excitement ran, till, like the Ephesian crowd which beset Paul, the major part knew not what had brought them together. The lowest tools are employed in this business of detraction and proscription. The author of a late pamphlet is going about from village to village, vending it for whiskey, in aid of the anathematizers!--All do not know the manner of spirits which are now at work in this [442] crusade for orthodoxy. But as Paul said, so say we, "The sins of some men are so notorious, that they go before them to judgment. Some, indeed, they follow."




      August 9th. TOOK the stage between 7 and 8 o'clock, A. M.--commenced reading, for the second time, the Debate between Campbell and Owen. After riding 17 miles to B. two gentlemen got in, a Mr. G. and Esq. B. Mr. G. soon afterwards took my book and handed it to his companion, saying: "This is the work," &c. When something; like the following dialogue took place:--

      Esq. B.--Did you ever read it?

      Mr. G.--No, it is not worth reading. It's a--

      Esq. B.--What is the point principally labored in it?

      Mr. B.--I don't know--but believe--indeed, I have felt so little interested in it, that I cannot say exactly what.

      Traveller.--How very differently do we think and act! You have never read this work, you say, Mr. G. and yet pronounce judgment against it--declare it not worth reading. I have read it all once through, and was so much interested in it, as now to have commenced reading it again. The subject is certainly of all the most important.

      Mr. G.--Yes--Well--Campbell is no doubt a man of--&c.--and--but--I don't agree with him in sentiment.

      Traveller.--And wherein do you disagree?

      Mr. G.--I profess to be an Episcopalian.

      Traveller.--And Mr. Campbell professes to be a christian.

Here Esq. B. put in his word; upon which considerable conversation ensued: the result of all was, that before we parted Esq. B. took of me a copy of the Debate, and Mr. G. said he thought he must by and by procure it, when he could find time to read it.

      "An effort was made sometime since in B." said Esq. B. "to have but one meeting and three ministers. A common fund was raised for this purpose; one half of which was to go to a Presbyterian minister, one-fourth to a Methodist, and the remaining one-fourth to support Unitarian preaching; all agreeing to attend every Lord's day, the same as if their own minister preached. The Unitarian party not being able to obtain one of their own sect, employed a Mr. The Presbyterians attended a few times, till Mr. A******. began to proclaim immersion for the forgiveness of sins; when they cried out "Campbellism!" and quit, The Unitarians complained. The Presbyterians justified themselves by saying, "We did not agree to hear a Campbellite. If you had obtained a Unitarian preacher we would have heard him.

* * * * *

      Whilst at the tavern in A. I was called on by brother A. F. the only Regular Baptist man I have seen since I left Buffalo. He tells me that the church in Ashtabula is pure from Campbellism1--that they remain stedfast in the orthodox faith, and that only one person has been added to them by baptism for three or four years. [443]


      Lord's day, Aug. 15.--Attended worship in the Dutch Reformed Church, and heard the Rev. Mr. S----. A. M. from Matthew v. 13. P. M. from Heb. vi. 17, 18--two tolerably good orthodox discourses; but nothing very remarkable in either. The following I record of the morning's discourse as of ordinary occurrence among textuary divines:--

      "Christians," he said, "were the salt of the earth: therefore he would show, 1st. Why they are so called. 2d. How the salt loses its saltness; and, 3d. The dreadful consequences." He read very well under the first head: but when he came to the second, he changed the person. "The salt which loses its saltness," said he, "is not true christians, but false professors!!" I saw where the shoe pinched--a certain doctrine is in danger!--the doctrine of all saints' final perseverance! The P. M. meeting was opened by singing, first,

"Go teach the nations, and baptize."

Then said Mr. S. "The child will now be presented for baptism." About half of the congregation arose,--some looked this way, and some that. At length the father and mother and child appeared before the sacred desk. Mr. S. prayed. He read a homily from the canons of his church. He read the articles of obligation devolving upon the parents; to which they assented by bowing their heads. He descended from the pulpit. He came to the table. He put his fingers into a bowl of water. He approached the mother holding up the child. (The father stood on her right hand.) He whispered [I suppose a question.] She whispered [I suppose the answer.] He put his fingers on the child's forehead and said; "Christopher, I baptize thee in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Amen." He again ascended, up where he was before. He again prayed, and gave out another hymn, which was sung; and then came the sermon--the farewell sermon: for he told us at the close, that he had concluded to leave. Nobody seemed to feel sorry or to look sad, but one. I thought he felt sorry. He prayed, They sung again, and he dismissed with the usual benediction.

* * * * * *


      September 1st. Between 1 and 2 o'clock P. M. met in the vestry of the Baptist meeting house about 30 clerical and lay brethren (so they were pleased to call one another) who had there convened, as delegates from several of the neighboring churches to attend a conference with the N. H. Church. This first meeting, however, was preliminary to make arrangements. A Moderator and Clerk being appointed, and two or three of the Clergy to address the meeting this afternoon, and a disposition made of all for the evening; the bell now called us into the body of the house. The delegates sat together in the body pews, the Moderator with the Clerk on his right hand, and the Pastor of N. H. Church on his left, took their seats facing us in front of the pulpit. After prayer, reports from the churches were called for, The first report was from the church with whom they met. [444]

      "They had, for a long season," said the reporter, "enjoyed a cold season--had passed through trials--experienced darkness," &c. &c. Several others of like enjoyments reported, when one of the delegation arose and delivered an address to such--another prayed, and all sung:

"Come, Holy Spirit, Heavenly Dove."

      After this, I left the meeting. At 4 o'clock met brother J. M. C. a disciple, who was immersed about two years since by S. R. in Ohio: with whom I had a very agreeable interview. At 6 o'clock called at brother R. B----'s, where I took tea, spent the evening, lodged, breakfasted and dined the next day. Brother B. is a Baptist, who, for some time past, has stood aloof from all the Regulars and their enterprizes. With him, too, I had much conversation on testimony and faith, opinions and speculations.

      September 2d--9 o'clock A. M. I again went to the Baptist meeting house "to see the end." And here it may be well to observe, it is understood that all the public doings of this day were arranged before hand. The persons were selected to speak--their subjects given them, and the character which each should address: two or three extempore volunteers only to be excepted. Nunc, ecce signum!

      The Moderator prays, and makes a few general remarks--says he sees before him some of the aged, middle-aged, youth, &c. "Now ----> if any have a word to the aged, they will improve this opportunity--"

      Rev. Mr. S. arises and addresses the aged. 1st. Saints. The importance of being engaged in all the benevolent institutions of the day. 2d. Sinners. "What shall I say to such? Most who give evidence of a change of heart, do it before they pass the age of 33 years. . . . He points them to a day of judgment. He exhorts, Be ye reconciled to God."

      The Moderator again arises, and says: "I see that most of this congregation are young. Now, if," &c.

      A young man2 arises--says he has a message from the Lord to them, and it is, "Prepare to meet thy God!" But how shall you come? Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Should I never see your faces again, I would say, Prepare to meet thy God!

      A brother F. arises and makes his speech. Tells his experience--says he has tried these things, &c. &c. Perhaps I shall never see you again in this world. My dear friends, let me tell you,--

      A brother W. adds a few remarks, and they sing:

"Young people all, attention give
      "While I address you in God's name."

      The Moderator mentions family prayer, and again says, "if," &c.

      A brother arises, and speaks of Abraham and his purity, then of other saints. When we go out in the morning, we know not that we shall ever return--

      The Pastor, J. P. arises--says it is an interesting occasion to him--speaks of the work of the ministry--the responsibility of the ambassadors of Christ, and confesses, in general terms, his sins of unfaithfulness, &c. in time past, and his determination to be a better minister in time to come.

      Rev. Mr. S. arises and addresses the Pastor thus: "I trust the great Head of the church has called you by his grace. I would not have any one officiate in this work who can follow--whose feelings will let him follow, any other calling. Charges and exhorts him.

      The Moderator now says to the church, (which by the bye were all seated together before him,) "You have heard the confession of your minister. We are informed that you are prepared, before the conference to renew your covenant," &c. "First, however, have you nothing to confess?". . . . [445]

      A brother arises and confesses for the church. 'We have sinned--have been too remiss in duty--have done those things which we ought not to have done, and have left undone those things which we ought to have done:' or, to this effect.

      The church next arise and renew their covenant, the Pastor reading it out of a little book.

      The Moderator addresses the church while standing, reminding them of what they had been called to suffer within a few months past--"to part with a minister, who was dear to them: but, we congratulate you, and rejoice with you, that you now have another in whom you are united," &c. Speaks of their duties to hold up his hands, and that they be engaged in all the benevolent operations of the day.

      After they had resumed their seats, the Moderator requested them further to signify their union with their Pastor (not that he would question the sincerity of what they had just done) by getting up again, walking out of their pews one after another, and taking him by the right hand. They did so. In the mean while, the delegation and congregation arose and sung:

"From whence doth this union arise,
      That hatred is conquer'd by love?

      A brother prays.

      The Moderator now says: Probably there are some here present who would gladly have walked out with the church, and with them have taken the hand of their Pastor: but they are not of them. If, now, any one has a word to the disconsolate sinner, we will hear him.

      A brother arises and addresses such.

      [Of this I took no minutes.]

      Rev. Mr. G. succeeds him in addressing the sinner. "O remember, that your eternal all is now, this day, at stake; and devils are watching, and angels likewise! O, ye awakened sinners! O, ye awakened sinners! Heaven and hell are before us--life and death! May God send down his Holy Spirit, for his Son's sake.

      Rev. Mr. S. J. prays.

      The Moderator again says: If any of the brethren feel it their privilege to address such as have experienced religion, but have not professed it, they will now have an opportunity.

      A brother arises and addresses such!

      [No minutes.]

      The Moderator next says: "The last, that on this occasion will be addressed, is the impenitent" [emphatically, the impenitent.]

      Rev. Mr. J. performs this part, as an ambassador of Christ. 'The subject is took, not so much to speak against impenitence, as to remove it. Where shall I begin? I begin with my own heart--I begin with the ministers of Christ. O that God would help such of us as profess to be ministers of Christ, to be penitent!' He addresses the impenitent sinners. 'We have but a moment to speak. May God help me to speak to the heart. You must repent. Away with your morality! Away with all your self-righteousness! To-day hear his voice! And O that streams of salvation might flow to your souls!'

      They sing:

"Fly, ye awakened sinners, fly!"

      The Moderator speaks: 'My dear friends, we are about to close. One request only I have now to make, which is, that we spend a few minutes in silent prayer; and that so many as consistently can, will kneel.' A part of the congregation kneeled. After about three minutes silence, Rev. J. P. the Pastor, broke the silence with a short audible prayer, when all arose, a doxology was sung, a benediction pronounced, and the meeting adjourned sine die.

      I know not how others felt; but for myself, during all these exercises, I "enjoyed a very cold time." On my arrival in town my first call was on the above named Rev. Pastor, with whom I then left a [446] small package of books, among which were a New Testament, some Debates, &c. I had superscribed them with his name, hoping that he might, during my stay, open and conclude to take them; but, on calling this morning, I found them unopened. I mentioned it to Mrs. P, and left a request that his Reverence would just look at them. At 2 o'clock I called again. The package had been opened and hastily tied up again. He had looked at them; and now looking at me with an--indescribable look. 'he wondered what it meant!' I soon explained the matter. "Well," said he, "I have no money to pay for them, and no time to read them. But, are you not afraid of being suspected, having such books with you?" "No, indeed," I replied, and began to give my reasons; but was interrupted with the remark, 'He thought probably he might be amused with the bickerings of Campbell and Owen: but he had neither time nor money' [for such amusements!!!]

Extract of a letter to Traveller, dated W----, July 6th, 1830.

Dear Brother,

      I have not forgotten your request, though I have neglected until I fear it is too late. The neglect has not been owing to any want of attachment, or warmth of brotherly feeling, but to a crowd of business, which has seemed to devolve upon me about this time. Last week I was called off three days on a council which was occasioned by Campbellism. Yesterday I had an address to deliver in this village at the celebration of our Sabbath Schools in this region--and another at the meeting of the Temperate Society. But I will not detain you longer with the rehearsal of my business. But a word in relation to our council. We found Campbellism to embrace the following errors:

      1st. Faith is no more than a simple assent of the judgment to the truth of the christian religion.

