THE MILLENNIAL HARBINGER.

No. 1. BETHANY, VIRGINIA: MONDAY, JANUARY 3, 1831. Vol. II.

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.

      THE first thought of the Almighty Maker of this stupendous universe, in reference to this system, was the ultimate and ineffable glory and bliss of his rational offspring. When creation is contemplated in accordance with the character of its Great Architect, this idea suggests itself to the mind. The most august palace ever reared by human hands, was for the residence of him who designed it. His splendid and happy inhabitation was the first thought in the designer; and, in subordination to this, was the whole scheme originated and conducted. That which was first in the design is, however, always last in the execution. For although the Prince first thought of his magnificent abode in the castle which he erected, it was not till every thing pertaining to its perfect completion was accomplished, that he made it the mansion of his glory. The painter's last touch precedes the entrance of the illustrious resident. The first thought is the end, and the first act the beginning of all things.

      Before the real temple of Jehovah will be perfected and the city of the Great King ready for his reception, the scaffolding must be consumed. But the Most High God dwells not in temples made by human hands. He builds a temple for himself. And that temple will be the purified and glorified spirits of the saints. They are the materials of God's own house. "I will dwell among them and walk in them," says the Almighty. But all the saints shall be placed as stones in this heavenly temple before its gates are opened, before the New Jerusalem descends from the present heaven, and becomes the new and eternal mansion of Nature's Immortal King. Hence the general conflagration of the scaffolding of the works of nature and of grace is, in the visions of future things, to precede the first note of the eternal song to him who will inhabit thenceforth the new praises of eternity. The material systems are but the scaffoldings to the different stories of the heavenly temple of many mansions. As respects our race it is nature first, grace second, and glory third and last of all. When all the lumber of seven thousand years shall have been consumed, and the dome of glory everlasting. Perfected, the first thought of the [1] Great Contriver shall be intelligibly expressed to the universe of glorified reason. God, all in all, is the chorus of the eternal song. The tongues which sing it not shall be eternal mutes. Every opposing mouth shall be stopped, when the great consummation vindicates the plan and progress of the supreme government of all systems. Let us, then, kiss the Son, be silent, and adore.

      Man was made in the image of God. His little creations are imitations of the Great Creator. We form designs and attempt their accomplishment. Our first thought is the end of our efforts; and if we live to perfect our plans, we do no more than give expression to the first idea. The volume cannot be read till the last word is written; but the reading of it is always in the intention of the writer. The effect to be produced is the ultimatum in his intention who writes a book. He thinks that he may write, and writes that it may be read; but the reading is solicited for the end proposed to himself.

      When our bodies are immersed in water and our souls into the Holy Spirit, our plans are all religious. If we value intelligence, it is for its purifying tendencies; if we value purity, it is for its blissful termination. Bliss is our goal--intelligence and purity is the racecourse.

      Human happiness is our end and aim in all our editorial labors. But as in the scheme of Heaven wickedness must be punished, and the wicked afflicted; so in the most benevolent designs those who oppose the way of righteousness must be chastised, were it only by the exposure of their schemes.

      We still flatter ourselves that we shall have less occasion for the invective, and more room for the developement of the renovating truth. It is always, however, difficult to remove the rubbish without raising the dust; and the Babel repairers have always obstructed the rebuilding of the Lord's city and his earthly temple. But as the demolition of Mystery Babylon keeps pace with the restoration of Jerusalem which is from above, our opponents will be much engaged in repairing the breaches in their own walls, they will have less time to annoy us. Sanballat and his deacon Tobias, are busied much in their own affairs; for in their own camp discord has arisen.

      We shall have little occasion to reason with our opponents; for the reasoning part of them are either silenced or convinced that they were premature in their opposition. And from the last advices it seems that those who are employed to oppose us have received a charge not to presume to reason with us. In this work we can neither rival nor imitate them; for this our cause requires not, and our King forbids.

      Kind nature has given, as Anacreon saith, to each animal a defensive weapon, from which it has withholden an offensive one. Timidity is to the sheep what horns are to the goat; the swiftness of foot of the hare is its shield against the teeth of the dog; to the lion she has given teeth and paws; to the ox, horns; to the horse, his hoof; and to the wild cat, its musk. Each, when attacked, relies for protection upon its natural armor of defence. Truth has argument; and error, [2] vituperation and anathema for its defence. The only legitimate defence of truth is argument; and while our opposers rely upon slanders, reproaches, and anathemas, we must rely upon the records of truth, and that reason which is the strength of man.

      Reason, we repeat, is the strength and dignity of man. He who has to employ another weapon in his own defence, degrades himself as well as his cause. Cannons are the last reason of kings, it is said; but this is an abuse of speech. Brutal force might as justly be called the eloquence of a highwayman. The anathema of a clerical council and the denunciations of a mercenary press are the last reasons of errorists: but these, like cannon balls, are not addressed to the understanding, nor the conscience; but to the animal fears of men.

      The press is as venal as the pulpit, when error is to be propagated; and when passion and pride are to be gratified, a falsehood or a malediction is more suitable than the Sermon upon the Mount. Satan's kingdom has been built up by lies, as uniformly as that of the Messiah by truth. In the controversy about the body of Moses, Michael reasoned, but did not slander nor revile: while Satan reviled and did not reason. Ever since error was believed among men, it has been sustained by the same means by which it was first introduced.

      By some strange fatality the opposers of reform have always defeated themselves. It is true they formerly succeeded in keeping a part of their kingdom from an apostacy from error. Those who succeeded in opposing Luther, succeeded in keeping up the superstitions of popery; and the children of them who opposed him are now inheriting their fathers' errors. In this way their gain was the loss and ruin of their own posterity. What they lost of their kingdom was little in comparison of what they lost in their own persons and families. In every war against the New Testament the loss is loss, the gain is loss, and every victory is a defeat. Thus error always defeats itself.

      Men are never more deceived than in their calculations upon success in opposing reformation principles. Even after their battles are wisely planned, their preliminary schemes successful, and victory in sight, the trophies often recede from the eye, and the crown from the touch of the confident aspirant. No doubt that Herod felt himself secured in his throne, and obtained a quietus to his fears after the slaughter of the infants in Bethlehem. But he knew not that the infant whose death alone he meditated was sleeping securely in Egypt.

      When the chief priests, at the head of an exasperated populace, sustained by a Roman governor, had crucified the Prince of Life, they rejoiced that victory was won, and their lordship over the people retained in spite of the wonderful revolutionist. But transient was their joy, and short-lived their exultations! The dead Jesus is found instructing his disciples to wage a more successful war against the rulers of the darkness of this world. The Apostles alarm the Sanhedrim by the thousands who heard them gladly, and they began to [3] machinate anew against these propagators of what they called the odious heresy. The ringleaders, Peter and John, are thrust into prison. The heretics secured, the priesthood again exult. Their joy, however, is soon turned into sorrow. To-morrow morning the prisoners are speaking to the people, and the people still hear them gladly. Every scheme to suppress, and every victory which the enemies of the ancient gospel imagined they obtained against it, only furthered its progress and gave it the ascendant over its rival systems. Even the martyrdom of Stephen, the dispersion of the great congregation which was in Jerusalem, and the fierce opposition of Saul of Tarsus, for a time--all conspired to give momentum and celerity to the march of reformation.

      Every effort to reform has been opposed by those whose professions ought to have placed them in the van of the preachers of righteousness. But experience has proved that those in power with the people are always afraid of revolutions. There were those at home as well as those abroad who opposed the American Revolution. Often was the contest represented as very doubtful, and sometimes thought to be almost suppressed; but, like a smothered fire, it broke out again with all conquering power. The enemies of liberty and equal rights in the old country, speaking through their representatives in Parliament, often said, "A few more ships of the line, and a regiment or two more despatched to the colonies, and the rebels are vanquished." They raised new armaments, and equipped new ships, and sung, "Down with the insurgents!' but all in vain. The rights of man triumphed, and will triumph again!

      Luther's Reformation was often represented as expiring in agonies. Still it lived and progressed. The councils of the Pope and his Car. Cardinals were held often and at short intervals. The lesser and the greater excommunications were threatened, and relied upon. But what did they avail? The "bull" of excommunication is issued to gore Luther and his friends; but what of that? The very instant the councils had done all that they could, the cause began to triumph.

      Even yet the enemies of reform rely upon such measures; and because some of the reformers have suffered the greater excommunication from the hands of the general union councils de propaganda fide, the Luminary of the anti-reformists proclaims the speedy desolations of New Testamentism in Kentucky. A few months are allowed for the funeral obsequies, and the days of mourning for the reformers shall be ended.

      But as soon will the Baptist Chronicle and its friends prevent the rising of the sun, as suppress the progress of reform in this commonwealth. There is a redeeming principle in this community which no man nor set of men can impede. Since my last visit to this country the conquests of the spirit of inquiry and research, every where apparent, and the progress of many great minds in the knowledge of the christian institution, far surpass any thing I had learned from the most flattering communications. The immense congregations which [4] we meet in every town and village, as well as in the country, which no inclemency of weather nor unpleasantness of the roads prevents, with the crowds of inquirers flocking to the hospitable firesides of the friends of reform, constitute one of the signs of the times here, which no perversity of mind can misinterpret.

      The chain of Xerxes did as much fetter the sea, as the Franklin Decrees can restrain the inquisitiveness which is every where abroad. The minds of the Kentucky reformers have done as much homage to the Frankfort triumvirate as Mount Athos did to that vain and haughty monarch, who presumed to command it into obeisance. Some men are slow to learn, even in the school of experience, or they would ere now have learned that the human mind cannot be restrained by prohibitions, nor made to think per orders of those in power.

      This volume must have some allusions to the year in which it is written, and carry with it the internal marks of the year 1831. Our Prospectus will not be lost sight of, nor the pressing topics of the day. Free discussion and a just regard to the views of those who oppose reform, shall continue to characterize our pages. But the great need of reformation, and the leading principles of that reformation of life, and restoration of the ancient order of things for which our pen has hitherto plead, shall be the burthen of this volume.

      The number of our readers still continues to increase, and every week informs us of some new accessions to the cause we plead. Its advocates, public and private, have not only increased in number, but in strength, during the last year. If the full tendency of the principles we propound be not fully carried out into practice, the reason is, the obstacles thrown in our way by those who oppose us. They unjustly accuse us of the delays of which themselves are the cause.

      We promise only a continuation of our efforts. We always do the best our circumstances will permit. If we do better it will be because the surrounding circumstances are improved. The cause is not ours--its converts are not ours. We are both the Lord's. To him, then, whom we have vowed to glorify; we look for success, and on him alone we rely. We cannot but speak and write the things which we know. When we have done our best, we are but unprofitable servants. But we have an able Commander on whose power and mercy we repose. We would always bear in mind that to him alone we are accountable, and that all we should wish to achieve is, that we may be good steward, of his manifold favors vouchsafed to us. Having emancipated us from the slavery of human traditions, we cannot cease to pray and labor for the emancipation of our fellowmen from a yoke which neither they nor we can wear with ease to ourselves, with advantage to man, nor with glory to him who said, "If you continue in my word, then are you my true disciples; and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

EDITOR.

Danville, Ky. November 29, 1830. [5]

      THAT all men are sinners is confessed by all who admit the truth of the christian religion. That no person to whom the gospel is preached, who is capable of hearing and believing it, can be saved with an eternal salvation, unless pardoned before death, is admitted by all Protestants. From these two propositions it is conceded that during the continuance of this life, sometime or other, remission of sins is granted to all the saved.

      That which is granted and received in this life, must be granted and received at some given time; and, consequently, there is a moment before and a moment after the favor is obtained. That which is bestowed and received at any moment of time, must, for some reason which did not exist before, be bestowed and received at that moment of time: for to suppose that any thing is granted without any reason, is to make it an unreasonable grant on the part of the donor; and to suppose that the reason of an act existed before, and not at the instant in which it is done, is to suppose that an act is done without a reason; and this again would make it an unreasonable act. From which it follows, that the reason, or consideration from which remission is bestowed, must immediately precede or accompany the act of remission.

      That this reason, or consideration of forgiveness, must be something done by the subject of remission, is admitted by all Protestants of every name. Some say the agent is active--others say he is passive in the doing of it; but all agree that something must be done: for that no person is pardoned while asleep, or in a state of mental and corporeal inactivity, is, as far as I know, universally conceded. Remission, then, is consequent upon some act of the subject. So far we reason upon the principles and concessions of at least the Protestant world.