      2d. The heart is renewed in the act of baptism, "Go cleanse the room, sweeping it--cultivate the field, ploughing it. Go disciple all nations, baptizing them."

      3d. All written articles, covenants, creeds, are discarded, as well as all the missionary operations of the day.

      We also found a strong propensity in those who had embraced these sentiments to conceal them, and keep themselves in disguise. But after a long and close examination, the council advised the church to withdraw the hand of fellowship unless they could be reclaimed.--But you, probably, by this time, are better informed on this subject than I, as you are travelling in Campbell's parish.

      Please give me a little sketch of your Journal since we parted, and do not fail of returning this way.

Traveller's Reply.

Dear Brother K,

      Your very welcome letter was not received by me till after I left M----. It subsequently came, enclosed in one from my brother at that place. You say, "Please give me a little sketch of your Journal," &c. well, here you have it. [447]

      H----, June 18th. At 4 o'clock fulfilled my appointment, and preached on death--the cause--the sting--the power of the grave--and the victory obtained by our Lord Jesus Christ. Present, a very respectable number of different persuasions; and among them Rev. L. L. S. a Universalist teacher, and Rev. G. W. D. Baptist, agent for the American Bible Society. Brother D. made some remarks commending my discourse, and concluded with the subject of his agency. Old Mr. Hanks, a Baptist brother, then got up and gave his testimony to the truth and importance of what we both said. Brother D. prayed after which, such as were favorable to his object and agency, were requested to remain to see what could be done in this place. . . . . Took tea with A. P. Esq. Mr. S. now made his remarks--said, that from the last reports of the American Bible Society, it appeared it had cost the benevolent public about $8 for every copy of the Bible which they had gratuitously bestowed . . . . .

      "June 19th. In taking leave of my friends at H. the following dialogue occurred with one of them, a Mrs. G. a Universalist:--

      Mrs. G. Well, I understand you are going on to Ohio.

      Traveller. Yes, Ma'am.

      Mrs. G. To preach, I suppose?

      Traveller. Yes, I shall probably preach some.

      Mrs. G. Lordy massy! if you can't preach any better than you did yesterday, I think you'd better turn about and go back to the East and go to work--I think you've mistook your arrant.

      Traveller. Ah, well--perhaps I had. But why do you think I have mistaken my errand?

      Mrs. G. Why, you made such work on't telling your story. When I go to meeting I want to learn something--if I can't hear something new, I'd rather stay at home by all odds.

      Traveller. I had calculated to make you a longer visit--should be glad to do so now; but think I must go. Good bye.

      Mrs. G. Good bye, I wish you well.

      "Lord's day, June 20th. Delivered two discourses in the Baptist meeting house at B. Rainy day, and not more than 30 or 40 out, either in the forenoon or afternoon. The church in this place consists of 39 members. The society is small--their meeting house is built of brick, and cost $6700, for which they are now about $3000 in debt. Besides the Baptist's, there is one Presbyterian, one Episcopalian, and a Methodist church here--all of which have meeting houses. The population is estimated at about 8000, one-sixth only of which attend public worship on Lord's day. Dead, dead! twice dead and plucked up by the roots! Slept at brother C----'s. Miss C. a member of the Presbyterian church, wondered how any could be sprinkled, when they might have the privilege of being immersed--said she had thought much of washing off her sprinkling in this way.

      "June 21st. Read two hours in the visions of Swedenborg on Heaven and Hell; and a sketch of his life. Dined at brother C.----'s. I returned here from H. on Saturday, and preached yesterday, at the particular request of brother C. who, with the concurrence of brothers L. and W. as I understood it, promised me the use of a horse to attend the U. C. Baptist Association: but whether from my preaching [448] yesterday not pleasing, or some other cause, I know not; the promise seems not to be remembered--no horse is provided--none can now be expected, Neither brother L. nor W. have once asked me to call on them.

      "June 22d. Bade and received a cold good bye at brother C----'s, and at 9 o'clock A. M. took my leave"

      The preceding is but a morsel of what I might give you viva voce, could I but see you; but enough, I presume, for my letter.

      Now, in reference to "Campbellism."--I had heard the sound thereof in New England--had possessed myself of, and carefully read, all the works of Alexander Campbell which I could procure. I had, before I left college, renounced all allegiance to creeds and confessions of faith of human fabrication; and when I was ordained, acknowledged no other than the Bible. I had read the New Testament once through, at least, without spectacles; or in other words, without any human system to bias me. I had become convinced that all our holy religion was based upon facts--and faith upon testimony. I had discovered in immersion something more than I at first saw to be in it, viz. a pledge of pardon for all past transgressions. I had become very much shaken on the lawfulness and expediency of most of the prevailing popular religious institutions--. . . . . and what shall I say more?--What, on these data, will you now call me? A Campbellite? I hope not. No, I am no Campbellite. I hope you will never so call me--that you will still regard me as a disciple of Christ, a brother: and yet, mirabile dictu! I did not find in the Western Country a greater Campbellite than myself! None who had read his writings more, or who entertained for him sentiments of higher respect.--While I believed there is no man who has made, and is now making, greater sacrifices for the cause of truth--none more benevolently than Alexander Campbell--none to whom as Baptists and as Christians we are more indebted;--I will not call him master, nor be called by his name. I had the privilege of spending several days at his house, of forming a very pleasing personal acquaintance with him, of hearing him proclaim the ancient gospel, and of seeing him immerse ten persons for the remission of their sins. I was introduced also to Walter Scott, to Sidney Rigdon, to Adamson Bentley; which three ministers have immersed, within three years, at least three thousand persons. I have been introduced also to many of these, and they are no Campbellites either. They are characterized, the most of any people that I ever saw, for searching the Scriptures, and for christian affection.

      You will receive from A. C. by my naming you, the Millennial Harbinger Extra, on Remission of Sins. After reading it carefully, and informing yourself more of this way, I should be happy to hear from you again.
FRANCIS. [449]      


      I ONLY premise that I hope the brother who writes this is mistaken as to the writer of the piece examined. I formed so good an opinion of the publisher as well as the editor of the Herald, that I am unwilling to think him to be the author of such a base calumny.--Ed. M. H.

ESSEX, Va, September 6th, 1830.      

Brother Campbell,

      Dear Sir--it is well known in old Virginia, that after I read the Christian Baptist, (so far as it had appeared before the public,) I renounced the antichristian and corrupt systems of sectarianism. This drew down the wrath of some of the priests and elders upon me, and they spared no means that our laws would not lay hold of them for using, to destroy my usefulness. Since which time I have the pleasure of saying there are now a number of New Testament disciples that have moral courage enough openly and publicly to advocate the restoration of the ancient apostolic gospel. This, sir, it appears, has excited the wrath of some scribe in the Religious Herald of the 27th of August. I cannot believe the editor of that paper would be guilty of so shameful a misrepresentation of truth. I have too high an opinion of his character as a man, as a christian, and as a christian teacher. I am constrained to believe it is from the pen of the publisher, and am truly sorry that he is guilty of such antichristian conduct. I might with propriety here adopt the warning voice of Christianos, when he threw his glow worm, last April, into the Herald--"Take Heed!"

      I will take an extract from this writer and prove him guilty of perverting the truth, (I had like to have said guilty of wilful slander;) but I will leave that to the judgment of your readers. These are his words: "The christian has one plain straight-forward course given in the Scriptures to do all the good he can, by all the means in his power, while here on earth. It is a singular phenomena in the human mind, that the Antinomian, who relies altogether on experience, and the followers of Mr. Campbell, who deride it, should be alike opposed to Missionary and Bible Societies. It serves to confirm the maxim that extremes in any system are always unsafe. We always have been under the impression that this opposition was also the offspring of a proud, pharisaical, selfish spirit. It reminds us of the observation of a friend to an individual of this class, to whom he remarked, that "really, from his conduct, he could not help believing that he was afraid of having too much company in heaven, or that too many sinners should be saved."

      How appropriate is the language of the Apostle: "Thou, therefore, who teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? Thou who preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?" Let us see if I cannot convict him of robbing the New Testament disciples of their character. He says we are "your followers." This is enough, he thinks, to render them the victims of his intolerant, bigoted, persecuting tools, and then cries out against the sheep of Christ, Wolf! Wolf! I would ask this scribe, of whom is he and the Baptist churches, is their corporate [450] capacity, followers? Not of Jesus Christ or his Apostles. Let him attempt to prove this if he dare, and give me equal columns in his paper, and if I do not prove that they have departed from "the unity of the faith" in building up a sect, I will then acknowledge he is right and I am wrong, and will beg his Baptist brethren to receive me into full fellowship with them. The terms are easy. He has types, lampblack, paper, and readers. If he will not condescend to sustain himself and them, (I do not mean as christians, but as the church of Christ,) let him cease to misrepresent the views and conduct of the New Testament disciples. This is "one plain straightforward course." He says we "deride experience," but does not say what kind of experience we deride, whether it is the experience of Mahometans, Papists, Arabs, an idolater's, enthusiast's, a Christian's, or this man's who undertakes to publish the Religious Herald, and makes this No. a vehicle of palpable misrepresentation of the truth. I believe he means a Christian's experience; if so, he has not spoken the truth. How did he come by this information? He is not omniscient that he should know the views and characters of those that think with you throughout these United States. He must, therefore, have drawn his conclusions from your writings. I must now ask him, where is the sentence that we have derided christian experience? I answer, I have never seen it; but I will prove this charge false. I invite the reader to open the fourth volume of the Christian Baptist, pages 159 and 246, under the head of "Experimental Religion;" then take up the Millennial Harbinger, No. 6, page 259, and then say whether or not I have convicted this scribe of a palpable misrepresentation of the truth. But possibly he means something else beside our personal proof in immersion, good works, our holy lives, and godly conversation, is christian experience. Pray what is it? The ebullitions of a disobedient and rebellious heart against God and the words of his grace? or does he mean the conceits, whims, impulses, dreams, fancies, or feelings of those who never were "born of water and of the Spirit?" I am inclined to think the last is what he means by "christian experience?" Is this the "one plain straight forward course given in the Scriptures?" What good can be obtained by calling these things "christian experience?" I answer, none; but much evil. Let us examine this matter. Does not the Baptist church keep every man and woman out of the kingdom of God who will not give in this his "christian experience," no matter what his faith and conduct may be? Do they not thereby make sects, mental and speculative professors--intolerant, bigoted, and persecuting characters--prayerless members and rebellious professors? Is not such language calculated to make men disobey the institutions of Jesus Christ, by inducing them to believe they are christians when they are not? Let the present state of society answer these questions.

      He says we "are opposed to missionary societies." There is as much truth in this as there is in our "deriding experience?' Let us examine it. I would ask this scribe, if a Roman Catholic priest was to pass through the city of Richmond on a missionary tour, and apply [451] to him and his brethren to aid him in his cause, and they were to refuse, and this priest was to go off and publish in his Religious Herald that they were opposed to missionary societies, whether they spoke the truth or not? Now, sir, for the very same reasons that he refuses to aid a Roman Catholic priest, we refuse to aid a sectarian priest. The one corrupts the word of God, and the other does the same by making a breach of the "unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace," by their traditions, and teaching men that they can go to heaven without obedience to the institutions of Jesus Christ. But this is not my strongest proof. Now it is well known to this writer that one who wrote from Pittsburg to the editor of the Columbian Star, with about as much truth as he has done, blamed the New Testament disciples for employing Walter Scott and others to proclaim the ancient apostolic gospel, and to oppose the sectarian systems. It is also well known that you have repeatedly hinted to christians the necessity of being liberal, and proposed that those who have been accustomed to "the horse-mill plan" of going round once-a-month to churches, should extend their labors, and let some qualified member of the church be appointed in their stead. But, sir, what good can these missionaries do until a foundation is laid for keeping the "unity of the faith"--this of extending their labors over such a large tract of country to convert the nations, when they themselves stand as much in need of being converted to the ancient apostolic gospel as the heathen do, to their systems of religion; nay more? This course of conduct reminds me of some farmers I have seen. They are for sowing or planting a large crop of corn, immense fields, more than they can cultivate. The corn springs up, but is overrun with weeds and grass; it may tassel, but no corn is to be seen. Now I ask, which is the wiser and more useful plan--to cultivate as much as we can bring to perfection, or scatter our seed over the soil and leave it to be overrun by thorns and thistles?

      He also accuses us of being opposed to Bible Societies. Here again he has departed from the truth. I will question him: Is it "one plain straight-forward course given us in the Scriptures" to form a distinct society from the church to propagate the christian religion? Where is the example or precept recorded in the New Testament authorising combinations of christians and infidels to convert the world? I ask, is there not in a great many of the Bible Societies, Presidents, Secretaries, Treasurers, Clerks, and Directors, men who pay no more regard to the person and character of Jesus Christ or his institutions, than if he was an impostor, and the gospel a mere fable? This Herald has not long since said, that one christian, by his disorderly conduct, (or something to that amount,) injured the cause of God more than all the infidel writers. Here we agree. Now I will ask him, when a member of the Bible Society, that is a wicked man or sectarian, presents a Bible to an unbeliever, if he does not lead this unbeliever to believe that this blessed book is of very little importance, or he would himself first obey its precepts and then recommend it to others? Now, Sir, I do know some honest infidels who have refused to join a [452] Bible Society, believing it would be hypocrisy in them to circulate their money, and lend their influence, in recommending what they had not themselves rightly understood or obeyed--I ask, would this writer himself encourage a man who proclaimed nothing but the truth, and yet lived a wicked life. In vain are all their attempts to save the world, until all who profess the christian religion come into the "unity of the faith." But I must prove this is as false as the other charges. Now, Sir, I was a member of the Essex Bible Society from its commencement; but on reflection I found such a heterogeneous mass combined, I resolved to take no active part in it. But knowing that the friends of the present order of things, like this scribe, would accuse without evidence, and condemn without hearing; on examination I placed in the hands of one of the collectors a sufficient sum to constitute me a life member, this was done to prevent what this scribe has accused me of. But this is not all. Sometime past I was in a Bible Society where there was only one man, and he a believer, but what was composed of Baptists. I was invited to become a member, and did so. Thus, sir, I have convicted this scribe of three aberrations from the truth. He talks of our being like the Antinomians. When I discovered he was willing his Presbyterian brethren should denounce his North Carolina Baptist brethren because they were "men of limited influence--mostly, if not altogether, destitute of learning," and had renounced the traditions of the elders, I thought I discovered the hand of Balak inviting Balaam to help him to curse Israel because he could not conquer them.

      It is remarkable with what insolence this writer goes on. He charges us with a proud pharisaical spirit. Let us examine the conduct of some of the Baptist sects, and compare their conduct with the Pharisees. Who was it that induced men to believe they could be the children of God, and yet disregard his institutions? I answer, the Pharisees. And who teaches men now this lesson? The Priests, scribes, (printers,) and Elders. Who was it that taught men that the traditions of the Elders must be obeyed, or they could not be saved, or were accursed? The priests, scribes, and elders. And who now teaches that the traditions of the elders must be kept, or they shall not commune with them in their meeting houses, nor preach the gospel? I answer, the priests, scribes, and elders. Who was it that made the word of God of non-effect by their traditions? The priests, scribes, and elders. And who now by their heterogeneous mass of traditions, make the word of God of non-effect? The priests, printers, and elders. Who was it that accused the Lord Jesus and his Apostles, without evidence, and condemned them without understanding them? The priests, scribes, and elders? And who is it now that accuses christians without evidence and condemns them without knowing or understanding them. I answer, the priests, printers, and elders. Who was it that drew the disciples before the Sanhedrim, cast them out of their synagogue, took away the key of knowledge, persecuted the disciples from city to city, forbidding them any more to speak the gospel? The priests, scribes, and elders. Who draws the New Testament disciples [453] before their church, casts them out of their meeting houses, takes away the mind of the Holy Spirit, persecutes them, and forbids them to teach the people? The priests, scribes, and elders. Lastly he says, or insinuates, we are "afraid of having too much company in heaven, or that too many sinners should be saved." This coming from a proscribing sectarian, is surprising. I ask, if the principal cause of opposition to the New Testament disciples is not owing to their being too willing to bring all men into the kingdom of God that are willing to come? And do not this sect shut out all men who will not succumb to their traditions? Thus, sir, I have proved the assertions of this scribe to be a fabrication of his own--I am sorry to occupy so much room in doing so.
T. M. HENLEY.      

F U L L E R I S M   E X P O S E D--NO. I.

      I. "THE Holy Spirit imparts to the mind a holy susceptibility and relish for the truth, in consequence of which we discern its glory and embrace it."3

      Hence it follows "that the human mind can have a holy relish for the truth before it has any perception of it." A greater absurdity we cannot easily conceive. Can a person have a relish or taste for any thing of which he has not a single perception?

      "God does not cause the natural man to receive spiritual things; but he removes the obstructing film by imparting a spiritual relish for those things." p. 205, 206. What confusion of figure, indicative of still greater confusion of mind, appears in this assertion! Two senses are confounded--seeing and tasting. The eye is cured, or the film removed from the eye by correcting the taste or relish. What philosophy! To cure the eye by improving or correcting the palate, is certainly a new discovery, and worthy of a spiritual optician.

      His theological motto is, in fact, the following: "Spiritual things are spiritually discerned by a taste or spiritual relish for we know not what."

      The kernel of Fullerism is found in the following words, page 206: "Though holiness is frequently ascribed in the Scriptures to a spiritual perception of the truth; yet that spiritual perception itself, in the first instance, is ascribed to the influence of the Holy Spirit upon THE HEART."

      By "the heart," Mr. Fuller means the metaphorical use of the word in our own times--viz. the will and the affections as contradistinguished from the understanding. This is not the biblical use of the term as we shall show: therefore, to apply to the heart, as thus defined, all that the Scriptures say about it, is delusive and sophistical in the highest degree. The great Dr. Owen says, "The heart, in Scripture, is variously used: sometimes for the mind, and understanding: sometimes for the will; sometimes for the affections; sometimes for the conscience; sometimes for the whole soul."4 But let the reader [454] examine the following Scriptures, and a hundred others referred to in marginal references, and judge for himself: Dent. iv. 39. Psalms xlv. 1. Prov, x. 8. xv. 28. xvi. 9. xix. 21. Eccles. viii. Jer. xxiv. 7. Matth. xiii. 15. Mark ii. 6. 8. Luke x. 19. 35. In these, and many others, the heart is said to be wise, to reason, to consider, to doubt, to meditate, to study, to ponder, to discern, to understand," &c. &c. Judge, then, how great the sophism must be, which applies to the will and affections all that is said in the Scriptures concerning the heart!! The Spirit of God first operates upon the heart, upon the will and the affections, and then upon the understanding, according to Mr. Fuller. The metaphysical regeneration, for which the English and American Fullerites contend, is this: The Spirit of God first operates upon the heart, i. e. as defined by Fuller, upon the will and affections, and then upon the understanding. In other words, he makes the soul to love and relish the truth, and then to perceive it!

      To open Lydia's heart was, according to him, to open Lydia's affections, "Then opened he their understanding that they night understand the Scriptures?" This was to open their will and affections!! But not according to this philosophy spake the disciples of Jesus: "Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked with us, and opened to us the Scriptures." To open the Scriptures or the understanding, is the same thing in the Scripture style; but to open the will or the affections belongs to no style save that of Andrew Fuller.

      According to Mr. Fuller, "A CHANGE OF HEART MUST OF NECESSITY PRECEDE SPIRITUAL PERCEPTION AND FAITH." This is the darling mystery of metaphysical regeneration. Yes, God reveals the truth to us, by changing our hearts before we perceive and believe it. The film before spoken of, is the perversity of the affections, or obstinacy of the will, which blind the eye of the soul or the understanding of man. To take off the film is to destroy the perversity and obstinacy of the heart, and this is done by imparting physically a relish or taste for spiritual things; which impartation of a relish is the regeneration of the Fullerites.

      While, then, Messrs. Brantly and a few others are endeavoring, from their high standing for orthodoxy, to infuse into public opinion a peculiar contempt for the apostolic regeneration, as defined in our Extra, No. 1, and availing themselves of popular prejudice, stigmatizing it by such epithets as "baptismal regeneration?" we shall attempt to make the public understand their metaphysical regeneration, as taught by their master, Fuller.

      I venture to predict that Messrs. Brantly, Clopton, & Co. will be as little disposed, after a few essays shall have appeared on their metaphysical regeneration, to defend it, either from Scripture or reason, as they are now to attack the scriptural regeneration, on either scriptural or rational premises.

      The reader will perceive from the extracts given, and from many passages of a similar stamp in Mr. Fuller's writings, that, with him, regeneration is the infusion into the mind of a spiritual relish, for the [455] truth of which the person is supposed to be at the time totally ignorant. If I do injustice to Mr. Fuller, (for which I have not a single wish or design,) some of his warm advocates will, we hope, appear in his defence. Before my second essay on this subject appears, it would be well for the reader to ascertain, if he can, from any source, whether a person can be said to be regenerated, or born again, by the infusion or impartation of a relish or taste for any thing; or whether the receiving of such a relish could, with any regard to human language or analogy, be called regeneration.


      I SEE in the last "Chronicle," that Ebenezer Rogers of Missouri, has "waxed exceeding wroth" against me on account of my Review of his Circular. The spirit of orthodoxy breathes threatenings and slaughter in this metaphysically regenerated defender of the faith. He is now many degrees above the reasoning point. Should he cool down to the temperature of calm reason, his speculations or excerpts from Fuller might he further shown to be morsels of mystery stolen from the recondite visions, from the inner temples of an empty and deceitful philosophy--after the traditions of men--after the rudiments of the world--and not after Christ. At present this would be a hopeless effort as to him. For he cannot see that if the foundation of any system be destroyed, it matters not to pull every stone apart; and therefore complains that I "skipped over some sentences" in his essay--such as, "And do you really and sincerely believe, Mr. C. that it is one of the monstrous abortions of a purblind theology, for any human being TO BE WISHING for supernatural aid to be born again?" My not answering such a question, and not noticing some equally impertinent sentences, he would make the folks believe was because they were too hard for me!! To say nothing of the insulting air of such a question, its irrelevancy to the points at issue was sufficient reason for paying no attention to it--I say, the insulting air; for I had declared before that such was my conviction. To ask me if I sincerely believed what I had before published as my own conviction, was placing me in the predicament of some of Mr. Rogers' friends, who preach and assert the opinions of others, without any assurance that they are true; or of those who say what they do not think. My not answering this question--or, in other words, my not saying that I believed what I had written, is the occasion of the following malediction, or anathema:--

      "The last quotation," [the above question] says Mr. Rogers, "is an everlasting monument, bearing the following inscription, that Mr. Alexander Campbell, of Bethany, Brooke county, Virginia, does really and sincerely believe that it is one of the monstrous abortions of purblind theology, for any human being TO BE WISHING for SUPERNATURAL aid to be born again. Poor man! unless the supernatural aid of the Spirit of God should be exercised in regenerating his soul, he will [456] (with millions of others) have one day to stand before the burning tribunal of the Great Judge, with blackness in his countenance, trembling in his limbs, convulsion in his conscience, and his voice will be heard, saying, Oh! rocks and mountains fall on me, and hide me from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb!"

      May I request the reader, courteous or uncourteous, to ponder well the above terrific denunciation. From whom does it come? From E. Rogers of Missouri, a man who affords no evidence that he understands the import of the sentence which he calls the "everlasting monument." But whether or not, mark the spirit of Fullerism in this militant son of Calvinism. This is the spirit which he has received. I am judged and condemned by Ebenezer Rogers as destitute of any principle, or work, or change of heart, state, or character, which can save me from everlasting death, unless I shall hereafter become regenerated according to Mr. Rogers' metaphysical regeneration, which he has daringly called the supernatural aid of the Spirit of God!!! Yes, I am, in my present state, represented, and doomed, in his judgment, to stand before the "burning tribunal of the Great Judge," with all "blackness, trembling, and convulsion," because I have called his notions of regeneration a metaphysical whim. Who of all the Popes was a greater Pope than this humble Baptist, who complains of hands blistered with the sickle?

      Poor man that I am! Neither faith, nor baptism, nor the works of Christian faith and love, nor the grace of God, nor the blood of Christ, can save me from this sentence of Ebenezer Rogers! I am wanting, damnably deficient of every saving grace and benefit, because I call Fullerism, as retailed by Ebenezer Rogers, "purblind theology." I will not apply the old adage to this good man: "He that angrily predicts evil to any man, wishes for the evil which he predicts." No, I will permit him henceforth to blaspheme me without notice, without reply, unless he should be restored to such a temperament as is favorable to conviction.