      All acts are acts of obedience or acts of disobedience; and as no person will claim remission for an act of disobedience, it must follow that the act on which remission is consequent is an act of obedience. But there can be no obedience where there is no law: for where no law is, no transgression is; and wherever there can be no transgression, there can be no obedience. If, then, the act on which remission is consequent, be an act of obedience; and if there can be no obedience where there is no command, it follows that in the gospel there must be some command through obedience to which the gospel is obeyed and remission obtained. A command concerning remission, obedience to which secures the blessing of pardon, is, then, essential to the character of the gospel.

      A question here arises: Who now forgives sins? In answering this question we have the concessions of christendom--Jesus is now [6] the person who forgives sins. God has granted to him this power. He has exalted him a Prince and a Saviour to bestow reformation and forgiveness of sins. What he does, it is true, God does. But God having made him Lawgiver, Governor, and Judge of men, it is Jesus the Saviour, who, while on earth, had power to forgive sins, since his exaltation to universal dominion, is alone possessed of this power. He has all judgment committed to him, is ordained of God the Judge of the living anal the dead, and is exalted to confer remission on those who submit to his government, as well as to punish the disobedient. Jesus is now Lord of all, placed on the throne of the Universe; angels, authorities, principalities, and powers are subjected to him. His exaltation to this supreme authority, honor, and glory, was consequent upon his humiliation unto death. Because he humbled himself, God has exalted him, and sworn, that "to him every knee shall bow and every tongue confess." This exaltation and coronation as Lord of all, followed upon his ascension to heaven; since which time it follows, that a new economy, or arrangement in the Universe, has commenced. No man can now come to God, or obtain pardon and life, but by him, as the way and the life. He is "the way new and living." From these scripture premises, so generally understood and regarded, it follows, that if Jesus forgives sins, and if forgiveness be consequent upon some act of obedience, that command or act upon which it is consequent, must be a command issuing from him as invested with all this authority.

      These premises being all conceded to us, (and if they were not, they are all capable of unequivocal proof;) it follows that the command concerning remission must be one emanating from Jesus as Lord, or as having "all authority in heaven and in earth," and that the act of obedience, on which remission is consequent, is an act of obedience, or submission to that command, whatever it may be.

      If Jesus as Lord must be obeyed, Jesus must issue a command as Lord, which command must be a positive one, because one recognizing his sovereign authority, and for the purpose of bringing men under his government. No act commanded by Moses, by John, or by any messenger, prophet, priest, or king, can constitute this act; for if emanating from them as God's servants, it could not be an act of obedience to Jesus as God's Son. Jesus is a Son over his own house. No moral or religious duty enjoined before the coronation of Jesus, could be an act of obedience to him as Lord. Faith as a principle of action, prayer and praise as acts of worship, were enjoined by many of God's servants before "Jesus was made Lord and Christ." None of these, then, can, as such, he an act of obedience to Jesus as Lord. Circumcision, nor sacrifice, fasting, nor penance, nor the simple act of immersion in water, as can be this act. If he have ordained any act which, in whole or in part, was enjoined by any of God's servants, it must be presented in a form or meaning essentially new, so as to make it an act of obedience to him. I need scarcely state here, that in anticipation of this his authority and exaltation in heaven, he issued an order of this import. He commanded that in [7] making disciples to him, they should be immersed into the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Obedience to such a command, or submission to such an institution, recognizes such various considerations as to make it a new act of obedience, as certainly as immersing a person believing Jesus to be the Lord, into such a name, is a new thing under the sun. He prefaced this command with an assurance that all authority in heaven and in earth was given to him. But he forbade the performance of any act of this commission until after his exaltation--until he was made and crowned Lord of all--until he sent them power from the throne, and had received the promised lordship over the Spirit: for Jesus is "Lord of the Spirit." This command, then, was his command as "Lord and Christ." Obedience to it is obedience to him as Lord. Now if Jesus forgives sins--if there be a time in which he forgives them--if there be a reason for forgiving them at one moment which did not exist prior to that moment--if that reason be an act of submission or obedience to him as Lord--if the subject of remission be not, at the instant of remission, a rebel--if an act of obedience to Jesus, as Lord, must be an act of obedience to a positive command issuing from him, and not from any servant of God--if he commanded immersion into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in the orders for converting men to him, as a positive act of obedience to him, as having power to forgive; then it follows, that in obeying the first command of Jesus--in submitting to the first act of reformation--in being immersed by his authority into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, our former sins are blotted out, which was the point to be proved from other premises than from the express sayings of his Apostles concerning remission. If, then, there had not been a single promise of remission connected with immersion, in all the New Testament, it is fairly to be learned from the concessions of christians and from the government of Jesus and the principles thereof, that remission of sins is obtained through faith in the blood of Jesus, by immersion. This argument is submitted to those who rely upon reason rather than upon authority.

EDITOR.

DEAR SIR,

      MY continual engagements have heretofore prevented my accomplishing my first intention of offering some remarks on some of the leading topics on which there is so wide a difference of views between you and myself. I have little leisure, and subjects of this sort require much to do them justice. Finding, however, so many able pens employed in defence of the truths I have so long held dear, I shall content myself with saying much less than I had at first designed.

      I am no controversialist as my friends can testify. Neither from the pulpit or press have I been fond of disputation. A forty years' ministry have found me almost constantly laboring to establish principles about which the leading christian sects in the United States do [8] not essentially differ. I have been testifying to all sorts of people, "repentance towards God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ," and that christians should bring forth fruits meet for repentance. I said but little upon baptism; or, however, but few labored discourses, because I thought it so plainly laid down in the Bible, or rather New Testament, as the duty of believers, that little need be said. As a Calvinist I preached clearly and distinctly free and sovereign grace in the salvation of a sinner. The mysterious doctrines of predestination and election I touched but rarely, because I saw them but rarely touched in the Scriptures. Yet as they were there, however mysterious, I believed them and preached them, and still believe them and preach them, giving them their proportional weight compared with other doctrines, such as I thought I saw in the Scriptures. Experimental and practical divinity have been my ordinary themes, and these were so because I saw that they were the ordinary themes of Christ and his Apostles, as well as Moses and the Prophets.--Nothing but an assault upon these vital principles could induce me to enter the field of controversy. I shall therefore be as concise as possible, and shall withdraw as soon as my conscience tells me I have faithfully testified to the truth.

      There are a few things which I consider vital principles, on some of which, in my estimation, you are fundamentally erroneous.--The first which I shall name, is the Scriptures of Truth. He that has the Bible wrong, can furnish no proof of having any thing right. This is the standard of godliness. If this be deranged, every thing measured by it must he uncertain. Indeed, it is not only important to have this standard just as God designed it, but that the minds of all should be settled and at rest respecting it. Now, sir, to me it appears that your writings have denied material parts of the Scriptures, and have so altered, by your translation, the other parts, as greatly to unsettle the minds of many on this very important subject. In a sermon of yours, said to be delivered before the Redstone Association, Sept. 1816, and printed; you say, page 15, "From what has been said, it follows that there is an essential difference betwixt the Law and Gospel--the old Testament and the New." In a note made upon this assertion, you say, "There are not a few professors of christianity who suppose themselves under equal obligations to obey Moses, or any other Prophet, as Christ and his Apostles; nor can they see any reason why the New Testament should be preferred to the Old." And in a long note, with your usual ingenuity, you advance arguments to prove it, i. e. to prove that there is an essential difference betwixt the Old Testament and the New. Now against this sentiment I must beg leave to enter my most solemn protest. I aver that the Old and the New Testaments are essentially the same as to obligation, and stand in the same relation to each other and to us, as different parts of the New Testament do to each other. Some parts of the Old Testament have been declared in the New Testament as abrogated; and many others, being obviously temporary, ceased to be obligatory, because every object has been accomplished [9] for which they were originally given. This is also true of the New. A christian feels no more obligation to sell his property and live on common stock with others, than he does to go through the ceremonies of the Levitical law. He feels no compunction of conscience in not obeying either, because he considers both as inapplicable to his day. The whole Bible is a precious temporary gift of Heaven, afforded us by the Father of Lights, as a lamp to guide our feet through this dark world, and will be laid aside when we arrive at the world of perfect day. Parts of it are more limited as to their duration, and applicable only to particular seasons and places. It is to my mind worse than wanton to endeavor to invalidate the unquoted parts of the Old Testament, (and which are much the larger proportion,) because others have accomplished their day. In this way we might destroy the whole Scriptures. It is not sound reasoning to say a divine law is not obligatory because not re-enacted. This may be true, as you say, as to the old British laws in Virginia, because in this case there is a new government and new governors; but not so as to God's laws towards his people. There is but one Lawgiver, and all his laws remain in force until repealed or until the accomplishment of their purpose. I would ask you, what authority has any man to assert that any part of Holy Writ has ceased to be obligatory unless Holy Writ itself declares it? And what part of the New Testament has declared that the whole of the Old is abrogated, except those texts that are quoted into the New? The onus probandi here lies with you. The quotations from the Old into the New are plainly made not for re-enactment, but to establish the points advanced by the New Testament writers. I take up this subject because it is a vital principle, and was not only advanced by you fourteen years ago, but has been since defended by you in your Christian Baptist. If, however, any change has taken place in your views, I would gladly retract what is here said.

      In regard to your new translation of the New Testament, I am not prepared to say it is unlawful for any man to attempt a translation of all or any part of the Scriptures. It may be lawful, but it seems to me to he very inexpedient; that is, if it be offered as a substitute for the Old. If one does it, another may; and of course the whole christian world may be unsettled as to what is the word of God. Except Catholics and Unitarians, (I think,) all christians of all denominations have adopted and are satisfied with the old translation. They believe that if it has faults, they are not material ones; and that at best, it is very hazardous to trust any set of men in the present day to amend it. Moreover, God has owned and blessed the old translation for centuries past, to all the purposes of Scriptures. I feel, therefore, greatly averse to any substitute. I have no wish to derogate from your translation. It is certainly the production of very learned men, and has its merits. But it seems to me to he more calculated to do good when found among the writings of its authors, than when embodied in a volume, and called a New Testament.

	Respectfully yours,
RO. B. SEMPLE. [10]

DANVILLE, Ky. November 20, 1830.

BROTHER SEMPLE,

      Dear Sir--MY Clerk has forwarded to me a copy of your letter of October 30, to this place. I am always glad to hear from you, and so are many of my readers. Many in this commonwealth venerate you highly, and are anxious to see what you have to offer for, or against, any topic now in discussion. Few, indeed, expect any change in your views, although many of your friends wish it. Old men are said to be timid and prudent, while the voting are generally bold and enterprizing. As the mind descends the hill of life, early associations rise in their influences, and become stronger as the vigor of the constitution abates. Hence the difficulty of converting the aged. When Hervey discovered the true principles of the circulation of the blood, it is said, that while the young physicians, almost to a man, received his demonstrations and arguments, no man above forty years of age acknowledged his reasonings to be conclusive. When Bacon, the author of the inductive philosophy, developed the science which revolutionized all the colleges in Protestant christendom, few of the old teachers could endure it. But in one generation the literary and medical worlds were regenerated by these two men. The old men died, and the young were all converted.

      The principles of the reformation are, however, received by some very old men, and by many who are above forty; yet but few men of high standing and of advanced years have ever been reformers. Their friends dare not approach them, and their opponents are not to be regarded. They are placed in very unfavorable circumstances, as respects conviction. But still their attempts to sustain their views are very useful to the community. The foundations of their views and systems of instruction, when laid open to the discerning, afford them either conviction or confirmation. The authority of their opinions is then correctly estimated, because the reason of them is subjected to examination. On this account, as well as for my personal regard for you, I am always glad to receive any thing from you for publication. The letter before me is an interesting one, because it contains your "testimony to the truth" of your opinions on some of the principal topics of "your ministry."

      The historical part of your communication before me, detailing the doctrines you have been teaching, is first worthy to be noticed. The Apostles testified to "Jews and Greeks" repentance, or reformation, towards God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. This you have done, you say, to all sorts of people. No doubt you have found it necessary to testify the same things to Christians which Paul did to Jews and Greeks; for our modern christians need both reformation towards God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. The reformation of christians, then, you confess to be necessary; and that even in faith, and in the doctrine of repentance.

      You said "little about baptism," because so plainly laid down in the [11] Bible; and much about the things not plainly laid down in the book. If the plainness of baptism was a good reason for seldom preaching it, it applies equally to repentance and faith if they be plainly laid down in the book. But the "mysterious" doctrines of predestination and election you "rarely touched," because "rarely touched in the book." If, then, you seldom preached baptism because plainly taught, and seldom preached election and reprobation because seldom touched, I am at a loss to understand why you so much insisted upon other matters, as neither the plainness nor obscurity of such things could be a reason, in your judgment, for touching them. The things which you taught, must, in your judgment, have been neither plain nor obscure in the book. These reasons for your ministrations place the great topics of your life in a singular attitude before my mind.

      Another hint in your favor before me arrests my attention. You say that you have been for almost forty years "laboring to establish principles about which the leading christian sects in the United States do not essentially differ." Why you should labor to establish principles already established in the minds of the leading sects, is to me inexplicable. Is not this to represent established principles as not established; and does it not present the labors of forty years in a very inexplicable character to the reflecting mind?

      But "as a Calvinist" you felt yourself under the necessity of choosing this course: for you observe that, "as a Calvinist, you preach clearly and distinctly free and sovereign grace." Now had this been as plainly taught as baptism, or as obscurely taught as election and predestination, your reason would not have permitted you to have made this topic the burthen of your ministry.

      As to a grace, called free and sovereign, I have only to say, that I know of no grace that is not free and sovereign. There can be no grace unless it flow from the will of a sovereign; and if it be not free as respects him from whom it flows, it is involuntary. But if you mean that it is free to all mankind, then all mankind are embraced in it; and if sovereign mean with you discriminating, then to call grace both sovereign and free, is to say that it is, and it is not, grace. But this only by the way.

      "Experimental divinity" has been your theme, of which divinity neither baptism nor election are, in your judgment, constituents. The Apostles, then, were accustomed to say much and to write much concerning a divinity which was neither practical nor experimental. Baptism is, however, in every sermon, and election in every epistle.

      Without preaching water, none of the first preachers could preach Jesus: for not to mention the discourses in which it is named, I shall only remind you of the hint of Luke in his account of the preaching of Philip. He tells us in the 8th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, that Philip preached Jesus to the Eunuch. He tells us not a word of the sermon. He only says, beginning at a certain passage in Isaiah, "he proclaimed to him Jesus." The Eunuch first mentioned water, according to the details of this incident, Now the question is, Why [12] should the Eunuch have said, "Here is water," if Philip, in preaching Jesus, had not named immersion? The inference is inevitable, (if we had neither command nor precedent, of which, however, there is no lack,) that in preaching Jesus, they always preached water. The reason is, a gospel without remission of sins is a misnomer; and no person, in those undegenerate days, could preach remission without naming water. I agree with you that scholastic, speculative, and polemic theology, are unworthy of the preaching of a reformer of men. I am for principles of action. Therefore I proclaim faith, reformation, immersion, adoption, and eternal life.

      I now proceed to the argumentative part of your letter. And here, brother Semple, I could have wished that you had been still more logical and argumentative. I am pleased to see that you go so far back as the year 1816, and commence with my most juvenile essay in a Sermon on the Law. The sentiment which in this sermon you have the goodness to assail, is, that there is an essential difference between the Old Testament and the New; that we are not under the same obligation to obey Moses as Jesus and his Apostles. These are the principles you assail. I affirm and you deny. But you are pleased not to assail my arguments in proof of the affirmative, but to convert your negation into an affirmative position, and then to prove your own proposition. This is magnanimous and creditable to you as a candid man. You enter your protest against my affirming that there is an essential difference between the Old Testament and the New, and proceed to affirm that "the Old Testament and the New are the same as to obligation." In support of this position, in which you put upon yourself the onus probandi, or the burthen of proof, by affirming instead of attempting to refute my arguments in the said sermon. You proceed to reason; but, to my utter astonishment, you call upon no witness, and offer not one argument. You call not upon any Prophet or Apostle for a single saying, and neither quote Moses nor the Messiah in support of your affirmation. I am sorry, brother Semple, to see you take this course, because of the weight of your example; it looks so like (though I am far from imputing to you such a thought) placing your name against mine--an example which your experience cannot approve. You know the weight of your name and years is against me; but how often have both name and years been paraded against the truth. These ex cathedra arguments, these argumenta ad modestiam, as logicians call them, are, you must confess, papistical. To make an appeal to my modesty, or an argument from authority, the proof of an affirmative proposition, is not in unison with the spirit of this age. To support any position as we support a favorite candidate at the polls, by giving our vote, is not the present order of the day. For in these Republics one vote counts as much as another, notwithstanding the disparity in the standing of the voters.

      In support of your "solemn protest" and affirmative position you offer a few other solemn protests and affirmative propositions. But these all need proof. I will notice them in due form:--Yon assert that "the Old and New Testaments stand in the same relation to each [13] other and to us, as different parts of the New Testament do to each other." Why not have added, "and to us?" This faltering in the conclusion argues distrust in the premises. But this is not that at which I most demur. I must do more than offer my solemn protest against what follows:--"Some parts of the Old Testament have been declared in the New Testament as abrogated." "This is also true of the New Testament," &c. Is it possible, brother Semple, that you teach that some parts of the New Testament are abrogated!! What are your specifications? Here they come; but all are condensed into a unit:--"A christian feels no more obligation to sell his property and live in common stock with others, than he does to go through the ceremonies of the Levitical law. He feels no compunction of conscience in not obeying either, because he considers both as inapplicable to his day." This is your proof. Now, my good sir, before you talk of obeying you ought to state the command: for where there is no command there can be no obedience; and before you talk of abrogating any law in the New Testament, you ought to show that it was once a law of the New Testament, like the Levitical law, for obliging christians to live in common stock. I need not inform you that the word "abrogation" applies only to law, and the word "obedience" to a command: and if there be neither command nor law on this subject, there can be no abrogation. But is this true of the Levitical ceremonies? Had they no law nor command? Does the "common stock" of which you speak, and the Levitical economy, stand upon the same footing? If not, there is no more analogy between these matters than between Noah's leaving the ark upon Mount Ararat, and Paul's leaving his cloak in Troas.

      The difference between a "common stock" church, and a common participation of goods as every one had need, is immense. The idea of a common stock for creating either wealth or the means of subsistence, is an idea essentially different from that of a common distribution of joint or particular donations according to the wants of the brotherhood. Now to suppose that an example of this sort in the case of the Jerusalem congregation, is done away is not only inexplicable upon the received meaning of examples, (for examples can never be abrogated,) but it is teaching, however unintentionally on your part, that the example of liberality afforded by these disciples is an unsafe one, and that it is as unworthy of imitation in any circumstance, and as inobligatory as the Levitical law, priesthood, or services. But to return.

      In your zeal, brother Semple, to place Moses in the same chair with Christ and his Apostles, and to bring us "under the law," instead of placing us under Christ, do you not seem to yourself to render the New Testament as useless to Christians as the Catholics have rendered both the Old and the New? Do you not fear to teach that some parts of the law of Christ, as well as some parts of the law of Moses, are abolished? Does the Old Testament stand in the same relation to the New and to us as the first Epistle of Peter does to the second and to us? If I misunderstand you, it will give me pleasure to be [14] corrected by you; but, as your words obviously to me import, you teach that we are under the same obligation to Moses, Samuel, and Nehemiah, as we are to Paul, Peter, and John.

      Now that you may understand me--I teach, that the writings of Moses and the Prophets contain not only much useful history and prophecy, but also many communications from God to men of immense importance to us Christians; and, as my debate with Mr. Owen proves, no man values them more than I. But to teach that we must feel ourselves equally under obligation to obey Moses, a servant in another person's family, as we do to obey Christ, a Son over his own family, which family is the whole christian assembly, I cannot. And believe me, that I know of few Episcopalians or Presbyterians who have gone so far to judaize, as you have done in this letter. The very question which the Apostles and Elders and the brethren of the Jews by the Holy Spirit decided in Jerusalem, you seem to have again revived.

      You will have us Gentile Christians to be as much obliged to obey Moses as Christ--as much under the law as under favor--as much under all the Prophets as under the Great Prophet, of whom Moses in the law and all the Prophets did write. Although Jesus said, "The law and the Prophets were instructers till John; but since that time the kingdom of God is announced, and all men press into it;" although both Moses the lawgiver, and Elias the law-reformer, came down from heaven and laid their commission at the feet of Jesus, and the Father then spoke from the magnificent glory, commanding men to obey his Son; although the Apostles reasoned and remonstrated against the judaizers, telling the people to keep the law as obligatory upon them as the gospel of Jesus; and compared the law to Hagar, and them under its obligation to Ishmael; although the Holy Spirit says we are delivered from the law, and that we are under the New Testament, and not under the Old, which now has become, as a rule of life, obsolete and is done away; yet you solemnly protest against the declaration that there is an essential difference between the Old Testament and the New as respects obligation on Christians; and will attempt to prove that we are under the same obligation to obey Moses in every thing not formally excepted in the New, because Moses commanded it. If this be not to dash upon a real rock, while avoiding an imaginary shoal, will you have the goodness to instance it is any thing else?

      After failing to sustain your own position which you had affirmed, you make an affirmative for me, and throw the onus probandi upon me. I do not, however, exactly approve of the proposition you have made for me, and will merely say in reply, that Jesus, and all the Apostles who have alluded to this subject, plainly and unequivocally teach that the law of Moses is not the rule of life for Christians, in whole nor in part; but that Jesus is our Lord, Lawgiver, Prophet, Priest, and King; and that if we renounce him as a Prophet, we may as well take Aaron for our Priest, Moses for our Lawgiver, and David for our King. [15]

      This subject you please to say is of vital importance. I am glad you form so high an opinion of it, and hope you will attend to what I have to offer upon it. As my sheet is full, and I have to despatch per mail, you will please excuse me for postponing the remainder of my answer till the next.

	In all the charities, yours,
EDITOR.

Sir--

      IT is not presumed that all who write or speak in the behalf of Christianity, believe it to be of divine authenticity and authority; neither can it be presumed that all who speak or write against it, believe it to be a human contrivance. You, sir, appear to be one of this class. You appear to be willing to disbelieve it, and to sustain yourself before the tribunal of your own conscience in rejecting it. But to one who looks narrowly into the pamphlet you have written in the character of a "Private Student," it appears that, though anxious to disprove the resurrection of Jesus, the author has strong misgivings in his own reasonings; and while asserting, in strong terms, his disbelief of that fact, cannot persuade himself that it is not true. The lurking suspicion that truth is on the side you oppose, is to me very manifest from the whole drift and tenor of your objections and reasonings. If you do not distrust your own conclusions, you have done injustice to yourself.

      You would have the reader to think that you have replied to one argument in my debate with Mr. Owen, viz, that drawn from the certainty of the resurrection of Jesus. You would have him to suppose that you have attended to the evidences adduced in support of that fact. But this is very far from the truth. You have not once stated the whole argument. Some branches of it you have glanced at, but not with any reference to the connexion in which they stand. As a whole, the argument is not once noticed.

      You would have the reader to believe that a caucus was held the night after the reported resurrection, and agreed by all the disciples assembled that they would report that Jesus had risen, well knowing at the same time that Nicodemus and Joseph had stolen the body, in order to cheat the nation into the belief that he was alive. This you make them do for no assignable reason worthy of a child; and although you represent them at one time machinating the cheat, artfully designing and slyly propagating it, you bring them forward in the narratives written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, as full of gross and palpable contradictions, rendering their testimony incredible to any "rational" man, because of the want of concert in their manner of relating the circumstances of the resurrection. This is [16] the pith and fatness of your rational objections to the resurrection of Jesus. The original witnesses concerted to cheat the world, and to spend their lives in propagating it, and finally to die for the sake of cheating the world, and to tell the story with such glaring contradictions as no reasonable man could believe it. Thus you explain the phenomena of christianity. This is with you reason pure and unsophisticated. The miracle which passes with you as a reasonable and credible miracle is this:--Ten or twelve men, of no education, and of the humblest pretensions as to genius, and consequently the freest from ambition, the characteristic and accompaniment of genius, concerted, after the Jews killed their master, to propagate the belief that he rose from the dead, so soon as they heard the body was missing; and purely for the sake of imposture agreed to sacrifice every thing, life itself, and all future hope of reward, for the noble design of imposing an unprofitable lie upon the world, and yet had not sense enough to tell a feasible story about it. This is your reasonable faith, and that which you oppose to the unreasonable faith of all christians of all ages.

      Whether your professed faith in this weak and wicked collusion be true or genuine, must be proved like all other professions--by your works. Think not, sir, when I name your works, that I have any idea of giving them in evidence of the sincerity of your faith in your own reasonings about the cheat of the resurrection. I shall only say, in passing, that I could wish that all who profess to believe that Jesus rose from the dead and will judge the world, might honor their profession by a walk so consistent as that by which you honor your profession. If their faith had wrought so fully in their works as your faith has wrought in your works, there would have been still fewer readers of your book than there are. But the sincerity of your faith is by this book rendered as dubious to me, as your paralytic attacks have made it doubtful to yourself.