      A word to the thoughtful before we close our remarks upon this denunciation:--You must perceive that, according to the metaphysically regenerated, (the votaries of Fullerism,) if a man be not regenerated in their way, his faith, and the obedience of faith, and every thing else called Christian, leaves him an heir of "eternal blackness, trembling, and convulsion." And that as no man can, on their theory, superinduce this supernatural aid, many will be eternally damned because of the want of supernatural aid, which they could not possibly obtain, because the Spirit did not operate physically upon their hearts as it did upon the heart of Ebenezer Rogers of Missouri! And yet that the Spirit of God has mediately or immediately operated upon the heart of Ebenezer Rogers any more than upon his brethren Lawrence Greatrake and John Winter, with me, at least, is not so absolutely certain as to exclude all doubt.
EDITOR. [457]      


      Proposition 2. "After the Jew shall have been restored to their own land, and shall have resettled it, the nations of the earth shall combine to despoil them of their treasures, and to subjugate them to their sway."

      IN our last essay we summoned the Prophets to attest our first proposition. Hosea, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Zechariah, and Haggai, delivered a part of their testimony, which conspired to show that Israel and Judah should yet be gathered out of all lands and restored to the land of Canaan, and that this should happen before they are converted to christianity. Before we farther expatiate on the testimonies delivered in our last, we shall hear a few depositions in confirmation of our second proposition.

      Some common or general head, denominated Gog, is to be the generalissimo of the combination against Israel and Judah when restored to their own land in the latter days. We shall not now inquire whether the Grand Turk be the Gog of Ezekiel. It is enough for our present purpose that a general alliance against the restored Jews, such a war against them as never yet happened since God called Abraham, is foretold is the following oracles:--

      "Again a word of the Lord came to me, saying, Son of man; set thy face against Gog, and the land of Magog, the prince of Ros, Mesoch and Thobel and prophesy against him and say to him.

      Thus saith the Lord, Lord, Behold I am against thee, prince of Ros, Mesoch and Thobel. And I will gather thee and thine army, horses and horsemen all clad with coats of mail--a great assembly with shields and helmets and swords, Persians and Ethiopians and Lybians, all armed with helmets and shields; Gomer and all those around him, the house of Thogarmar, from the extreme north, with all around him and many nations with thee. Be prepared and make thyself ready, thou and thy multitude assembled with thee; for thou shalt be to me for a vanguard. After many days he will be in a state of preparation, and in the last of years be will begin his march, and come into the land which is withdrawn from the sword--the land of them who have been collected from many nations, to the land of Israel, which had been made an entire desert. When he from nations hath begun his march, they will he all dwelling in peace. Then thou wilt come up like rain, and advance like a cloud to cover the land. When thou shalt be with all thy bands around thee, and many nations with thee; (Thus saith the Lord, Lord.) In that day things will come into thy heart, and thou wilt form wicked devices and say, "l will go up against an abject land: I shall come upon them who are living at ease, and dwelling in peaceful security--all inhabiting a land in which there is not a walled town, and who have neither bars nor gates; to take prey and to gather their spoils, by turning my hand against this wasted country which is resettled, and against a nation gathered together from many nations who have gotten wealth and inhabit the navel of the earth."--

      Prophesy Son of man and say to Gog, Thus saith the Lord, At the time when my people Israel shall be dwelling in peace, wilt thou [458] not be roused? Yes; thou wilt come from thy place, from the extremity of the north: thou and many nations with thee, all mounted on horses, a great assembly, and a mighty army, will indeed come up against my people Israel, as a cloud to cover the land: in the latter days I will bring thee up against my land, that all the nations may know me when I am hallowed by thee in their sight.

      Thus saith the Lord, Lord, to Gog, Thou art he of whom I have spoken in former times, by the ministry of my servants the prophets of Israel, that in these days and years I would bring thee up against them. But it shall come to pass on that day, on the day when Gog shall come against the land of Israel, my wrath shall come up, saith the Lord, Lord, and my zeal. In the fire of mine indignation, I have spoken, there shall indeed be on that day a great shock in the land of Israel. At the presence of the Lord, the fishes of the sea shall be shaken, and the birds of the air, and the beasts of the field, and all the reptiles which creep on the earth, and all the men on the face of the earth. And the mountains shall be rent to pieces, and the vallies shall sink down, and every wall shall fall to the ground. And for all this indeed I will call up terror saith the Lord: every man's sword shall be against his brother. And I will execute judgment on him, with pestilence and blood and with tempests of rain and hailstones; and I will rain down fire and brimstone on him, and on all with him, even on the many nations with him. And I shall be magnified and hallowed and glorified; and made known in the sight of many nations, and they shall know that I am the Lord.

      Thou therefore Son of man, prophesy against Gog and say, Thus saith the Lord, Lord, Behold I am against thee, Gog, the prince of Ros, Mesoch and Thobel, and I will assemble thee and lead thee and cause thee to come from the farthest north, and bring thee up to the mountains of Israel; and I will destroy thy bow from thy left hand and thine arrows from thy right; and overthrow thee on the mountains of Israel; and thou and all who are around thee shall fall; and the nations with thee shall be given to multitudes of birds, to all the feathered tribe, and to all the wild beasts of the field I have given thee to be devoured. On the open field thou shalt fall; for I have spoken, saith the Lord. I will indeed send a fire against Gog and the isles shall be peaceably inhabited, and they shall know that I am the Lord. And my holy name shall be known in the midst of my people Israel; and my name which is holy shall no more be profaned; and the nations shall know that I am the Lord, the Holy One of Israel. Behold it is coming and thou shalt know that it will be, saith the Lord, Lord; this is the day of which I have spoken, when they who inhabit the cities of Israel shall come forth, and make fires with the arms--with the shields and spears, and with bows and arrows, and hand-staves and poles--even with these they shall make fires seven years: so that they shall not have occasion to take wood from the plains, nor to cut timber from the forest; but shall burn the arms only. And they shall plunder their plunderers; and spoil those who spoiled them saith the Lord. And on that day I will give Gog a [459] noted place--a burying place in Israel, the grave yard of strangers by the sea shore: and the slope of the valley shall be enclosed with a wall; and there Gog and all his multitude shall be buried; and it shall then be called the grave yard of Gog. For the house of Israel will bury them, that the land may be cleansed. During seven months the people of the land will be employed in burying them; and it shall be to them a memorable epoch, "The day when he was glorified," saith the Lord. Then they will send men every where to traverse the land, and bury them who are left on the face of the ground, in order to purify it after the seven months. And they will make diligent search. And every one who traverseth the land, upon seeing a human bone, shall set up a mark near it; till the buriers bury it at Gai, the grave yard of Gog: (for the name of that city shall be called Grave Yard) thus shall the land be cleansed.

      Thou, therefore, Son of man, say, Thus saith the Lord, Say to every winged bird, and to all the wild beasts of the field, Assemble and come: assemble from all around to my sacrifice, to the great sacrifice which I have made for you on the mountains of Israel; and you shall eat flesh and drink blood. You shall eat the flesh of giants and drink the blood of the princes of the earth. Mains and young bulls and he goats: and all the bulls are well fatted. And you shall eat fat till you are glutted, and drink blood to satiety, at my sacrifice which I have prepared for you. And you shall be filled at my table with horses and horsemen, and with giants and every great warrior, saith the Lord. I will indeed display my glory among you, and all the nations shall see my judgment which I have executed, and my hand which I have brought upon them. And the house of Israel shall know that I am the Lord their God from this particular time and thence forward. And all the nations shall know, that the house of Israel were carried into captivity for their sins. Because they broke covenant with me therefore I turned away my face, from them, and delivered them into the hands of their enemies, and they all fell by the sword. According to their pollutions and according to their iniquities I dealt with them and turned away my face from them. Therefore thus saith the Lord, I will now bring back the captivity of Jacob, and have compassion on the house of Israel. And I will shew a zeal for my holy name, when they shall have suffered disgrace, for the rebellion of which they were guilty, when they dealt peaceably in their own land. And there shall be none to make them afraid, when I have brought them back from among the nations and gathered them from the countries of the nations. So I shall be hallowed by them in the sight of the nations and they shall know that I the Lord am their God, when I manifest myself to them among the nations. And I will no more turn away my face from them, for as much as I have poured out my wrath on the house of Israel, saith the Lord, Lord."--Ezekiel xxxix.

      I have given the whole of this remarkable prediction in the version from the Septuagint, by Charles Thomson, Esq. not doubting but it will appear in bolder relief to the intelligent reader, than the common [460] version; and, from its superior plainness, will render comment less necessary. After reading this prediction the reader has only to notice a few points:

      1. That this prophecy has never yet been accomplished requires not much proof. That the ten tribes called Israel, have not yet been restored, all confess; that such an army as described here ever assembled against the Jews in the land of Canaan, history avers not. No event has transpired since the Babylonish Captivity to which these declarations can, on any principle of interpretation, be applied. This prophecy is not, therefore, yet fulfilled.

      2. The ten tribes, and the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, must be assembled in that land long deserted, before the prediction can be fulfilled. That they are to return in an unconverted state has already been proved.

      3. They are to return with considerable wealth, to rebuild their cities and towns, and to become an object worthy to excite the cupidity and ambition of the neighboring nations. Feeling themselves secure through the good will of the nations which gave them their land, they will not think of building walls and bulwarks around their towns and cities, and will become, in the estimation of these allied nations, an easy prey to them.

      4. These events are said to be far distant from the times of Ezekiel; they are said to occur in "the latter days;" and therefore could not apply to the restoration of the Jews from the land of the Chaldeans. Besides, as has been alleged, no such an assemblage ever came against the Jews--no such havoc of human life, in any confederation against them, has ever occurred.

      5. But that which is most worthy of observation in this prophecy, as introductory to our third proposition, is, that at the time when this army of nations shall have made their onset on congregated Israel and Judah, and when the people of the Covenant shall be sorely pressed and ready to despair; then, at this crisis, there shall be a great shock, or earthquake, in the land of Israel. The birds, beasts, and fishes shall feel it; the whole race of men shall feel it; mountains shall be rent to pieces, vallies shall shake and sink down, and all the walled towns shall fall to the ground.

      This earthquake will be accompanied with tempests of rain, hailstones, fire, and brimstone, which shall fall with fierce indignation upon the nations assembled against Israel and Judah. Then shall the Lord appear in behalf of Israel, and their vanquished enemies shall leave their carcases and their weapons on the fields of Canaan. Such a slaughter was never seen before. The weapons of the vanquished shall, in that mild climate, afford fuel to the remnant of Israel for a week of years. This is the epoch which, in after times, shall be designated as "The day when the Lord was glorified"--the day when Israel was converted, and the Gentiles turned from their idols, and all nations filled with the glory of the Lord.

      Concerning this earthquake, its concomitants, and effects, we will speak hereafter. In the mean time, our second proposition is, we [461] apprehend, established and so far illustrated as is necessary to this part of our developement. Each proposition shall be more fully confirmed and illustrated as we proceed in this examination; for we have in view the rhetorician's rule, which prescribes that in every good oration and essay, every new proposition and argument must not only sustain itself, but should also reflect additional light upon the preceding as well as prepare the way for those which are to follow. He that invades an enemy's country, and who dares not secure the strong holds which he has taken, fights to no purpose in attempting farther to extend his conquests.


      MR. BRANTLY has been so condescending as to impugn the doctrine of remission, as exhibited in the Essay or Christian Immersion without formally questioning the truth of one of the twelve propositions. He has not joined issue upon any one position. With his usual art of evasion, air of contempt, and appeal to popular prejudice, he looks askance at the "Brooke County Creed," as he contemptuously calls Peter's proclamation to the Pentecostian penitents. Yes, he nicknames the apostolic gospel "the Brooke County Neologism, or New Doctrine," "the old Paidobaptist sentiment," "the vamped up ancient heresy, from Justin Martyr to William Wall."