      To see an old man, tottering on the brink of the grave, so impotent in reason and so strong in hate, so imbecile in argument and so violent, in opposition, ridiculing and blaspheming that Judge of All and his scheme of benevolence, before whom he is soon to appear--is a spectacle of the moral sublime, so terrific and appalling, that my soul turns from the scene and revolts at the sight, while my promise to notice your effort recalls me to the examination of your objections. Pardon the digressions which these feelings may occasion.

      On page 12th you say that the twelve Apostles are not witnesses of the resurrection; or, what is the same thing, that "only two of them have left their testimony." You mean that only two of them have written memoirs of Jesus Christ. And is it possible that a gentleman of your pretensions to reason, and to discriminate evidence, regards that only as testimony which appears in the form of memoirs! Has Peter left no testimony behind him because he wrote no memoirs of Jesus Christ? Has James, has Jude, has none of the Apostles save Matthew and John, testified to the fact of Jesus' resurrection? Is [17] there no testimony left behind a man if it be not in writing from his own pen? Are not the labors, preachings, punishments, and deaths of the other Apostles in asserting what they saw and heard, a testimony to the resurrection of Jesus? Are not all the labors and trials of all the original disciples as strong a proof of the resurrection of Jesus, as unambiguous testimony to it, as the written narratives of Matthew and John? Is not Peter's death, are not Peter's two epistles, are not the three thousand Pentecostian converts, who saw and heard the proofs of the Messiah's resurrection, and who changed their course of life on that account, as strong testimony as a written narrative? Is not the martyrdom of Stephen, and the conversion of Saul, as valid as the writings of Matthew and John? Was not every convert made by the proclamation of the original witnesses, whose testimony was confirmed by all the signs and wonders recorded, valid testimony to the fact alleged? Is there no other proof, or will there in a few years be no other proof of the American Revolution, save the two or three histories of it written by those who lived contemporaneously with the progress and issue of that struggle? A word on this subject from you might elicit a fuller exposition of the fallacy by which you would willingly impose upon yourself.

      But you say that no testimony can prove the resurrection of Jesus, because the thing is itself incredible. "The resurrection of a dead man," you call (page 15) "an unnatural, irrational, incredible, and impossible fact." Therefore to you it is impossible to be proved by any testimony. Why, then, quarrel with the testimony when the fact is to your mind impossible, irrational, and unnatural! Yet you profess to be a Deist--one who believes that there is one Omnipotent Creator--one who believes in the unnatural, irrational, and impossible fact of giving birth to the first man without a mother! The greatest miracle in the Bible you believe upon the mere testimony of your senses, exercised upon the things which are seen! That the cold and inanimate earth, in her virgin state, brought forth a rational and sentient being, you believe, for in this pamphlet you boast that you are a Deist or Theist! If, then, it was not unnatural, irrational, nor impossible for the cold and inanimate earth, in a virgin state, to bring forth a son, yourself being judge, with what pretension to reason can you say that it is irrational, unnatural, and impossible for the married earth to bring forth what has been committed to her; or that God cannot raise from the dust a dead man, when lie raised a living race out of inanimate dust, as you believe? On this you will please ponder till next you bear from your friend,

THE EDITOR.

Near Glasgow, Ky. December 3, 1830.

      P. S. I write this not having my former letters to you before me and without a copy of my Debate, or an opportunity of examining your pamphlet since I left home. [18]

      FIRST day of the week, October 31, having no society with which to unite in social worship, we went on our journey. We read and conk versed alternately. The first twenty chapters of Matthew's Testimony furnished us with topics for the day. At Circleville and Washington was written the first number of this series. November 3d we arrived in Wilmington, Clinton county, and were cordially received by the disciples of Christ in that place. We were refreshed in spirit by the brethren in Wilmington. Here we met with brothers Samuel Rogers, Aylett Rains, and Arthur Grifield, who labor in the word and teaching in this county. The apostolic gospel has been proclaimed with great effect by these brethren in this region. There are some others in this county whom we did not see, who co-operate with them in the work of reformation. Brother Rains, aided by these brethren, has performed a great and good work in this county and in a corner of the neighboring county of Highland. Since May last, by their instrumentality, 197 persons have obeyed the gospel. Besides, the whole Regular Baptist church in Wilmington, one female excepted, has embraced the ancient gospel; and now, with many new converts, are endeavoring to walk in the apostolic institutions. The inquiry among these disciples now is, What has the Lord commanded? not, What do the Regular Baptists say? or, What does the Philadelphia Confession of Faith dictate? but what say the Scriptures?

      Several churches in Clinton county now meet every Lord's day to celebrate the death and resurrection of Jesus. Antioch, by the labors of brother Samuel Rogers, was the first congregation in these regions that met on the Lord's day to keep the ordinances. Eleven disciples only, if I mistake not, associated some two or three years ago for thin purpose, called the Congregation of Antioch. Besides those who have removed thence, this congregation now amounts to about seventy-five persons; the congregation in Wilmington now enumerates eighty members; that on Cowan's Creek, about fifty. The number of disciples at Anderson's Fork I could not ascertain. In Jamestown, Highland county, there is a congregation of thirty-nine, which, like those already mentioned, meet every first day of the week to break the loaf. Besides these congregations who statedly meet together in one place, others are likely soon to be formed of disciples living too far off for weekly meetings.

      The disciples of Christ seem very generally to be aware that no persons should belong to any particular congregation who cannot conveniently meet with their brethren every Lord's day; and that the fact of being able to attend every Lord's day with the brethren, is the rule which decides to what congregation they should belong. Therefore, when it happens that some half dozen of disciples live too far off from the place of meeting of any particular church, they find it expedient to meet by themselves for the christian worship on the Lord's day. Several small societies diffuse more light than one large one; many fires kindled in a camp diffuse more light and heat than one or [19] two large fires remote from each other, and inaccessible to many of the army. These small beginnings, scattered over a district of country, tend to give a larger increase of disciples annually than if the same number which meet weekly, in three or four places, met irregularly in one place. The simplicity, humility, and brotherly kindness which appear in these small assemblies, and the more rapid progress which the disciples make in christian knowledge, faith, and love, from more of them being called upon to take a part in the christian worship, are greater auxiliaries to the spread of the gospel, more powerful arguments for the truth, and recommendations of the excellency of the christian institution, than an immense pile of stone, brick, or wood, with the ornaments of architecture, called a church or meeting house, filled with an assembly of carnal worshippers, in all the pomp and pageantry of the lusts of the eye, and the pride of life, waiting upon a Parson, all of whom, save one consecrated tongue, are dumb in the christian worship.

      We do not say that large congregations, which can conveniently meet is one place, should fracture themselves up into a number of small ones, specially for this purpose: for the circumstance of their being able conveniently to meet in one place, proves that it would be unnecessary to meet in sundry places; for all who could witness their order and worship in sundry places could witness it in one place, on the supposition that they can conveniently assemble in one place every Lord's day. The disobedient who live among the disciples, if disposed to visit their meetings, can always as conveniently attend where the disciples meet as the disciples themselves. The conversion of the disobedient, as well as the growth of the disciples in knowledge, faith, love, and hope, is not to be lost sight of in the assemblies of the saints. Experience moreover proves that it is conducive to the good of the brotherhood, as well as to the conversion of those without, that occasionally the churches in contiguous districts should meet in one place; and also that even two or three disciples who cannot find any others with whom to associate, should not, on that account, forsake the institutions of christian worship. But, indeed, it does appear that in Rome, as well as in Jerusalem, in the apostolic age, while the great congregation of the disciples in those cities frequently convened in one place, there were small societies in the houses of different brethren, perhaps in the suburbs, or remote from the place of general rendezvous, which were known as the congregation in the house of Priscilla and Aquila; the brethren who meet with Asyneritus, Phlegon, Hermas, Patrobas, and Hermes. Rom. xvi. These were addressed in a letter to the congregation of disciples in Rome, and yet distinguished by the Apostles as meeting in different places in that immense metropolis. It appears to have been so in Jerusalem. The congregation in Rome which met in the house of Priscilla and Aquila is again mentioned by Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians. The church in Cesar's family is also mentioned in the letter to the Philippians, and that in the house of Nymphas in the letter to the Colossians.

      But to return to Wilmington. On Thursday, the 4th November, we [20] had a public discourse. A considerable audience, on a few hours notice, convened from the town and country, about half of which were disciples. We addressed them from Peter's discourse in Solomon's Portico. Among other positions illustrated and confirmed by the apostolic testimony, the following were conspicuous:--

      1. That as mankind, however diversified in other respects, were all, as respects the gospel, distributed into two classes--the obedient and the disobedient--there could, in the nature of things, be but two modes of address, called in the New Testament preaching and teaching.

      2, That in preaching there must be one topic in every address, as the all-engrossing topic; and that this topic is reformation. In attestation of which the commission of John the Immerser, of the Saviour as a Prophet, of the Twelve, and the Seventy were adduced.

      3. That as reformation was a very general and comprehensive theme, and had reference to more objects than one, various motives and arguments were appended to every proclamation of reformation in accordance with the specific, character of the reformation preached. Thus in the reformation proclaimed by John, by Jesus, by the Seventy, and by the Twelve, in their first commission, the great argument was, FOR THE REIGN OF HEAVEN WAS SOON TO COMMENCE. In the second commission, given after the resurrection of Jesus, the arguments were three--

      1st. That your sins maw be blotted out.

      2d. That seasons of refreshment from the presence of the Lord may come upon you.

      3d. That he may send Jesus Christ for your eternal salvation.

      4. That it is the immediate duty of those addressed in this proclamation to obey the gospel, or to reform, and turn to God.

      At the close of the discourse one young man of respectable attainments came forward and obeyed the gospel. He was immersed for the remission of his sins by brother Samuel Rogers.

      We arrived in Cincinnati on the evening of the 5th November, and were very cordially received by the brethren and friends. The church in this city which meets every first day of the week to break the loaf, is advancing in the knowledge of the Christian Scriptures, and is acquiring more boldness in the faith. All the sects seem to view this congregation with great jealousy. It is subjected to the most rigid scrutiny and uncharitable criticism by all its sectarian neighbors. The ancient gospel and order of things are odious in the eyes of the priesthood; for in their progress and advancement they foresee the prostration of their assumptions. Those who wish to walk in the customs and traditions of their fathers, right or wrong, unite in opposing all reformations, and especially the believers of the apostolic gospel. Hence the brethren in Cincinnati are much opposed by the sectaries, and by none more than by the Calvinian Baptists. As the Unbelieving Jews were in all places the most implacable persecutors of the Apostles and their preaching, so these regular followers of Gill and Fuller are exceedingly fierce against all who presume to depart [21] from their paternal customs. With them the preachers of the ancient gospel are worse than infidels, or treated as such. Before I had arrived in Cincinnati, my friend Sedwick of Zanesville, had, it was reported, written on to a deacon (not of the church but of the priesthood,) that I was "the most refined infidel he had ever seen." This deacon is strongly suspicioned to be the author of some slanderous letters which have appeared in the Chronicle and Columbian Star, and is conspicuous for no virtue so much, as for having been the troubler of many churches. Every man who denies the divine right of the priesthood to mysticise, and to teach the hidden meaning of the Scriptures, is an infidel. My infidelity in Zanesville consisted in proving that the New Testament is an intelligible book. Had I informed my audience that the book was unintelligible, and that Mr. Sedwick had got from heaven, by immediate revelation, a key of interpretation; and that he was called and sent to expound the book for a certain per annum I would have been, in his eyes, a christian.

      On the Lord's day morning we addressed a very large concourse, from the 15th chapter of 1st Samuel, and the 2d chapter of the Epistle to the Romans. This discourse was addressed to the disobedient. It was demonstrated that a partial obedience, accompanied with a wilful neglect or disobedience of any part of a divine message, was equivalent to a total rejection of the message, and compared by Samuel to idolatry, iniquity, and divination.

      In the afternoon the obedient were addressed from Col. iii. The high calling from above the christian adoption, and the things which are above, were the topics. After the address the disciples celebrated the Lord's Supper. This congregation consists of from two to three hundred disciples. There are many very intelligent and zealous brethren in it, who are qualified to preside in a christian meeting, and are acquiring much boldness in the faith. Brother Challin labors in the word and teaching with good effect, and his heart is in the work. It is that the disciples composing this congregation will ere long be so able to edify one another, as to employ brother Challin to labor in the proclamation of the gospel for the conversion of those without.

      In the evening we continued our discourse, unfinished in the morning, from the same topics. Before we left the city we had the pleasure of immersing for remission four persons, two males and two females.

      On Monday, the 8th November we visited a church in the country, about 9 miles from Cincinnati, on Mill Creek, Ohio, and delivered them a lecture on the 1st Epistle of John.

      The Spirit of Antichrist was show to be a mystic spirit. The tests by which every spirit was to be tried were examined, and submission to the Apostles' doctrine proved to be the criterion of a christian church.

      On the same evening, in Covington, Kentucky, we spoke to a congregation on sin and its cure. In this place there is a church decidedly for reform. The Old Baptists have generally rallied around the New, Testament, and renounced human creeds as rules of christian faith and practice [22]

      On Tuesday morning returned to Cincinnati, and spent the day in conversation and business. This city is very religious in building meeting houses. The Presbyterians are more devout than any other sect; for they build houses for which they have no congregations. Like the prudent German, who builds his barn before his harvest is reaped, they build meeting houses before they thrust a sickle into the field. They go upon the presumption that God has decreed to have many Presbyterian churches in this flourishing city. But they anticipate the Lord.

      Mr. Root's church is a very splendid and fashionable edifice; a worldly holy place. It cost about 23,000 dollars. Its celestial steeple is devoutly lofty and expensive. It ascends towards heaven high as the aspirations of its humble inhabitants. It is said that it only cost 8,000 dollars. How much better is this sum laid up in brick and mortar than spent in missionary projects!! The pious residents preferred the steeple to six hundred three score and six souls, which is just the price of it. For at twelve dollars per month for missionary labor, averaging one soul per month, as the fruit of that sort of labor, the brick and mortar in the battlement of this temple cost the amount of the apocalyptic beast. The number of his name is 666, the quotient of 8000 divided by 12. But, perhaps, it was expected that looking upon this steeple would be the means of converting as many souls as 666 missionary months labor. At all events, it is a sure index of the pulse of missionary piety. The moral Health of the missionary spirit is quite apparent from this religious appropriation of the means of salvation. Well may the last mite be solicited from the widow to send a missionary from Cincinnati to the isles afar off, when the funds at home are so abundant as to build brick satyres upon his religion whose best followers met in garrets to extol their Lord and King.

      This holy place, said to have been founded upon the Rock by him who laid its corner stone, is only half as sacred as Dr. Wilson's church; for it has two horns upon its altar, or two steeples--the one for the Jews and the other for the Gentiles. These are not quite so magnificent as Mr. Root's cupola; but two arguments are more convincing than one; and he that would be only convicted by looking upon one spire, will surely be converted by gazing upon two, on one church. The plain, unassuming Presbyterian, will be apt to ask if eight churches, worth 1000 dollars each, would not be more useful to the community than one steeple; but this is owing to his ignorance: for one splendid bait will be more likely to allure a high-minded citizen to orthodoxy than twenty plain buildings. At least so determined the founders of St. Peter's church in Rome, and no good reason can be shown why this sprightly daughter should not appear as genteel as the Madame herself.

      Churches are building in this city upon the same principle as bridges and turnpikes. The stock is taken by capitalists, and the pew rents are relied upon to afford a dividend equal to bank stock. The rich are now to have the gospel preached to them in houses owned [23] by the rulers of the darkness of this world. Satan, it may be expected, will soon reform, seeing he now builds meeting houses for the proclamation of the gospel. In Paul's time he assumed to be an angel of light; but now he is a preacher of righteousness, and a liberal contributor to the spread of that gospel which he conscientiously approves. O Tempora! O Mores!

EDITOR.

Harrodsburg, Ky. November 25, 1830.

      BROTHER Parmley having, from indisposition, preferred to descend the Ohio in a steam-boat, rather than to risk a journey by land through Kentucky, brother Ephraim A. Smith, of Danville, Ky. having met me at Cincinnati, became my fellow traveller, and on the 9th of November we departed from Cincinnati to Cynthiana, Harrison county, Ky. On the 11th of the month we arrived in that place; found a large congregation in waiting, and addressed them from Hebrews i. on God's last message by his Son. We spent the evening at the house or brother John Chinn, Sen. about 8 miles distant. The next day I delivered a discourse to a large assembly on the 1st chapter of the 2d letter to the Thessalonians, met in the town of Leesburg. The burthen of this discourse was--

      1. That in the gospel there must be a command, else it could not be obeyed: for where there is no command there can be no obedience.

      2. The obedience of law and the obedience of faith contrasted.

      3. The command in the gospel, obedience to which is styled obeying the gospel.

      4. The destiny of those who do not obey the gospel.

      From Leesburg we proceeded to Georgetown, and arrived on the evening of the 13th at the house of brother Rhodes Thompson. On Lord's day addressed a large assembly convened in the Methodist meeting house. The other meeting houses in town were offered, both Christian and Baptist. This was thankfully received because the largest in town.

      The topics here were faith, reformation, and remission of sins. Various portions of the apostolic writings were examined, specially the sermon on Pentecost, and in Solomon's Portico, pronounced by Peter. This being the headquarters of the opposition, the seat of the new college and of the chronicler of the movements of the rulers of the darkness of this world, the caricature historian of the events of the crisis, I aimed at great perspicuity in all the developements of the day. But none are so blind as those who will not see, nor so deaf as those who will not hear. Hence I am represented in the next Chronicle as saying that nothing could be more absurd than to exhort a person to repent or be sorry for sin, or in words to that effect, as I have not the Chronicle before me; I am, however, always misrepresented in that paper; and as the editor fights not with the weapons of our warfare, we must apply to him the moral of a tale about barking dogs, which, if I mistake not, sometime since appeared in his own paper. We will not now throw him a bone nor a stone. [24]

      The idea which I expressed, a perversion of which I have just mentioned, was this:--As the thousands who interrogated Peter on Pentecost had bitterly repented of what they had done, and were pierced to the heart with sorrow and anguish, it would have been every way unreasonable to have commanded them to be sorry for their sins, or to repent, in the vulgar sense of that term. The Apostle, therefore, said, Reform and be immersed. If I mistake not, I alluded here to what is usually called legal and evangelical repentance, and concluded that what was commonly designated "evangelical repentance," was the idea attached to the term reform. It was such a regret for the past--such a change of views as terminated in a change of life. This I say not for the benefit of Mr. Chambers; for he knows as well as he knows any dogma of Calvinism, that such are my views; but as he is the pen and ink for the coalition against reform, he must publish such palpable absurdities. I only request the inquisitive to read for themselves what I have written, and take not such perversions for my sentiments, if they feel any interest in understanding the points at issue. After the discourse two persons came forward and obeyed the gospel. I immersed them into the one faith in a stream contiguous to the town.

      We spent the evening with brother B. Chambers, an intelligent and zealous advocate of the ancient gospel, a brother of the editor of the Chronicle. We had much conversation with a number of disciples and inquirers, among whom was my old friend John Brice, Esq. formerly of Fredericksburg, Va. He preaches religion, as he was wont in Virginia, and practises law. He hopes to persevere to the end in the good old Baptist doctrines of the good old Virginia school, upon the supposition, no doubt, that the doctrines and practices of the Virginia Baptists are purely scriptural and apostolic.

      I omitted to state, that in the vicinity of Leesburg there is a church recently convened, under the oversight of brother Dr. Chinn, which meets every Lord's day to keep the ordinances.

      From Georgetown, on Monday morning, we proceeded to the Crossings meeting house, where we found a considerable congregation at half past 9 o'clock. It being court day, and a number of lawyers attending, we got through with our discourse at 11 o'clock. The topic was the 2d chapter of the Epistle to the Romans.

      The connexion between parity and happiness, and the reward of eternal life proposed to them, who, by patient continuance in well doing, are seeking for glory, honor, and immortality, was the burthen of this discourse. I was sorry that my engagements to proceed to Frankfort obliged me to decline a very pressing invitation from Col. Richard M. Johnson, author of the Sunday Mail Report, to deliver an address at his house that evening. Overtaken with rain, and prevented from reaching Frankfort, we spent the evening; very agreeably with a company of disciples, enjoying the hospitalities of brother Holloway, 8 miles from the metropolis of Kentucky.

      Next morning, being the 16th of November, we proceeded to the seat of government. This was the theatre on which Col. Sharp was [25] assassinated by Beauchamp, and from which the thirty-nine articles of the Franklin Decrees were issued. We found the Presbyterian, Methodist, and Baptist churches locked up, and St. Peter in possession of the keys. Governor Metcalf very kindly and courteously bade us welcome to his house; and he, with his good lady, a disciple of the ancient faith, very hospitably entertained us. No house large enough for the audience could be obtained. We met in the Academy, which, by the exertions of Edward Johnson and others, was fitted up for our reception. Several hundred citizens were accommodated with seats, and we discoursed some two or three hours upon the 3d chapter of the 2d Epistle to Timothy, on the signs of the perilous age. We took occasion to introduce the ancient gospel, at the close, in contrast with the modern. We gave an invitation to any person to stand up and make his objections, if any he had. An old gentleman arose and emphasized on the necessity of repentance before immersion. We attended to his objection, and having pressed the necessity of obedience upon the audience, a lady of intelligence arose and confessed the Lord. We immersed her in the Kentucky river after the discourse was ended. There are a few names even in Frankfort attached to the ancient faith and order of things.

      Silas M. Noel, George Waller, and John Taylor were in town. I heard that the old gentleman of pamphlet memory attended our meeting. They attempted to have a meeting that same evening in the meeting house. The keys were found by the three defenders of the kingdom of the clergy; but it is one thing to open a house and another to obtain a congregation. They rang the bell, kindled the fires, and lighted the lamps, but all in vain; only sixteen or twenty persons attending, the three preachers went home, without a preachment, to muse upon the events of the day.

      From Frankfort we proceeded to brother T. Bullock's, in the vicinity of Versailles. There we met with a congregation attending upon brother J. Creath, Jun. The evening was spent very agreeably and profitably with a number of disciples, among whom were brethren Josephus Hewit and L. Fleming; and in the morning we went to the county seat. Met with brethren J. Creath, Sen. and John Smith of Montgomery, in the Versailles meeting house. A very large audience assembled, so much so that fears were entertained for the falling of the galleries by the press. We proceeded to address them from the 1st chanter of 2d Peter. The outlines of the christian worship, the royal priesthood, the spiritual temple, and the gospel means of conversion, were the topics of address to the brethren in Versailles. This is one of the churches which was cast out of the Association in August last for their preference to the New Testament. This church, with that at Clear Creek, have agreed to meet every Lord's day to keep the ordinances. After meeting, one female came forward to confess the Lord.

      From Versailles we proceeded to brother Sullivan's, on the way to Bryant's Station, 17 miles distant from Versailles, where we spent the evening in company with many disciples in conversing on the [26] things concerning the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ. In the morning proceeded to Bryant's. Addressed a large congregation on the calling of the Gentiles, Acts x. and xi. The burthen of this discourse was--

      1. The character of Cornelius previous to his hearing the words by which he and his family were to be saved.

      2. The vision of Peter and the speech of the angel concerning the importance of the words to be spoken by Peter.

      3. The words spoken by Peter before the Holy Spirit fell upon them, and the first thing spoken by Peter after the interruption ceased.

      4. The nature and use of the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

      5. Emphasized on the fact that though Cornelius was a pious man, one that feared God with all his house, prayed continually, and gave much alms to the people; yet it was necessary for him, under the government of Jesus, to hear words and to be immersed that he might be saved with the christian salvation.

      From Bryant's we repaired to the mansion of brother B. A. Hicks, where we had a very pleasant meeting, and an interesting conversation with brethren Stone and Parmer on the affairs of the reformation. Present, brethren Creaths, Professor Richardson, Fleming, Higbie, and others with them.

      Arrived in Lexington on Saturday morning, and stopped at the house of my friend Joseph Ficklin, Esq. After dining with Doctor Woods, President of the Transylvania University, with whom also, and his intelligent and amiable lady, I had the pleasure of spending another evening, we repaired to Dr. James Fishback's, where we spent the evening in a very agreeable manner; being employed by the Doctor four hours in answering questions respecting the proposed reformation, in the presence of about twenty disciples. We were so happy as to understand from the Doctor his general, if not universal concurrence in all the developements of the evening.

      On Saturday, immediately after my arrival, I received a note, of which the following is a copy, handed me by a committee from the Medical Students of the Transylvania University:--

Lexington, Ky. November 17, 1830.

      DEAR SIR--As an evidence of the high esteem in which the Medical Class hold your literary attainments and devotion to religion, they have appointed the undersigned a committee to wait on you to request you to deliver them a sermon in their Hall, at any time during your stay in town that will best suit your convenience.

      By complying with the above you will much oblige the Medical Class.

B. R. HOLY, J. I. A. PUGET, T. B. GREGG

}

Committee.