      Mr. Brantly has learned the difference between argument and calumny; between demonstration and detraction; between nicknaming and refuting; between a scoff and a reason. It is much more easy to cry out heresy! than to prove an error. But he has the vantage ground; and a few opprobrious appellations from Philadelphia will go much further than as many arguments from Brooke County. He is a metropolitan, and he sets it down as insolence not to he pardoned, for a person in Brooke County to dissent from a Rabbi in Philadelphia, who preaches from a velvet cushion to the fashionable circles in a commercial city. What a pity it is for the claims of such highminded aspirants after human praise, that the Saviour of the world did not choose to be born in a wealthy and polite city! that he was not rocked in a gilded cradle, and ministered to by metropolitans! What a pity for the admirers of stately steeples, splendid edifices, lofty pulpits, and crimson cushions, that Jesus the Lord of glory proclaimed his introductory discourse, the admiration of the world, upon a hill, and not in a city! that he chose Galilean fishermen in preference to such led and fashionable cits as Parson Brantly, Editor of the Columbian Star.

      If the circumstance of breathing in a city has such advantages; if wisdom, knowledge, and goodness, be the elements of a city atmosphere, what a pity that not one of the original Twelve, nor of all God's reformer's, was called out of the smoke of a city to enlighten the world! In Mr. Brantly's Testament it should read, "Thou hast hid the secrets of thy reign from the humble and the babes, and revealed [462] them to the sages and the learned; nay, rather to those who live in a city, whether sages or learned."

      But now let its see how the metropolitan Rabbi manages "the Brooke County Reformer." His first quotation is from the cover of the Extra. Here he artfully takes the five first periods to infuse into his readers the belief that the sentiment or argument in the Essay was not matured; but the hasty and undigested views of one who had not leisure to examine accurately. If he had added only one period more (a line and a half) his remarks and insinuations would have appeared ridiculous. But without that sentence, designedly suppressed, the text suited his sermon--I say designedly suppressed; for no person who reads the apology on the cover, and his remarks, can form any other opinion.

      His second extract is the proposition on page 7, with the three subsequent paragraphs. The proposition he does not impugn; but we, shall give our readers all his remarks upon it:--

      "REMARKS--Here we perceive that religion is not "a character" but "a state," and that the only transforming power which it exerts over mankind, is derived from this external state. Men are brought into this state, or condition, without any previous change in the character of their hearts and minds, through the medium of immersion in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; and then finding themselves in this state, they begin to conform to its new relations, and thus grow religious. Surely this is a most convenient religion: it saves much trouble. A man has only to get up and walk into the new state, and he is then pardoned, justified, and ADOPTED. He is spared the pain of penitence, the unseemliness of tears, the contrition of sorrow, and all the mortification of his past sins. Instead of going with his heart and soul into the christian state, he has only to make use of his feet and hands. He adopts religion as the Roman Senators adopted an opinion--"Ire pedibus in sententiam," to go on their feet into an opinion--was the mode of voting with them. In the same manner must those act, who confer their suffrage upon Mr. Campbell's creed. They hare only to cross the Ohio, and then they are out of one state--and in another. This is the very simile which that gentleman employs to represent the transition employed in regeneration. But let us proceed with the Brooke County Neologism, or New Doctrine."

      I never said nor insinuated that religion was a state. No man of sense can affirm that religion is a state. Few men who have lived in a city could commit a greater blunder than Mr. Brantly has here committed. To say that religion is "a character," as he implies, is intolerable in the 19th century. Of a religious character, and of a religious state, I can have some idea; but to say that religion is "a character," or "a state," may pass in Philadelphia, but in Brooke county we consider ourselves at least three centuries in advance of such a phraseology.

      But to excite the disgust of the children of the clergy a new proposition is framed for me in the words following, to wit: "The only transforming power which it (religion--that is, "character") exerts over [463] mankind, is derived from this external state." The term external is Mr. Brantly's addition for the reason aforesaid. To show (if any person at first glance does not see) the absurdity of Mr. Brantly's religion, viz. "a character," we shall substitute the definition for the term defined, and see how it reads: "The only transforming power which "a character" (i. e. religion) exerts over mankind is derived from a character"!!

      Because I represented the words "pardoned, justified, sanctified, reconciled, adopted, and saved, as terms expressive not of "character," but "state," Mr. Brantly will make a definition for me and for himself. With him religion is a character, and with me he will have it a state. This is rabbinical and Philadelphian enough for our taste. The people of Brooke county have no attribute of character which they call pardoned, adopted, &c. But it seems among the recent importations in Philadelphia they have got a new assortment of characters--pardoned and justified characters. I should like to know the virtue which is designated by pardoned. But we are so far back in the woods, that we must wait till the Philadelphians send us a definition.

      His second period is as gross a calumny as was ever penned:--"Men are brought into this state, or condition, without any previous change in the character of their hearts and minds, through the medium of immersion." O Tempora! O Mores! If this be the Philadelphia morality, we want none of it in Brooke. There never was such an idea expressed by me; nay, the contrary every where appears in the Essay and in all my writings. I contend that a change of heart, resulting from faith, is necessary to give to immersion any efficacy in changing the state of any person whatever. Every other remark made upon this position is baseless when I affirm, that it is a proposition of Mr. Brantly's, put into my mouth. He might as justly have told his readers that I had changed the words of Jesus from "he that believes and is baptized shall be saved," into "he that is baptized shall be saved." If such be the morality of the Philadelphia clergy, what must be the regard for truth among the laity! That I do no injustice to Mr. Brantly I appeal to the extracts and his remarks upon them, and I only ask every candid man to compare the text with the sermon.

      His next extract includes the 7th proposition, and the three next paragraphs, with a part of the fourth. If he had given the whole of the fourth, his remarks upon this proposition would have appeared to all, disingenuous and impertinent. But as it is, we shall give all his remarks upon it:--

      "REMARKS.--Here we are told that the "change of heart?" spoken of in the proposition, "is the result of a change of views." We had always thought that a change of heart in a sinner was the result of the Holy Spirit's acting in conjunction with the Word of God; but it seems we have been in error, and have led others into error; since it now appears that a man has only to change his views, and the change of heart follows as a matter of course. The similes here adduced, prove that our construction of Mr. Campbell's doctrine is correct. Lavinia [464] has only to change her views, and to pass from the state of servitude to that of connubial equality, and she is then in a condition to which poor Maria cannot attain, although her change of feelings and views are as great as that of Lavinia. But we must draw particular attention to the closing sentence of the preceding extract. This sentence contains the marrow of all the foregoing divinity. It is the essence of the whole composition. A man may have his heart changed, in Mr. Campbell's acceptation of the term, and still remain "unpardoned, unjustified, unsanctified, unreconciled, unadopted, and lost to all christian enjoyment," unless he is so fortunate as to obtain immersion. The ancient Greeks and Romans had a notion that a man, after death, could not be conveyed over the Stygian wave unless he had been immersed in earth. For want of the small boon of a little earth upon the body, the soul was destined to roam a hundred years on this side the dark flowing river. Mr. Campbell's philosophy about immersion is quite as unrelenting. He can allow no change of heart competent to bring a man into a pardoned state. This is more than all our Baptist philosophy ever dreamt of. We too love immersion; but if Mr. Campbell is right, we have not loved it half enough. If he be correct in his scheme, we have yet to begin the very rudiments of religion. More favored than ordinary mortals, he has been commissioned to show the world what virtue there is in water. We are now to have a new plantation of christians upon the labor-saving system of water cultivation. Some plants may thrive in this way; but most classes of the vegetable world require a little sunshine, and free air, as well as water. But perhaps, Mr. Campbell, being deeply read in the writings of the early Christians, believes with Tertullian, that water snakes are not so noxious as those which inhabit the arid plains.

      One would think that Mr. Brantly does here impugn the 7th proposition: but unless we supposed that his allusion to the Greeks and Romans is logic, and argument, and scripture, we cannot say that he does more than grin at it. He would seem to take the following position, if there be any pertinency in his allusions and grimaces:--'A man may be pardoned, justified, sanctified, reconciled, adopted, saved, and alive to all christian enjoyment, without baptism.' Of what use, then, is Mr. Brantly's baptism? What a simpleton was Peter, on Mr. B's position, to tell the three thousand believing penitents to save themselves from that untoward generation and to be immersed for the remission of their sins. Why did Ananias, by the command of God, immerse the believing and penitent Saul for remission? Why did the angel tell the pious and prayerful Cornelius to send for Peter to tell him words by which he might be saved? And why did he command him to be immersed after he received the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit? These, and a hundred other incidents, only show how far the Saviour and the Galileans differed from the Philadelphia scribe. Mr. B's "water snakes," "arid plains," and "water cultivation," we refer to him who said when going down into the Jordan, "Thus it becometh us to honor every divine institution." I dare not take any other notice of these remarks. To the second [465] period of these remarks I refer the reader to the first essay on Metaphysical Regeneration.

      The next extract is Proposition 10, with the three following paragraphs, on which Mr. Brantly remarks:--

      "With all Mr. Campbell's professions of fairness and truth, we are compelled to convict him in some of the foregoing statements, of an open deviation from fact. He says, "It is conceded by the most learned -------- Baptists" that Titus iii. and 5. refers to immersion. Now we freely confess that we never read a Baptist expositor who so referred the passage. Dr. Gill expressly denies that it is to be understood of baptism or immersion. These are his words: "By the former (that is, the bath of regeneration) is meant, not the ordinance of water baptism, for that is never expressed by washing; nor is it the cause, or means of regeneration; the cause being the Spirit of God, and the means the word of God. And besides, persons ought to be regenerated before they are baptized; and they may be baptized, and yet not regenerated, as Simon Magus. But regenerating grace is meant, or a being born of the water and of the Spirit; that is, of the grace of the Spirit, comparable to water, for its purity and cleansing virtue." We cannot consider it probable that any Baptist expositor ever yet admitted that the washing of regeneration in the above passage, was to be understood of immersion. We call upon Mr. Campbell to name the learned Baptist, other than himself, who ever yet so received the verse. He has affirmed that there are learned Baptists who so understand it, and the burden of proof must rest upon him. We have proved that Dr. Gill does not so construe it; and we venture to say, in behalf of Booth and Fuller, that they do not so understand it. That Paedobaptists should claim this Scripture for the support of their views, is no way marvellous. The bath of regeneration, in their vocabulary, means simply baptism; and when administered to infants, in their view, it precedes the renewing of the Holy Ghost. Mr. Campbell avails himself of the learning of Wall to show that during the 400 years which succeeded Christ and his Apostles, all Christian writers, without exception, understood John iii. 5. of water baptism."

      That the word regeneration in Titus iii. and 5. refers to immersion, I said, was conceded by the most learned Paidobaptists and Baptists This is "an open deviation from fact," says Mr. Brantly, and excepts Mr. Gill as an expositor--and the only expositor which he does produce, to sustain his "open deviation from fact." For my part, I do not consult Dr. Gill on any question involving a knowledge of the gospel or christian institution. He deals too much in "may be" and "perhaps" for any person to confide in him. He gives sometimes three or more meanings to one of the most literal passages. As for his rabbinical literature, however it may have obtained for him the title of learned, as a sound Greek critic, or interpreter, he ranks not among the second class. But if he did, what is that to this assertion? Mr. Brantly concedes me the Paidobaptist literati, and I have shown that I have all the Baptist literati for the first four hundred years, "not one man excepted." If I had said that I had all the learned Baptist [466] commentators and system-makers with me, Mr. Brantly might have produced his Dr. Gill as a pertinent exception. But I might name all the Baptist writers from Barnabas to Albertus Magnus in the 12th century, in proof that every one who alludes to this passage applies it to immersion, and that all use the term regeneration in this sense. I proved in my debate with Mr. Walker, that all the christians, learned and unlearned, down till 1311, were Baptists as far as immersion is concerned; and concerning all these it is affirmed by the most learned and impartial historian on this subject, that they did "every man, never use the words regeneration, or born again, but they mean baptism." Wall, vol. I. page 24. To all the writers and commentators till 1311, and they were all Baptists, and to all the learned Paidobaptists for the last three hundred years, who quote or allude to the passage, I appeal. To many of our most learned contemporaries, from Archibald M'Clain's times, in Scotland, down to those yet on the stage, as far as my knowledge extends, I can make the same appeal. Dr. Gill is the only exception known to me. What Booth and Fuller may say on this subject I know not; but Mr. Brantly is the first man I have beard place them among the learned.