      I consented to deliver them a discourse the next evening. The Medical Class this year amounts to about two hundred students, convened from thirteen states of the Union. One of the Professors informed me that the present class possesses as great an amount of talent and information as has, for many years, appeared in this school. [27]

      Lord's day morning, addressed a very large and intelligent assembly, in one of the most spacious meeting houses in the state. The day being wet was favorable to the citizens of Lexington, as it prevented a crowd from the country. The third chapter of John furnished topics for the day.

      After attempting to show why John, and none of the other Evangelists, narrated the interview with Nicodemus, we proceeded to speak of the kingdoms of nature, grace, and glory, as usually defined. The constituents of a literal kingdom were first detailed. The propriety of the application of the term kingdom to nature, grace, and glory, was next vindicated. Then the analogies between these three kingdoms were traced in the prominent characteristics of a kingdom.

      1. The creation of each by a word of God.

      2. The design of each to produce beings correspondent with its constitution--natural beings--gracious beings--glorious beings.

      3. The adaptation of the means employed in each to the ends proposed--natural life, spiritual life, eternal life.

      4. The three births, or the mode of introduction into each kingdom. The first birth, natural; the second birth, gracious; the third birth; glorious. The first birth, of and from the flesh; the second, of and from the water and the Spirit; the third, of and from the grave.

      5. The three salvations:--1st. From natural dangers, God is thus "the Saviour of all men" in the kingdom of nature. 2d. The salvation of the soul from the guilt, pollution, and power of sin, in the kingdom of grace. 3d. The salvation of the body from the grave, or the glorification of soul and body at the resurrection of the just, and in the kingdom of glory.

      6. The impossibility of being a subject or citizen of any one of these kingdoms without being born into it.

      7. An illustration of the whole subject, drawn from the use and meaning of the outer court, holy place, and most holy place in the tabernacle.

      In the conclusion we emphasized on the kingdom of heaven, or of grace; the import of being born of water and the Spirit, or the necessity of regeneration, in order to admission into the kingdom of grace. These were items in the series of illustrations presented on this occasion. After the discourse, Squire Hickman, once a Deist, cured by our writings, presented himself for immersion.

      In the evening of that day addressed the Medical Class on the following questions:--

      1. Has God ever spoken to man?

      2. In what language has he spoken to man?

      3. If in human language, how is it to be interpreted?

      4. What has he said to us in his last message by his Son?

      Concluded with some remarks on the necessity, happiness, and honor of obeying the Lord Jesus.

      Some items of the conversation at Dr. Fishback's may be presented in our next.

EDITOR.
M'Creery's Inn, Simpson co. Ky.       2 miles from the Tennessee line, Dec. 5, 1850. [28]	}

FOR THE MILLENNIAL HARBINGER.

      IT being presumed that in former essays we have proved that the religions information which God, without discrimination, offers in sacred writ to every rational member of the human family, is, without addition, diminution, commixture, or alteration whatever; or, in other words, just as he has arranged, connected, and expressed it, not only sufficient for the purpose for which its unerring author devised, prepared, and sent it, namely, to make his ignorant and depraved creatures wise to salvation, able to lay hold on everlasting happiness and glory; but is the only modification of religious information which God has ever authorized his creature man to employ, or rendered it safe for him to use; a question naturally suggests itself, In what manner has God commanded us to use the information which he has sent us? Has he commanded us to read, search, and study it ourselves, and declare or publish it to our fellow-creatures just as we have received it, without impiously presuming to alter its divine order, connexion, or diction? or has he commanded us to rend it into such pieces as our wayward fancies may suggest, and tack them together again as our frolicsome humor may impel; alter and modify its sacred diction as best likes our fastidious taste, and dilute its heavenly contents with as much of our notions, conjectures, witty conceits and fanciful reveries, as we may judge fit; in short, force it to appear under all the hideous modifications, under all the disgusting transformations into which sermons, lectures, expositions, explanations, commentaries, paraphrases, creeds, confessions, catechisms, economies, orations, arguments, tracts, pamphlets, journals, and huge carcases of human divinity, &c. &c. have converted and disfigured it, and then impose on an ignorant, credulous, deceived and bigoted multitude, our wretched jumble, and tempt them to believe the blaring falsehood that we are delivering nothing to them but the pure, unmixed, unadulterated oracles of the living God?

      Were all the passages of sacred writ to be quoted in which the reading, searching, studying, and publishing--the hearing,, attending on, and listening to God's information, just as he has sent it, are earnestly recommended, pressingly urged, and expressly enjoined, no inconsiderable part of the Bible would be transcribed. I now quote only one: "Go and proclaim the good news to every creature," Mark xvi. 15. But where, I ask, is the good news to be found, and where is the anxiously inquiring mind to look for it? Must the inquirer repair to the words, the very words, selected and employed by the Holy Spirit to make the good news known to man, or must he encounter the appalling labor of searching the many thousand volumes, and of listening to the still greater number of oral harangues, which affect to tell us where the good news is to be found, and in what it consists? Must he consult every modification of this good news, into which daring and impious men have presumed to transform it? Surely not. For reading, then, ourselves, and publishing to others, God's blessed and all-important information just as we have received it, we have the best warrant, we have a multitude of direct [29] and urgent commands, and the imperative example of all inspires; teachers, who never dared to alter or corrupt God's entrusted message, nor delivered to their fellow-men any of their own conceits, conjectures, fancies, or dreams intermixed with it; but rigidly confined themselves to the communication of God's inspired information alone. But where is the precept that commands, or the example that justifies the reading or publishing any other modification of divine information, than that which God has himself devised, and now offers for our use? If such there be in the Book of God, I know it not. Shall I be told that the Bible contains a command to preach the gospel, and a declaration that John the Immerser preached, that Jesus himself preached, that his Apostles and other inspired men preached? I know the Bible contains a command to publish the good news, and tells us expressly that all these persons published most assiduously the inspired messages with whose publication they were entrusted. But if the publication, of inspired messages be termed preaching, what right or title have those uninspired harangues, called sermons, &c. to that appellation? Certainly none. Every body knows that these clerical harangues which their authors pass on a deluded multitude for divine information, are chiefly, if not entirely, made up of human fallacious, uninspired notions and conceits, and are, of course, as unlike what the inspired teachers delivered as God's truth and by God's command, as darkness is unlike light, as falsehood is unlike truth, as black is unlike white. The one is made up of truth, truth without alloy, without one particle of error, mistake, or falsehood; the, other is, at best, but a wretched jumble of truth, error, misconception, and falsehood. Indeed, the original of the New Testament contains no term which denotes what we now call preaching. It has terms which denote, with great precision, the several actions of proclaiming or publishing an inspired and entrusted message; of bringing or publishing glad tidings; of declaring or announcing generally; of conversing; of discoursing; of speaking; of teaching; of exhorting; of admonishing; of commanding, &c. but no term that denotes the multifarious, heterogeneous, undescribable operation of modern preaching. It is an art and occupation, as now followed, entirely human, and evidently invented to answer human purposes, to enable then to acquire fame, influence, wealth, and power, and pass their days in luxury and ease. True it is, all do not reach the alluring objects, the fascinating rewards of this art; but all pursue in the same track, and press on us far as they can; for these are the natural allurements and tendency of the whole invention. Nor has Christ's appalling threat, that he will most certainly reject every human invention, every human labor, every human act offered to him as an act of worship or service, which he has not commanded--been hitherto sufficient to repress their influence or resist their power. Mark v. i. 7.

      I well know that the silly and impertinent question has been, and will be asked by multitudes, Has not the employment of other modifications of religious information besides God's own unaltered word, done some good to mankind? I ask, Has any evil occurred in the world from which mankind has derived no benefit? I ask further, [30] because the employment of an imperfect and unsuitable instrument may be of some use, and be really better than no instrument, does it follow that we ought to prefer and continue the use of a bad instrument when we are provided with one infinitely superior? The absurdity of such a preference is reprobated and condemned by the immediate and uniform abjection of all inferior instruments as soon as better implements are discovered. Two ploughs are offered to the choice of a farmer--one of the old construction, with its clumsy wooden mouldboard, &c. and one possessed of all the modern improvements made on that important tool, the plough; what would be thought of this farmer's sense were he to prefer the former to the latter? yet the use of the former might do him some good, it would be better than no plough. Two axes lie at the foot of a stately oak--one dull, and one sharp, and the dull one is preferred and used for felling the tree; but what would you say of his wisdom who gave it the preference, although it did do him some good, although it enabled him to cut down the tree? Why do men who work in wood spend a great deal of time in sharpening tools? their dull tools would do them some good; they would enable them to execute their work in some way. But the difference between the aptitude of the best and the aptitude of the worst human inventions to execute their respective purposes, is not to be compared with the difference that exists between the fitness of God's instrument of religious instruction, just as it has come from his hands, to answer its purpose, and that of any of those instruments which foolish men have contrived, prepared, and actually employed as substitutes for it. I believe God has never suffered his divine message to be so thoroughly corrupted, debased, and unfitted for its purpose, as to be made altogether incapable of contributing more or less to man's salvation. No, he has determined that his word, however perverted and unfitted for the accomplishment of its object it may be rendered by the folly, presumption, and impiety of men, shall not return to him entirely void, nor wholly fail to effect the end for which he sent it. But because God has thus determined to execute his purpose, and defeat all human efforts to render his message wholly abortive, and though in its corrupted and debased state it has still continued to do some good, does it follow from this that men have not corrupted, debased, and unfitted for its purpose God's instrument of religious information; that they have not in a great measure laid it aside, and employed in its place instruments of their own device and fabrication, of infinitely inferior fitness to do good than that which they disuse; and thus done every thing in their power to render God's message, by their presumptuous adulteration of it, of no effect? Nor let those religious societies, who in their public worship read a great deal of sacred writ, and make its reading a principal part of their worship, attempt to justify, under this laudable and commanded practice, their use of human inventions to complete the rest. For, to resort to an illustration already used, this is a lively image of the fool, who, after employing a sharp axe to fell in part a stately oak, lays it aside, and uses a dull one to cut through the rest. [31]

      Now it is my firm belief that, if instead of these fashionable modifications of God's information; now so loudly extolled and universally adopted, as much of it, just as it appears in sacred writ, was well read every Lord's day, when people come together to worship God jointly and publicly, as their time would permit, accompanied with fervent, prayer, grateful praise, a contribution for the relief of human misery, or the support of those who voluntarily devote their time and strength to an unadulterated publication of the good news among mankind, and a solemn and affectionate, but unostentatious commemoration of the Redeemer's death; and were all Christ's professed friends earnestly to recommend in private the Bible to their fellow-creatures, and rehearse or read it to them whenever providence afforded an opportunity, and urge the daily reading of it on their children and domestics, and set that pious and moral example before their fellow-men which christians are bound to set; I say, I do verily believe that if this course were diligently and steadily pursued, christianity would soon put on an infinitely more prosperous and inviting aspect than it now wears. We should soon see one faith, one immersion, one spirit, and that a spirit of harmony, peace, purity, mutual love, and mutual confidence overspread our earth. From the same plain information, imparted through the same plain heavenly words, to minds unbiassed and uninfluenced by sectarian dogmas, and untrammelled by sectarian prejudices, what other result could possibly be?

      We do, then, distinctly admit, that some good may have been done by God's word by divine information, even in its most adulterated state, even when most diluted, corrupted, and debased by human notions, conjectures, and reveries intermixed with it, and human constructions put upon it; but we have no doubt that if the time had been spent and the attention paid to the reading and studying of God's information, just as he has offered it to us in the original words of sacred writ, which has been bestowed on human modifications of it, on creeds, catechisms, tracts, sermons, lectures, paraphrases, commentaries, expositions, economies, and huge bodies of human divinity, &c. &c. christian knowledge, feeling, and practice would have been as superior to what they now are, as truth is superior to falsehood, or light to darkness. And moreover, were divine information, unaltered and unmixed with human thought and verbage, alone resorted to for religious instruction, God would be honored as he ought to be; he would he regarded as a superior, as a sufficient teacher; but when his information is altered, mixed, and modified by men, before it is accounted fit for use, God is manifestly dishonored, and treated as a teacher inferior to ignorant, fallible, blundering men, and a practice which manifestly dishonors the Deity is established and absurdly styled his worship.

      Note.--On this subject let the following passages be consulted:--Exodus xxiv. 7. Deuteronomy iv. 9, 10-vi. 7-xi. 19.-xvii. 19.xxxi. 11. 2 Chronicles xxxiv. 18, 24, 30. Nehemiah viii. 8-xiii. 11. Luke iv. 16. Acts viii. 30-xv. 21. 1 Corinthians ii. 13-iii 2. Colossians iv. 16. 1 Thessalonians v. 27. 1 Timothy iv. 13. Rev. i. 3. [32]

PHILALETHES.

      The above is a scheme of Daniel's general prophecies, which I have been enabled to construct from the writings of the interpreters. It exhibits at one view the four political and four mental powers, which for centuries past have ruled and influenced the bodies and minds of the most enlightened portion of the human species.

      1. It will be observed that the above set of chronological prophecies consists of four distinct visions, and that each successive one is characterized from the preceding by the introduction of a new mental power. In the first vision which was vouchsafed to Nebuchadnezzar, and interpreted by Daniel, the four political powers are set forth under the dazzling symbol of a splendid metallic image, and the first of the mental powers, viz. christianity, under the figures of a little stone and a great mountain.

      2. The second vision was seen by the Prophet himself and interpreted to him at his own request by the angel. It is substantially the first prophecy repeated under a new set of symbols, viz. four beasts instead of four metals, with the introduction of a new mental power, viz. Catholicism, which the angel describes locally, circumstantially, and chronologically as arising in the West amid the troubles of the Roman Empire, acquiring a triple crown, blaspheming God, changing times and laws, and wearing out the saints of the Most High, for the long period of twelve hundred and sixty years.

      3. The third vision introduces a third mental power, viz. Mahomedanism, arising in the East when the transgressions of the apostate christians were come to the full. This power is described as destroying [33] the holy people, magnifying himself, and opposing Christ the Prince of Princes.

      Mahomet retired to his cave in company with Sergius, an apostate christian minister, to form the Alcoran, in 606, the very year in which the saints in the West were given into the hands of the Pope by the tyrant Phocas. So we see that the apostate mental power of Mahomedanism in the East, and the apostate mental power of Catholicism in the West, originated in the same year, i. e. in 606; and as they were to continue for twelve hundred and sixty years to oppose and oppress christianity, we have only to add 1260 to 606 in order to obtain the year when God shall commence their utter destruction. These two numbers added together bring us down to the year 66 of the present century.

      4. ¹The fourth vision introduces a fourth mental power, viz. Atheism, described as being self-willed, elevating itself above every god, and in an especial manner speaking marvellous things against the true God, the Son of God, Jesus Christ, whom the Prophet styles "the desire of women;" and, in short, disregarding every god, until, for political purposes, it unites itself again to Catholicism, from whose bosom it originally sprung. All this has been verified in the history of France, where Atheism was publicly set up by the national authorities in 1793.

      This Atheistical power was to flourish until the time of the end, the period allotted for the prevalence of Atheism, Mahomedanism, and Catholicism. Atheism is with great propriety believed by interpreters to be the real Antichrist which was to appear in the last days, because it denies both the Father and the Son.

      This mental power has diffused itself all over France, Switzerland, many parts of Germany and the Netherlands; it is to be found in Scotland, England, and Ireland, and is now publicly proclaimed and defended in certain periodical prints in the United States, where a number of distinguished foreigners, lured hither by the political freedom of our land, have succeeded in forming a nucleus of Atheism, [34] and bid defiance to every thing affecting to be from God, whether law or gospel.

      Whether these things be exactly so or not, it is very certain that the first vision shows us the origin of Messiah's kingdom under the figure of "a little stone;" and the second vision shows it at the beginning of Millennium, when "the beast" (i. e. the Roman Empire) is slain and his body destroyed and given to the burning flame; then is Messiah, the only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords, exhibited in all his glory.

      "I saw," says Daniel, "in the night visions, and beheld one like the Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of Days; and they brought him near before him, and there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages should serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed."

      Thus christianity is shown to be not a scheme of mediation only, but a system of universal government also, having God for its author. "The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Messiah." "Behold he cometh on clouds, and every eye shall see him."

DANIEL.

Jefferson, Mississippi, October 10, 1830.

      DEAR BROTHER CHAMBERS--I feel it my duty as servant of Jesus Christ, to cast in my mite in defence: of the truth. I have been a reader of Mr. Alexander Campbell's Christian Baptist from its earliest appearance in this state, it being recommended by brother Burch as a good periodical work, until he (brother Burch) discovered, as he supposed, it, baneful effects. I continued to contend for his views, (namely,) that the Scriptures as they stand were sufficient for the government of the churches, without any written creed, confession of faith, or covenant, so strenuously, (and contemplated on constituting on A. Campbell's principles,) till at length I fell under the displeasure of the church called "Fellowship," and suffered myself be expelled, with others dissenting with me, on the same principles. * * * * At length, my mind ruminating on the subject, it pleased God to convince me that such a stand taken by a minister of the gospel, in the present state of the churches, must terminate to anarchy and confusion. I also discovered that this reforming notion must eventually result in the destruction of the union and fellowship of the churches, under the influence of such teachers. Being fully convinced of the error, and also of the false and disorganizing character of Mr. Campbell's views of experimental religion, his "historic faith" in Christ, and his views of christian baptism, I was constrained to return to my brethren, with (I hope) an humble acknowledgment of my sin; and endeavored to exhort my brethren to beware of Campbellism; and I felt like I desired to live to let all my brethren know that I renounce, in toto, the doctrines of Alexander Campbell. And now, brother [35] Chambers, you will much oblige your friend and brother by giving a place to this communication in your excellent periodical.

DANIEL GRIFFING.

      And so it came to pass, that Daniel Griffing, while under the censures of the church--while given over to Satan--was brought to see the great sin he had committed in "contending that the Scriptures, as they stand, were sufficient for the government of the churches, without any written creed, confession of faith, or covenant;" of which sin he sincerely repents, and now most cordially renounces "the Scriptures, as they stand, as sufficient for the government of the churches:" and now resolves from this time forth that he will teach that "the Scriptures, as they stand, are not sufficient for the government of the church," if the church will release him from the pains of excommunication. In coming before the church, and in soliciting the repeal of the anathema, he avers that "it pleased God to convince him, after ruminating on the subject, that such a stand to be taken by any minister of the gospel," viz. "that the Scriptures, as they stand, are sufficient for the government of the church," "must terminate in anarchy and confusion." If Daniel Griffing may now he believed, it would seem that God has, by a new revelation of the Spirit, independent of the word, taught him that the writings of men are more perfect than his own writings: for they can do, what God's word, without them, could not do--viz. constitute a sufficient rule for the government of God's church. Why did not the Spirit teach him this before he fell under the anathema, if the Spirit did not use the anathema as a means of illuminating him upon this subject? This is not a physical influence for which & penitent Griffing contends, and of which he was a subject: for it pleased this Spirit of which he speaks to use the anathema as a means of convincing him that his own word was defective. If the anathema had not fallen upon this humble penitent, the Spirit would have had no means of convincing him of his error. What a blessing was this anathema! I hail it as such; for it was the means not only of convincing friend Griffing of the delusion he was under in thinking God's word to be a sufficient rule of faith and manners, but it was the happy instrument of removing from the ranks of the reformers a man-fearing and a time-serving spirit, and of associating him with kindred spirits, with whom he can feel himself at home, an with whom he can fraternize in all good conscience.

      But we ought not to dismiss this recantation without observing to what lengths the opposers of reform push their efforts, even to the excommunication of a person for no other alleged crime than the simple impiety of saying, that the Scriptures, as they stand, are sufficient to govern the church; I will, therefore, oblige both Daniel Griffing, John Birch of Mississippi, and the church called "Fellowship," by publishing to all the readers of this work their anathema and his solemn recantation of his former veneration for the apostolic writings, and renunciation of allegiance to them as a perfect rule of faith and manners.

      Mulberry Grove, near Nashville, Dec, 9, 1830. [36]

      An Uncivil War.--Mr. Campbell seems to have a tough pen, and a short memory. In his last number of the so styled Millennial Harbinger, he says--"I never said, nor insinuated that religion is a state. No man of sense can affirm that religion is a state." In the Extra No. of the same work, which we noticed not long since, the same Mr. Campbell says--"The converts made to Jesus Christ by the Apostles, were taught to consider themselves pardoned, justified, sanctified, reconciled, adopted, and saved; and were addressed as pardoned, justified, sanctified, reconciled, adopted, and saved persons, by all who first preached the gospel of Christ. Whilst this proposition is before us, it may be expedient to remark, that all these terms are expressive, not of any quality of mind; not of any personal attribute of body, soul, or spirit; but each of them represents, and all of them together represent a state, or condition." But above, the same writer says--"I never said, nor insinuated that religion was a state." Truly it may he said, Mendacem oportet esse nnemorem.

      "We perceive the evasion which he contemplates when he denies having said that religion is a state. He means to slip through the meshes of ambiguity in the term "religion." He means to tell us that by religion he understands nothing more than the gospel or the institute of Christ or his Apostles. But we beg to remind him of his own assertion. He says, "Sanctified represents a state or condition, and not any personal attribute of body, soul, or spirit." But to be truly religious, and to be sanctified, are considered one and the same thing the world over; consequently, the term religious represents a "state or condition;" and not any "attribute of soul or spirit," according to Mr. Campbell, since things must be equal to one another, if they be equal to the same thing. We were, therefore, right in alleging that he had affirmed religion to be a state, and not a character. Mr. Campbell now positively denies that he ever said or insinuated such a thing!"

Col. Star.

      Mr. Brantly, in his usual courtesy, after applying to me in Latin the adage that "it behoves a liar to have a good memory," still attempts to justify himself in calling religion a character, and labors to make me assert it to be a state. I shall use no epithets in expressing my astonishment at the temerity and pretended ignorance of this scribe, lest any should think I resented his vulgarity. Has he proved that I said that religion was a state! Would he have us to believe that he is so ignorant as to suppose that the quotation from the Millennial Extra proves his allegation! Is the term "pardoned, justified, sanctified, reconciled, adopted, or saved," equivalent in his view to the word religion?!! These he would appear to think to be convertible terms. My not agreeing to use the word pardoned, &c. as a convertible term with the term religion, he calls an evasion. It is not true that I "intend to slip through the meshes of ambiguity in the term religion:" for I assert that it is never used as synonymous with, or equivalent to, any one, or all of the above terms; and that to be sanctified and to be religious whether equivalent or not, is not the question: but is, to be sanctified, and the term religion, convertible terms? This Mr. Brantly dares not affirm; but by a real evasion--a mere trick--substitutes the term religious for religion, and strives to make his reader believe that I use the terms religion and religious as convertible terms; or, what is the same thing, that I deny the term religious to be applicable to the word state. This I have never done. The whole matter terminates here. Is a religious state equivalent [37] to the word religion? Because the adjective religious applies to state, is it thence to be inferred that the noun religion is also applicable to the term state?

      Another evasion appears in the following assertion:--"To be truly religious, and to he sanctified, are considered to be one and the same thing all the world over." This he would palm upon the reader as the controversy. This I might either admit or deny, and still it will neither logically nor grammatically fellow that the term religion denotes a state or character, which is the only question of controversy on this subject. Mr. Brantly has given it up by substituting religious for religion; but he does it not as gentlemen and christians are wont to do. To say that matrimony and married are convertible terms is even less egregious than to say that religion and sanctified are terms equipollent.

      This appears to be a mere controversy about a word. Mr. Brantly having failed in detecting a single error in the Extra No. 1, is now seeking for an assylum in this reiteration of a mere quibble. He has fallen down to a single word. It may appear cruel in me not to give him a single word for a hiding place; but he seeks it with so much apparent perversity, and without even the semblance of reason, that we cannot permit him to raise on our premises a cover for his retreat. He must pitch his tent upon his own ground. I trust the reader will recollect that this is not a controversy about a word, but about the most important item in the christian institution, and that a pretended scribe, who places himself in the highest chair, has no other escape from the evidence and argument than by raising a quibble about a word, and insulating that from the whole connexion of things of great moment in which it stood.

      It is not so marvellous, that if Mr. Brantly be so dishonest, he should have to complain of his patrons as he does in his number of the 20th November. He says, "Hardly a day comes without 50 or 75 cents postage for the sad news of a discontinuance. This is miserable treatment." p. 335. It is no wonder that men of sense should get tired of such a course as Mr. Brantly pursues; nor that they should evade the postage as Mr. Brantly has taught them to evade the argument. Miserable treatment all round!!

Mulberry Grove, near Nashville, Ten.             December 9, 1830.

}

EDITOR.