      Mr. Brantly calls Mr. Wall my "learned prompter:" and says that I "avail myself of the learning of Wall to prove that all christians understood John iii. and 5. of water baptism." What means this? Was he afraid that I should appear to have examined these matters any farther than Mr. Wall? Or did he think that we must know history by intuition? I have, I think, many years ago, quoted from my own reading, almost all these passages, and many more than are found in the Extra. I gave them at this time from Dr. Wall for reasons assigned in the Extra. I again ask, what does he mean by calling Mr. Wall my "learned prompter"? Is not this another proof of the impotency of his logic? Who is his learned prompter?

      Mr. Brantly makes Grotius, whom he calls an Arian, his learned prompter upon Matthew iii. 11. and John iii. 5. The Holy Spirit and fire, is, with him, a "fiery spirit;" and born of water and the Spirit, is a "watery spirit." He follows this "metaphysical," and "learned," and "eccentric Arian," as he calls him, in his watery and fiery spirit!!! Mr. Brantly talks so contemptuously of "water baptism," I would suspect him to be turning Quaker, were it not for positive assurances that he still edits the Star, and preaches for a salary! His Arian friend Grotius and he may amuse themselves with a "watery spirit"' and a "fiery spirit," or a fire and water spirit; but, for our part, we must follow common sense, grammar, and all antiquity too, in supposing that when Jesus said, "You must be born of water and the Spirit," he did not mean "born of the Spirit and of the Spirit," nor of spiritual water, nor of a "watery spirit"--but of water and the Spirit.

      His charge or insinuation that I made Macknight speak on Titus iii. and 5; as I pleased, is perfectly gratuitous, and a violation of the rules of the most common courtesy. Macknight as a critic, and Macknight as a Presbyterian, are very different characters. As a CRITIC [467] he positively avers that "the bath of regeneration means baptism" I gave one of his notes, in which there is a f ill and unequivocal exposition of his views, both theological and critical. And in 'he quotation added by Mr. Brantly does he not aver that Paul in Titus iii. and 5; follows John iii. and 5. in joining the two together, baptism by water and the Spirit! Mr. Brantly makes a note at the bottom of his page to say that what I had put in brackets was my own, and not Macknight's, as if I had wished it to appear to be Macknight's, and not my own: when my putting it in brackets, and pointing it off, too, by inverted commas, made it as plain as our rules of punctuation could make it. Such implications and insinuations are beneath the dignity of any honorable lawyer, and show the nakedness of the land, and the poverty of mind, or of argument, to say nothing of the morality, of a religious opponent.


      AT one time we are represented as extremely fond of new things, and that we affect a peculiar originality of thought: at another time as the followers of some errorists, as vamping up anew old heresies. Of both these crimes does our learned metropolitan accuse us. Now we are willing to avow, that the proclamation of immersion for the remission of sins is a discovery of the Reformers now in the field, and that it was learned by us from the New Testament alone--nay, it forced itself upon us as a conclusion from our own premises. The detection of the foundation of infant sprinkling and of the meaning of christian immersion were both occasioned in the same way. A Presbyterian Doctor of divinity told us twenty years ago, that if we followed up our principles they would oblige us to abandon infant sprinkling. We did not then think so. But our efforts to Establish infant sprinkling upon our own principles, led us to abandon it as a human institution. Long since that time the same principles led us to the discovery, that christian immersion was designed for what we now proclaim it. The same logic which made us Baptists, made us proclaimers of immersion for remission. This is the fact, impugn it who may.

      When first awakened to examine infant baptism, we read the scriptures and the Paidobaptist defences of infant baptism. The more we read, the more we examined these records and arguments, the more we were convinced that infant sprinkling was a human tradition. It was not the Baptist, but the Paidobaptist writers who confirmed our reasonings on the scriptures. Since that time we have read a few Baptist works on that question. And since the discovery of immersion for remission, we have read again, with new eyes, sundry ecclesiastical writers. The results of our recent examinations have astonished us as much as they can astonish any of our readers. [468]

      Since writing the Extra, we have observed, among others, the following very singular and striking passages:--

      George Whitfield, on John iii. and 5, vol. 4. p. 355--says, "Does not this verse urge the absolute necessity of water baptism? Yes: when it may be had. But how God will deal with persons unbaptized, we cannot tell." This is Mr. Clopton's charitable, George Whitfield!

      John Wesley, in his Preservative, p. 146-150--says, "By baptism we enter into covenant with God; an everlasting covenant; are admitted into the church; made members of Christ; made the children of God. By water, as the means, the water of baptism, we are regenerated or born again."

      Matthew Henry. "In baptism," says he, "our names are engraved upon the heart of this Great high Priest. God doth in this ordinance seal and make over to us all the benefits of the death of Christ. Baptism seals the promise of God's being to me a God." Treatise on Baptism, p. 12, 40, 42.

      Abraham Booth. "If in baptism, then, there be an expressive emblem of perfect purification from sin, immersion must be the mode of administration; because nothing short of that represents a total washing. I may here venture to appeal to the common sense of mankind, whether pouring or sprinkling, a little water on the face, or the whole body, be better adapted to excite the idea of an entire cleansing?" Paidobaptism Examined, page 63, Newark Ed. 1805.

      Vitringa. "The ancient christian church from the highest antiquity after the apostolic times, appears generally to have thought that baptism is absolutely necessary for all that would be saved by the grace of Jesus Christ." Observat Sac. Tom. i. 50. ii. c. 6. 9.

      Dr. Owen. "Most of the ancients concluded that baptism was no less necessary unto salvation, than faith or repentance itself." On Justification, c. ii. p. 173.

      But what is not a little astonishing, almost all, or, indeed, all, the reformed churches in their confessions and formulas, acknowledge the same to be their views.

      Confession of Bohemia: "We believe that whatsoever by baptism--is in the outward ceremony signified and witnessed, all that doth the Lord God perform inwardly. That is, he washeth away sin, begetteth a man again, and bestoweth salvation upon him: For the bestowing of these excellent fruits was holy baptism given and granted to the church."

      Confession of Augsburg: "Concerning baptism they teach, that it is necessary to salvation, as a ceremony ordained of Christ: also, by baptism the grace of God is offered."

      Confession of Saxony: "I baptize thee; that is, I do witness that by this dipping thy sins he washed away, and that thou art now received of the true God."

      Confession of Whittenburg: "We believe and confess that baptism is that sea, into the bottom whereof, as the prophet saith, God doth cast all our sins." [469]

      Confession of Helvetia: "To be baptized in the name of Christ, is to be enrolled, entered and received into the covenant and family, and so into the inheritance of the sons of God; that is to say, to be called the sons of God, to be purged also from the filthiness of sins, and to be endued with the manifold grace of God, for to lead a new and innocent life."

      Confession of Sueveland: "As touching baptism, we confess, that it is the font of regeneration, washeth away sins and saveth us. But all these things we do understand, as St. Peter doth interpret them. 1. Pet. iii. 21."

      Westminister Assembly: "Before baptism, the minister is to use some words of instruction--showing, that it is instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ; that it is a seal of the covenant of grace, of our ingrafting into Christ, and of our union with him, of remission of sins, regeneration, adoption, and life eternal."

      Thus it appears, that we have all antiquity and nine-tenths of the reformed creeds on our side of this great question. This, with me, weighs nothing, were it not explicitly declared in the "living and effectual word" of the Author of the christian faith. I use it as a mere argumentum ad hominem, as an argument to them who cry out innovation, and who superstitiously look up to human authority, Our opponents are the innovators, and they are culpable for holding up the promise of remission to the ear, and for breaking it to the heart of the children of human creeds. They are, however, as consistent in this as preachers generally are. They preach one doctrine in their creeds and practise another in their lives. And how few are the preachers of righteousness of whom it may be said:--

"And, strange to tell, they practise what they preach!"

      I must thank Mr. Brantly for permitting his readers to read at much of the Extra as he has quoted. Even the thirty-nine articles, extracted and modified for me by Silas M. Noel, have been useful, I have learned that some of those who never read, nor could be induced to read any thing I wrote, having read those articles, are: now much better disposed to hear us and read our writings than before. Indeed, some have said that these articles, with one or two exceptions, were just what they read and heard from the scriptures.

      An honorable and honest opponent, I will, I must, always respect. But when I see a design to suppress, to garble, or to misrepresent, I am assured that all is not sound in Denmark. Why cannot Mr. Brantly or Mr. Clopton take up some proposition we have laid down and disprove it by argument and testimony? There are twelve propositions in the Extra. We stand pledged to sustain them against all assaults. Why not, then, if they think they can disprove them, make a fair effort? Why appeal to the passions and prejudices of their readers? Why impute to us views which we entertain not--sentiments which we avow not--opinions which we never expressed! We are always ready to give scriptural, and, we think, intelligible and fair arguments, for every position we offer, [470]

      They must see that their present notices and remarks--in short, that their whole course of opposition must beget distrust in their readers, if they think at all, or if they wish them to think upon the subjects, against which they show so much unkind feeling, so much bitterness, and so much cowardice with all. We challenge investigation. To the law and to the testimony we appeal. We feel ourselves secure in the strong holds of scripture and reason. Their feeble and dastardly efforts only increase our confidence, stimulate our energies, and assure us of a final triumph.


      IN examining the manner in which man's original condition and character were changed, we have prepared the way for the consideration of the mode in which his renovation is to be accomplished. God having been forgotten, and self presented to his affections as their supreme object, we have found his noblest powers perverted, and a melancholy train of evil principles introduced. Under some modification, influenced by circumstances or caprice, the desire of self-aggrandizement has reigned in every bosom. The tender infant, just conscious of the presence of surrounding objects, stretches forth his eager hands to seize every thing which meets his eye;--the triumphant victor has wept because he had not more worlds to conquer.

      It is evident that the character of man, while he is in this condition, is not susceptible of any elevation. When God had ceased to be the object of his love, his spiritual relations were no longer the subject of his consideration; and the only distinguishing characteristic of his nature, the power of contemplating things spiritual through material objects, now remains dormant, inactive, and concealed. And since the character becomes elevated in proportion to the worthiness of the object of our affections, seeing that material relations now occupy his attention, and that he is, as regards these, a mere animal, and engrossed with the gratification of self-love; it is entirely impossible for him, however he may excel as an animal, ever to improve in his character as a man. In this situation, to use the language of scripture, "he reviles those things which indeed he does not know; but what things he knows naturally, as an animal void of reason, by these he destroys himself."

      Since, then, man is involved in such circumstances, because he loves himself rather than his Creator, it becomes necessary, as the first great step in his restoration, that God should be reinstated in his affections.

      Man is the slave of love. Real or imaginary excellence compels his esteem. It exerts an uncontrollable power over his faculties, and the most effectual influence over his conduct. Universal as the law of attraction, there lives not the man who can extricate himself from its dominion. No sooner does he view an object which he conceives worthy of his affections, than he is enlisted in a pursuit which is never given up until something that is in reality, or under existing circumstances, supposed to be more eligible, is discovered. [471]

      And it is as impossible for him to love that of which he is ignorant, however deserving it may be, as it is to avoid loving that worthy object with which he is acquainted. He may even be aware of the existence of many things which are in themselves more estimable than those which already engross his attention; but he loves them not, because the examination of their characters and merits being entirely optional with himself, he has never investigated their nature, and remains ignorant of their value.

      These things being so, all that was requisite to accomplish the grand design was that God, the most lovely and adorable object in the universe; the author and the source of all that is great and astonishing, beautiful and charming, sublime and glorious; who combines in himself all the excellencies of all things, should exhibit himself to man; and that man should make himself acquainted with the character of God.

      In our third essay we considered the circumstances which rendered it necessary that God should reveal himself to man in such a way as to be recognized by his senses, and briefly adverted to some of those manifestations. By these it is, that man, leaving the investigation of the perishing objects of time and sense, gradually ascends to the contemplation of divine beauty and infinite perfection. By these it is that God has presented himself to us in so amiable, so beneficent, so endearing a character, that to behold him is to love him--to love him is to be happy. Do we admire the skilful artist, whose exquisite workmanship has elaborated some ingenious piece of mechanism?--Creation declares the glory of God, the firmament shows his handy work, and even in the vestibule of Nature's temple, man is lost in the contemplation of inimitable charms. Is our attention attracted by some sublime prospect--the yawning gulph, the overhanging precipice--the fierce tornado, or the fearful eruption of volcanic flame? Do we wonder at the strength of the elephant or the lion--the swiftness of the antelope or the eagle--the activity of the monkey or the ape? And do we love the faithfulness of the dog, the gentleness of the lamb, and the innocence of the dove? "Behold," says God, "have not my hand made all these things?" Do our bowels yearn towards our parents, those to whom we are immediately indebted for our existence and our support? God presents himself to us as our Father, the Creator, not only of us ourselves, but of those we love. Are we delighted with magnificence, with majesty, with power? Are we pleased with magnanimity, that greatness of soul which can forgive an injury, and return good for evil--which views the poor with the same complacency as the rich? Seated upon the throne of his glory, our Heavenly Father is represented in the administration of the world, to send his rain upon the just and unjust, and to cause his sun to rise on the evil and on the good. "He bowed the heavens also and came down: and darkness was under his feet. And he rode upon a cherub and did fly; yea, he did fly upon the wings of the wind. He made darkness his secret place: his pavilion round about him were dark waters and thick clouds of the skies." In short, would we dearly [472] esteem that friend of our bosom, who, seeing the stroke of death about to descend upon us, should interpose himself as a shield, and willingly give in our stead his own life to destruction? Yet God, in the exhibition of his character, has made mean this, even this, the noblest, the most perfect instance of human affection. "Scarcely for a just man will one die, though for a good man one, perhaps, would even dare to die. But his own love towards us God commended, because we being still sinners, Christ died for us." He gave his Son, his own Son, whom he loved. Unable to display his goodness by any description, we must estimate it by what he gave. "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes on him may not perish, but obtain eternal life." "In this is love," says an Apostle, "not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent forth his Son to be a propitiation for our sins." This is the talisman which is to change hatred into love, to alter the object of man's affection, and to reform and elevate the human character. In the simple and beautiful language of one of the sacred penmen, "We love him because he first loved us."

      He who thus receives into his bosom the love of his Creator, is said to be begotten of God. Having put off the old and put on the new man, who after God is created in righteousness and true holiness, he resembles his Father. The world, it is true, may not know him; but he is not surprized at it, for he remembers that it did not know God manifest in the flesh. Renewed by the Holy Spirit, the image of God is restored to him. Having the same mind he exceedingly stretches himself forward, as an imitator of the Just One, to perform the works which he sees his Father do; whatever is worthy, excellent, or deserving of praise: and reflecting as a mirror, the glory of the Lord is transformed into the same image from glory to glory. As he increases in the knowledge of God, his affections are more and more drawn out after him, his character approaches nearer to perfection; and finally, prepared to enjoy the society and estimate the glories of heaven, he is introduced into that blessed abode where peace, joy, and gladness of heart reign for evermore. "Praise ye the name of the Lord, for his name alone is excellent. Praise God in his sanctuary: praise him in the firmament of his power. Praise him for his mighty acts; praise him according to his excellent greatness. Let every thing that has breath praise the Lord."


      B. W. STONE, the zealous and intelligent Editor of the Christian Messenger, is directing his readers to the ancient order of things. I am pleased to see him, in the September No. come out decidedly for the ancient practice of the Apostles and Apostolic Church; viz. the weekly celebration of the death of Jesus at the Lord's table. I had thought some time ago that he, also, had come out for immersion for the remission of sins; and I am not yet sure that I was mistaken, In the last number, however, there are some sayings that I cannot [473] fully understand in that light. Many of the Christian preachers have come out for immersion for the remission of sins. I was informed the other day, that in the commonwealth of Ohio, alone, there were 72 of those called Christian preachers who proclaim immersion for remission, and only 11 who opposed it.

      In the last Christian Messenger, the editor remarks to a correspondent, that he "will not contend that unbaptized persons are christians in the full sense of that term." Unbaptized persons are, at best, then, only almost, but not altogether christians. Why, then, teach them that they are safe, because the thief on the cross, and all who were saved before there was any institution for remission, were saved without immersion. Would it not be as good logic to say that men may he saved without faith, because infants are saved without faith, as to say that men may in this world enjoy the salvation of God without immersion, because the thief on the cross enjoyed the future salvation without immersion. To his correspondent he further says, page 236.--"I had remarked that we could pray with unimmersed, holy people, and praise, and perform every act of divine worship with such; and that I found nothing in scripture to forbid me to commune with them at the Lord's table. You condemn this sentiment, and contend that christians should not join with unimmersed persons in any act of worship; for in doing so they would be joining with idolatrous worshippers; as all worship, not instituted by God, is idolatry. To my unknown brother, I refer my former number on this subject; hoping that he may yet see, that the best method of reforming our fellow creatures in error, is to wield the powerful arms of truth, love and forbearance towards them."

      If I mistake not, the Apostles were commanded to teach only the immersed to observe and do all things which the Lord commanded. If the Christian Messenger teach the unimmersed to do the things which the Lord commanded, none but the immersed to practise, I should like to have his authority; and, also, to know why he would condemn the Paidobaptist for sprinkling infants.

      "I have found nothing in scripture," he replies, "to forbid me to commune with unbaptized persons at the Lord's table." This might be said of a hundred things which the Christian Messenger would tremble to do. But the question is, By what authority, command or precept, does he commune at the Lord's table with unbaptized persons? It is not enough to say there is no command against it. Is there no command for it? If there be not a command or precedent for it, we can easily find one against it. Because whatever is not commanded by the Lord is human, and all human institutions in religion are will-worship, and, as such, obnoxious to the cause. And never yet could I see the consistency in requiring one person to be immersed before admitted into the kingdom, and receiving another without immersion to the blessings of the kingdom. If this be not to build up with one hand and pull down with the other, I have yet to learn how a person can he guilty of such an inconsistency.

      I trust, as my friend Stone has long been inquiring for the good [474] old way, and calling upon his contemporaries to seek the old path, he will not startle at it when it presents itself to his view so clearly. I know that he leans very much to what he calls "charity," and that he has been long distinguished for charity; but a question may yet arise whether charity, true charity, does not more consist in calling upon men to reform and obey the gospel rather than to flatter them that they may be safe in disobeying God, or in observing and doing such parts of the divine will as they please, or as they please to understand it. If I have at all misapprehended the Christian Messenger, I need not add that it will give me much pleasure, and, no doubt, many others, to perceive that we have misapprehended him.


      LORD JESUS, that thou art the Messiah, the Messenger of Jehovah, thy words, thy works, and the Holy Spirit, thy Advocate, declare and prove. As the son, the only begotten of the Father, as coming from his bosom with pledges of love and mercy, I regard thee. As his great Prophet, his consecrated Priest, and anointed King, and as our Mediator in these relations, I acknowledge thee. Thou camest to seek and save the lost, and thou hast invited sinners to come to thee. I am a sinner, Lord; and as such, I now present myself before thee. Hadst thou not invited and commanded me to come to thee, I dared not to have approached thee, vile and polluted as I am.

      The covenant which thou hast stipulated I approve. A God I want whom I can call my God. A Saviour I need whom I can call my Saviour. A rule of action according to which I can have intercourse with thee engraven on my heart, I desire. A knowledge of thee, which is eternal life, I seek with my whole heart; and, O Lord! remission of my sins, and thy Spirit to comfort me, is what first of all, and most of all, my soul longs for. Into thy family I wish to come, and amongst thy sons and daughters I long to he enrolled. I have heard that thou, the Faithful and True Witness, hast commanded immersion into thy death, as a pledge, and as the means of a sinner's forgiveness and adoption into thy family. Therefore, Lord, at thy command I come, relying upon thy word, and am willing to make thee me Prophet, my Priest, and my King, by a covenant never to be forgotten. I do accede to thy own gracious constitution in all its provisions, and do renounce, every other prophet, priest, and king, but thee alone. I vow to thee, that whither thou goest, or requirest me to go, I will follow; thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God.

      In pledge of this I am now willing, and I come, Lord Jesus, to be buried with thee--to put off the body of the sins of my flesh by an immersion into thy death--to bury the old man in his watery grave as thou hast appointed me. I wish to rise with thee, to walk in a new life, and to ascend in my affections to the place where thine honor dwells. And, Lord, as thou, in anticipation of thy burial and resurrection, wast buried in Jordan, and raised out of it; so I wish to see in this my burial and resurrection with thee an assurance that I will be raised from the earthly grave in the morning of the resurrection. Lord Jesus, thou great Shepherd of the sheep, I die to every lord and saviour but to thee--my confidence is in thy blood. I will be buried with thee, and will hope to rise with thee, not only out of this water, but out of my grave at the last day. I take thee, Lord, upon thy own word; receive me now upon this my vow; and as I give myself up to thee in the obedience of faith, so may I live to thee while life endures. "Now may the God of peace, who brought back from the dead my Lord Jesus the great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting institution, make me fit for every good work to do his will, producing in me what is acceptable in his sight, through Jesus Christ--to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen."

      The above is in extenso, or in detail, what is implied in putting on Christ in christian immersion.
EDITOR. [475]      


      OUR correspondents frequently inform us how much the opposers of reform profit from those who plead for a restoration of the apostolic institutions. While they appear before the people, declaiming against us, they are teaching, not only in substance, but often in our words and phrases, views and sentiments unequivocally extracted from the speeches and writings of the proclaimers of the ancient gospel. We observe the same in some of our editors. A brother scribe in Illinois, who pretends to be ready to proclaim war against us, is among this class. Take the following specimen from the Pioneer, of J. M. Peck, for September last:--

      "Another Baptist brother, of respectable standing in both civil and religious society, in one of the upper counties, writes--

      "You cannot conceive the great need of a good, intelligent, and faithful preacher of the Baptist order, in this county. Such a one, I hope, you will be able to send us soon. Those we have here make strange havoc of the gospel, by an allegorical, spiritualizing method, of which I will give you the following sample:--The subject was the history of the man going from Jerusalem to Jericho, who fell among thieves. This was his subject. The heads were as follows: The falling among thieves, meant the fall of Adam--they stripped him and left him half dead--stripped him of all power to help himself, as half dead means spiritually dead, but naturally alive. The Levite that passed by, meant the ceremonial law, which could do no good--the priest meant the moral law, and it could not give life. The good Samaritan meant Christ, who could relieve. He took the wounded man up and poured in the oil and wine, the grace of God--put him on his own beast, his own gospel platform--took him to an inn, the church--gave the host two pence, the Old and New Testaments--and promised to reward him. This reward was to be in another world, &c."

      "Our correspondent adds--

      "This kind of preaching is common in this part of the country. The same speaker said that it was one of the strongest evidences of the christian religion for two men from different states to meet and speak the same things."

      "Remarks--Our worthy brother ought not to express much surprize at so ingenious a discourse as he has represented above. No doubt the brother who preached it, really and honestly thought he was preaching the gospel, and probably did throw out many truths; but the learned Dr. Gill was ahead of him in the exposition and application of that parable. He, and other learned men before him, have gravely written such trifling trash, and preached it too! We presume the brother who preached it, has never read these authors; but he has heart some one preach the same thing before, and he, another, and so on, till it may be traced up to its origin. Now we will seriously and affectionately tell our preaching brethren, that this method of expounding scripture is not preaching the gospel--that God never called them to such solemn trifling--and that were they to receive a letter from a friend and treat it in the same manner some do the lively oracles, they would justly deserve rebuke. This spiritual, figurative, or, more properly, allegorical mode of preaching, was invented in the third century, by one Origen, a Presbyter of Alexandria, a man of great abilities; but who, by interpreting the Scriptures according to the Platonic philosophy, as it was called, propagated more erroneous opinions than any other man of that period. Preachers should he taught that the Bible is God's revealed word to men--that it is written in human language, and that the very same rules of interpretation should be followed, as would be in interpreting the contents of a letter from a friend, or in understanding any book. A parable should be interpreted as a parable, and in most cases the Saviour himself has left the key to unlock the parables he spoke. When we expound Scripture, it is not enough for us to preach truth and not error. It must be the truth, expressed in [476] the passage. It must be that particular truth which the speaker or writer received and communicated from the Divine Spirit at the time he spoke or wrote. If our Divine Lord, in the parable of the good Samaritan, meant and did teach the whole system of divine truth, in the fall of man--his impotent state, and the gospel method of salvation, in dark and enigmatical language, and if the disciples understood him thus, then the brother who preached, Dr. Gill who wrote, and the whole tribe of allegorizers are right. But if Jesus Christ meant no such thing at the time, and the disciples did not understand him as preaching in this manner, then they are all wrong, and guilty of a most shocking perversion of God's holy word. We have dwelt longer, and expressed ourselves in stronger language on this subject, than our readers, perhaps, deem necessary. But we have the mortifying confession to make, that in our early ministry we were alike guilty of this abuse of Scripture; and then ignorantly supposed that such a method of preaching was not only justifiable, but commendable. We had not then read Gill on the passage; but we had heard an ingenious discourse in the same form; it worked on our mind until finally it was preached. But we really feel thankful that for many years we have been cured of this disease, and have felt that the word of God is too sacred for such trifling.

      "We again affectionately urge upon our brethren in the ministry to quit such an unwarrantable use of Scripture; to study for the meaning of any particular passage by its connexion and the general scope of the subject; to learn the proper distinction between parables, figures of speech, and plain sentences; and particularly to become deeply and extensively acquainted with the word of God, or any particular part of it, before they attempt to teach it to others."
Edit. Pioneer.      

      Well said, brother J. M. Peck! Why, then, do you choose to appear against us formally and ostensibly? No doubt you have reasons for it; but will the Judge of the secrets of all hearts, approve your reasons? A hint is all that I intend. You may justify yourself before men; but you ought to know that not he who commends himself, but he whom the Lord commends, will at last be approved. Dr. Gill, it will be remembered, was a very learned man--very orthodox, an able expositor and critic, and of great authority with Dr. Brantly. But Doctor Peck, a very Regular Baptist, and a warm opposer of the Reformation because, perhaps, he was not the first who thought of it, takes the liberty to dissent from a metropolitan brother, and to place his favorite authority among the mystics and spiritual dreamers

From the Bracken (Kentucky) Minutes.

      "The church at May's Lick having divided, and each party presented a letter to the Association, claiming to be the original church--

      "Resolved, That the majority be recognized as such; the minority having embraced a system of things called Reformation, thereby departing from the principles of the United Baptists in Kentucky and of the Association.

      "Two letters also having been received from the church at Bethel, both claiming to be the original church; and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Association; that the majority of the church have departed from the original principles of the United Baptists--

      "Resolved, therefore, That the minority be recognized as the church.

      "Received two communications from what was formerly called the North District Association, showing that a separation has taken place in that body, produced, as we believe, principally by the common evil that is destroying the Baptist society-- [477]

      "Resolved, therefore, That the ten churches which met at Goshen meeting house, on the 4th Saturday in June, 1830, who manifestly stand opposed to the innovations of Mr. Campbell, and who are disposed to maintain original principles, as believed and practised by our society, be recognized as North District Association, and that our correspondence be continued with them as heretofore."

Extract from the Circular Letter.

      "Dear Brethren--In addressing you at this time, we lament to have to say, that a dark and gloomy cloud overspreads our horizon, unequalled since the establishment of the Baptist society in Kentucky. Associations and churches are dividing, and of course peace and harmony have departed. Our meeting has, in some respects, been unpleasant, several of our churches having separated, and each party presenting their claim to be the original church; also, a separation in the North District Association, both contending to be the Association."--

      "The manner in which they speak concerning the divine influence of the Spirit on the human heart; the making baptism the regenerating act, and the actual remission of sins to the believer in baptism; concerning experimental religion; the church being in Babylon, &c. is such that we confess, if it be the gospel of Christ, and the way the Lord brings sinners to the knowledge of the truth, we have it yet to learn. This system being extensively propagated by the Bethany Editor, and by many active and able advocates, tending to produce a revolution in our churches, called forth the efforts that our preachers and brethren have been compelled to use, to maintain, not mere matters of opinion indifferent in themselves, but the grand fundamental truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and to resist the inroads making amongst us. And we want it to be distinctly understood, that so far as we know, none of the preachers or churches that are endeavoring to maintain original principles, are contending for any thing but what is common among the Baptists."

      The opposers of reform, it seems, simply contend for "what is common among the Baptists." A remark which I made in May last, to the Moderator of the Bracken Association, concerning the liberality of the reforming brethren, and concerning his own ability and that of another member of said Association, to prevent divisions by espousing the cause of reform, which he had long ago acknowledged to be necessary among the Baptists--was converted by him, as I am well informed, into a bribe offered to bring him over! He was wont to complain to me on sundry occasions of the want of liberality in the Baptists to their preachers, and expressed his fears that my remarks in the Christian Baptist, on the hireling system, would dry up the last percolations of liberality towards preachers. I assured him, on the occasion alluded to, that these fears were groundless; and as proof, remarked that I was informed that, in proportion as the brethren embraced the principles of reformation, they were distinguished for their acts of liberality.

      This conversation has been reported to others as a temptation offered to bring over the Bracken Moderator! And the disinterested preacher proves his devotion to "what is common among the Baptists" by telling how manfully he resisted the temptation. I fear his perseverance to the end, if he manifest no more strength in resisting temptation than he evinced on that occasion. I would be sorry to say that the price offered by me was too low, and that I was outbid by the opponents of reform. But one thing I can say, that I have [478] incomparably more reason to convert his advocating "the things that be" among the Baptists because of the loaves and fishes, than he had to convert my remarks into a bribe, and to boast of his strength in resisting temptation. But with all his obliquities and tergiversations, I would be sorry to think, and much more to say, that he regards only the quid pro quo, or the emolument which may accrue from his ministrations. I was aware that if William Vaughn and Walter Warder had not opposed reformation, that all the disciples, or nearly all, in the Bracken Association, would have received the apostolic institutions. But to a higher tribunal than the Bracken Association have they and we to give account of our actions.

      We have given the above extracts from the Minutes to show with what a high and overbearing hand they managed matters in their late meeting. It is true they have not gone so far as some others; for in one place in Tennessee, TWO persons were declared "the church," against one hundred and twenty-eight!!

      We have yet to learn a new lesson if the christians and citizens of Kentucky and the West are held in bondage to human traditions by such men and such measures as are now in repute among the advocates of "what is common among the Baptists." If the advocates of reform go forth in the love of the truth, and avail themselves of the arguments which the Scriptures and these proceedings furnish, their opponents are helping them forward, unintentionally, we presume, more than we ever could have expected. When such men as Walter Warder and William Vaughn can act such a part, what shall we think of the system! How unchristian the scheme which compels its advocates to such measures as inter the gentleman and the christian in the Pope and the Inquisitor.


      "R. B. SEMPLE, in the Millennial Harbinger, No. 8, proposes to you the following inquiry:--'What is your view of the natural state of man? Do you believe him to be, according to your interpretation of the Scriptures, in a state of total depravity?' I have thought the following Scripture throws some light upon that question. Mark x. 14. Christ says, 'Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of God.' Does this look like depravity, either whole or partial? It appears that Christ was offended at the disciples for their interference, and rebuked them for it. The disciples, no doubt, thought they were not fit subjects, inasmuch as they could not be saved on the gospel plan--by faith and obedience. But I think Christ clearly conveys the idea that they were already fit subjects of the kingdom without any preparation or change.
W. S.      

      "P. S. Excuse a young disciple for thus writing to you. I have just been changed from a Deist, and may not have taken proper views.

      "I acknowledge the testimony brought forward by you (in the debate with Owen) to have been instrumental in my conversion; and I acknowledge the Proclamation of the ancient gospel [by brother A. Raines] to have been also instrumental in the glorious change from darkness to light."

      [This young brother in the kingdom will do well to observe that the Saviour does not say the kingdom of God is composed of little children, but of those that are like [479] them. Docility, humility, and harmlessness are the characteristics of little children. It is very obvious from these words, that the Saviour would not have thus expressed himself had he concurred in opinion with those who teach that the infant is as totally depraved as the adult, or as the most flagitious sinner. "Of such" characters, (innocent, docile, and humble) is the kingdom of Messiah composed, and in the hale and undegenerate days of christianity, as all antiquity avouches, multitudes of little children rejoiced in their adoption into God's family. But that infants, as such, are fit subjects of Messiah's kingdom, neither Jesus nor his Apostles any where teach. For unless born of water and the Spirit into his kingdom they cannot come. With regard to the future and eternal kingdom, as respects infants, the Scriptures teach not that either faith or immersion is necessary. For their salvation the intervention of the second Adam is all-sufficient. For as by the disobedience of one Adam, the many who sinned not as Adam did, by transgressing a positive law, were constituted sinners as respects death; so by the obedience of one Adam, the same many are constituted righteous as respects life. But this only by the way. That the docility and humility of infancy is that alluded to in the passage, is apparent from other passages as well as from the phraseology itself For 'unless you be converted and become (humble) as little children, you cannot enter this kingdom."]



      Thomas Miles, Buckingham Court-House, Va. paid vol. 1 for W Lewis, W C Moseley, G Mosely D Geurrant, Jun. T Cobbs: J Austin, J Jones, D Geurrant, Sen. F D Wood, G Chambers, T M'Craw, W N Patterson, T W Spurlock, L Davidson, H C Hill, Robert Bolling, J Simmons, R J Gillespie, W Ransom, M W M'Craw, J T Watkins, R S Gray, W H Howard, and himself. J Brewster, Salt Creek, Ohio, paid for vol. 1. P B Pendleton, Stevensville, Va. paid vol 1 for himself, It Bagley, C Hill, C B Fleet, W Campbell, J Duval, and R Lipscomb. T G Hewitt, Chester Court-House, S. C. paid for vol. I. W Churchill, Deerfield, 0hio, paid vol. 1 for H Rogers, J Hartzell, and P Hartzell; also, for W Richardson and J Miller of Springfield, and B Austin, Warren, 1 dollar; also, for E Ward, Randolf. Elder J Favor, jun, Athens. Ala. paid vol. 1 for himself, and J Favor, Sen. J Pool, Minerva, Ohio, paid vol. 1 for C Welty, J Shriver, A Taber, F Unketer, and J Haines. J Prewitt, Fayette, Mo. paid vol. 1 for T A Smith, H L Boon, W Hughes, J Tassey, and W J Wilson. J. Cahoon. Dover. O. paid vol. 1 for D Hamblin. J Dougherty, Steubenville. paid for vol. 1 A E Baker, Mansfield, New York, paid for vol 1. P. Noland, Rodney, Mi. paid vol. 1 for himself and B P Sanders. J Bryan, Hopkinsville, Ky. paid vol. 1 for S Wilkinson, R Rowland, Cammaek & Williams, M Wilson, and M Gray. O Clapp, Esq. Mentor, Ohio, paid vol. 1 for S Parmley, E Champney, and L Forbes. W Hayden, Austintown, Ohio, paid vol. 1 for D Loveland. Nath. Burrus, Eakton, Ky. paid vol. I for R B Knight, J S Anderson, W Greenfield, R Marcher, and J W Lumsden. B Hicks, Lexington, Ky. paid vol. 1 for B Scott and A Smith. E Worthen, Cynthiana, Ks. paid vol 1 for P Wherrit, D Mumphrey, N White, E Mason, and N M'Farland. J W Eastin, Lancaster, Ky. paid vol. 1 for himself: W Dupree, Hazle Green, Ala. paid vol. 1 for himself and A Root. D Hughes, Old Court-house, Miss. paid vol. 1 for W Bradshaw of New Orleans, A Brown and J Speed of Old Court House. J D Barker, Maysville, Ky. paid vol. 1 for J G Bacon. J B Yarnall, Milesburg. Pa. paid vols. 1 and 2 for himself. Dr. Afflick, Barnesville, Ohio, paid vol. 1 for himself. C. Sawyer, Reesville, New York. paid vol. 1 for himself. T Bullock, Versailles, Kentucky, paid volume 1 for James Sullivan, J B Jessee, W Peters, S Ware, and C Bacon W Z Thompson, Doneraile, Ky. paid vol 1 for James Wood. John Runyan, M. Stone, and James Henderson. W Bruce, Bruceville, Ind, paid vol. 1 for J P Cox. [480]

      1 The Rev. Mr. F. was mistaken. [443]
      2 Whether of the clergy or laity, I know not; and when uninformed, in these minutes I call all brethren. [445]
      3 Appendix to Fuller's Gospel, worthy of all acceptation. p. 204. [454]
      4 On Indwelling Sin. chap. iii. [454]


[The Millennial Harbinger, 1 (October, 1830): 433-480.]

[Table of Contents]
[Previous] [Next]
Alexander Campbell, ed.
The Millennial Harbinger, Vol. I, No. X (1830)

Back to Alexander Campbell Page
Back to Restoration Movement Texts Page