      ERASTRATUS, one of the most ignoble men that Asia gave birth to, immortalized himself by burning the Temple of Diana, one of the Seven Wonders of the World, he did it for the express purpose of preserving his name from oblivion. And although the Common Council of Ephesus decreed that his name should not be mentioned, all historians have recorded it as one of the most signal proofs of the excesses to which an exorbitant vanity may carry a weak and infatuated mind. Some men will be famous at any price. If they have not [38] virtues to elevate them, they will seek renown even by the magnitude of their vices. They will rise upon the ruin of themselves. A name they must have if it should cost both body and soul. Samuel Patch, not content with leaping from the surface of the Falls of Niagara, not satisfied with the fame of such an exploit, erected a scaffold one hundred feet high above the Falls, from which to precipitate himself over this stupendous cataract. He found subscribers not only to witness, but to pay for the sight; and in their presence plunged himself into the tremendous abyss, from which he returned not to laugh with his admirers.

      "'Tis better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven," is now an article, not only in the creed of Satan, but in the practice of men. If men will look on, laugh, and pay for the sport, some individuals will gambol like a Satyr, and play such pranks as might make angels weep, if tears they had to shed. The actors in the orthodox drama of the present day are not altogether superior to an imputation of this sort. Fame has not lost all its charms in their eyes. To this no man ought to object, if it were the fame of a benefactor. But such fame as is sought by the dramatis personæ of the Baptist Chronicle and Literary Register, is not unequivocally that to which a christian might aspire.

      Some men rise and fall with the times. Others know this to be the fact. Hence the eagerness with which they watch the movements of public opinion, and the promptitude with which they mount the hobby most likely to carry them into fortune and fame. How much, for example, has been achieved by many individuals by timously espousing the cause of the Hero of New Orleans! Men are now in power, all will admit, whose sole merit consisted in their early prognostication of the fortunate candidate. Men are now basking in the full blaze of presidential patronage, whose fortune would have been quite the reverse had they been less skilled in political divination. But hobbies, like other animals, are mortal; and there will arise a king who knew not Joseph. Those now out of dignity will become better skilled in the signs of the times, and will, in a propitious moment, break some new hobby to the saddle, or yoke their fortunes to the car of some new aspirant; and then comes the crash of the old nobility and the induction of the new.

      Well would it be if this sort of divination were confined to the rulers of this world, and to those who know the value of political loaves and fishes. But in the world falsely called religious, we have not only many hobbies, but many to ride them. Hence creeds, associations, mystical regeneration, and physical operations, are seized by the discontents; and some men, whose virtues, talents, and information would never have carried them out of their native county, are riding full tilt at the head of admiring multitudes; and their fame bids fair to be as permanent as the cause which they oppose. It is owing to this peculiarity in the fortunes of human affairs, that Pontius Pilate and Herod are as famous as either Joseph of Arimathea or Nicodemus. [39] and that Judas Iscariot descends to every age with the Saviour whom he betrayed.

      The Baptist Chronicle affords texts for many sermons of this sort. Its ostensible editor, with its real authors, have given to themselves a conspicuity which honest men with their talents never could have achieved. Before they seized the prejudices of the people, and mounted the sectarian hobbies, thousands in Kentucky had more religious reputation and influence than the chronicler himself: and as for those who use him as their Jambres, they were in the utmost need of some such instrument either to save them from religious bankruptcy, or to give them a little capital with which to push their fortune. The facts and documents which I have to give in detail, illustrative and corroborative of these statements, are numerous and decisive; but in Kentucky they are not called for, and out of it they are unnecessary. An expose of the literary, moral, and religious character of a single number is all that I intend at present, and all that is necessary to give to those at a distance a sample of the men and measures which the opposition to reform in Kentucky has in its front.

      We choose the last number of the Chronicle which appeared, because it is the only one accessible to us. As it calls itself the Literary Register, we shall give a sample of the literary and critical taste and talent of the club. p. 163:--

      "To reform the ordinance of baptism as much as possible, our reformers have discovered, or rather invented a new ceremony. They now immerse into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, instead of baptize in the name, &c. as formerly. I have not much objection to the word immerse, though I see no necessity for the use of it. Baptize implies the same thing, and being more commonly used, is more familiar and better understood; consequently it should be preferred. But the word into--how nonsensical would it be for a man to say he was commanded into the name of the commonwealth to do any thing! or that he had done something into the name of the commonwealth. And is it more nonsensical thus to speak, than for a minister to say he had baptized a person into the name of the Lord! If there be any analogy in language, there is not. But do our reformers thus translate the word because it is better sense? Admitting it to be either or both of these, we should then translate the following passages in a similar manner; and hereafter we should read Matt. xxi. 9. not "blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord," but into the name of the Lord. Mark ix. 38. not "Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name," but into thy name. Same chapter, 39th verse, not "There is no man that can do a miracle in my name," but do a miracle into my name. Same chapter, 41st verse, not "Whosoever shall give you a cup of water in my name," but a cup of water into my name. Luke x. 17. not "Even the devils are subject to us through thy name," but into thy name, Mark xix. 38. not "Blessed is the King that cometh in the name of the Lord," but cometh into the name of the Lord. John iii. 15. not "Whosoever believeth in him should not perish," but believeth into him, &c.

      But I need proceed no further. Every tyro in Greek, every person understanding only his native tongue, would blush to vindicate a translation that would introduce into the Scriptures such puerilities--such pitiful absurdities. Suppose we were to analyze their ceremony:--"I immerse thee into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." Immerse--What is immerse? To dip into water. Then they mean, "I dip thee into water into the name." What sense has this? Do they say, "I dip thee into water which is [40] into the name?" or "I dip thee into water; and into the name?" Tell me, you that can, what they mean? Into the name of the Father? Of course, according to their own logic, they put on the name of the Father--and into the name of the Son. Do they put on the name of the Son? Yes; the Son is called Christ, and hence they call themselves Christians. But why not put on all his names? And into the name of the Holy Spirit. But I can pursue them no further. It looks too much like trifling with holy things, to trace out all their absurdities. Such reasoning as theirs, if not impious, may at least be classed with what Mr. Jamieson, in his Rhetoric, calls learned nonsense.

JUVENIS."

      The writer of this pretends to be no tyro in Greek. In this he is, no doubt, sincere. But he means more than a tyro--I, that he is comparably less than a tyro. It has been ascribed to Mr. Bacon, principal of the Georgetown Classical and Theological School: for none other than he of the conductors of the Chronicle, professes more than a knowledge of the Greek alphabet. But this I cannot think; for the writer of this piece certainly does not know the Greek alphabet. It is more rationally ascribed to one of the three lawyers which belong to the club. But what, shall we think of the morality of that man who pretends to understand Greek, and to criticise a translation of the New Testament, who does not know how to read en and eiV, (en and eis.) In all the passages cited, one only excepted, it is en, and not eis; and, therefore, he mistakes the whole matter. No man pretends that en is to be translated into. Now, courteous reader, see the dilemma in which this "Literary Register" is placed. Either he knew, or did not know the difference between en and eis. If he knew it, he wilfully blinded his readers and slandered me, by telling them that we would have en translated into--an idea which never fell from our pen nor from our lips. And if he choose the other horn of the dilemma, he is equally guilty, or more guilty: for he pretends to know that of which he is as ignorant as an Indian, and superadds to his ignorance the crime of wilful slander, accusing a person of that which he knew not to be true, or cared not to know to he false.

      As to the propriety of my rendering eis INTO, in the commission, I discovered yesterday in the 4th volume of Dr. Dwight's Theology, page 318, that even this learned writer vindicates the same rendering, and has used almost my own reasoning to prove that all persons should be immersed into, and not in the name, &c. This only by the way. [See my note on this passage, New Test. 2d ed. p. 452.]

      But this is only one of the many measures pursued by those who plead for the traditions of men to prejudice those who either cannot, or will not, read for themselves; and as few of their readers know more Greek than themselves, they calculate that their reputation for orthodoxy will secure the assent of them who do not read the common version with any interest, and of course are very ill qualified to decide on the comparative merits of any other version.

      The next specimen of the literature and taste of the "Literary Register" is taken from page 165. A writer who contributes largely for this literary work proves that he is not in his dotage, because he travelled many miles last Summer. The greatest simpleton I ever [41] saw was one of the greatest pedestrians I ever knew. But it is not the old gentleman's logic, but his poetry which I wish to preserve as a specimen of the talent of the opposition. The writer gives this as a proof that his intellect is as good as it ever was:

Mr. Chambers had better republish this in the "poet's corner" of his "Literary Register." This most talented and orthodox of the opposition, after writing these harmonious and poetic lines, asks, "Now, can I be much doted as to my bodily powers?" This accomplished old gentleman says, (and is he not a good judge?) "The Georgetown Chronicle is the now best periodical in the West"!!! As the literary character of this work will further appear in the quotations to be made, we shall proceed to give a few specimens of its moral character:--

      On page 162, one of its moral heroes, supposed to live in Frankfort, says, "Two months have scarcely elapsed, and Campbellism is extinct; yes, in Kentucky, it has passed rapidly on to the tomb of the Capulets. There may it find an endless repose! Amen! Amen!" This gentleman, grand manager of the opposition, author of "the thirty-nine articles," as it is presumed, and fabricator and purveyor for the Chronicle, has, it is said, been so disturbed in conscience as to he afraid to sleep in a room by himself without a candle. When death has been mentioned in reference to himself, or even his descent down the hill of life noticed, he has fallen into a fit of hypochondriasis. This is not so strange while his memory is legible, if on it be inscribed many such statements as the above. I wish "Campbellism" and man-isms, of all sorts, were all extinct, it is true; but what he contumaciously represents as "Campbellism," alias the ancient gospel and ancient order of things, so far from being "extinct in Kentucky," is more triumphant at this moment, and progressing with more rapidity than at any former period; if my own observation and the testimony of the ablest and most pious public speakers in the state may be regarded. The very same Chronicle which publishes this religious falsehood, speaks of the spread of these sentiments, and asks for information how far these principles are spreading. Out of thine own mouth will I condemn thee--out of your own publication I will show how little reliance may be placed in you, the chroniclers of Kentucky. Page 169--"Here are eight churches in which Mr. C's writings have caused divisions to a positive certainty, all within sixty mites of Georgetown. And besides these, there are others within the same distance, of which we cannot speak definitely. We desire to be informed by our friends of the extent of the divisions not named. In Louisville a division has recently taken place, each party excluding the other on the same day." Yet "Campbellism is extinct in Kentucky"!! These writers accuse others of lying!!! I am not a little surprized that such men, if they believe in the government of Jesus [42] Christ, which I think is very problematical, could think that, admitting we were in error, they could put it down, or that any blessing could be expected to attend such a system of misrepresentation, proscription and intrigue? Is it not proverbial in Kentucky, that in no political contest was there ever exhibited more of the works of the flesh, than the enemies of reform have exhibited during the last year? Yet these men talk about the sin of making divisions, of which they are themselves the only legitimate authors. If Campbellism were as wicked as Jezebelism, such unrighteous means and such immoral agents could not put it down. No one can say that Satan now acts like an angel of light.

      These infatuated men may be so ignorant as to suppose that their anathemas and decrees, because sustained by the prejudices of a part of the people, are the extinction of reform. But nothing which such men could do, could help it more. How many preachers of reform in Kentucky have been brought back by these measures? How many of the friends of reform have deserted the ranks? And how many have associated with them? Let some responsible person name them, and thus demonstrate how the reformation is extinct!

      John Taylor says, "Campbellism begins to fall faster than it ever began to rise," page 166 of the same Chronicle. Either John Taylor, or Dr. Noel, the supposed author of "Menno," must, themselves being judges, be placed in an awkward position here. The former says, "It begins to fall"--the latter says, "It is extinct;" and the Chronicle affirms it has recently been increasing; or, what is the same thing, that "a division has very recently taken place in Louisville." There is confusion among the Babel repairers.

      In page 173 there is a very full specimen of the morality of the Editor. In the first place he represents the "Christian Examiner" as dead. His words are, "The Christian Examiner, the little pamphlet heretofore published in Lexington by Norwood and Creath, has withered and died." He immediately adds that it is to be published in Louisville. If he had not shown that he is apprised of the fact that Louisville, rather than Lexington, was preferred by the Editors of the Examiner, because of greater facilities for carrying on the work, we might have supposed him innocent in saying that because it ceased to be issued from Lexington, it had died. But let those of a conscience not polluted with falsehoods, judge how this religious gentleman could say that the Christian Examiner was dead. If Mr. Chronicle had removed his printing-office across the street, and I had said the Chronicle "had withered and died," he would have filled a column with vituperations: anathemas and defamations, in all the mazes of scurrilous volubility, would have ornamented every sentence.

      An extract from "Carlile's Life of Paine," furnished by A Traveller, for the 9th number of the Harbinger, is made a text by the Chronicle for preaching to the people that I am about to become a Deist. The happy exit of Paine, as reported, was intended to show how little confidence can be reposed in the happy exits of men whose lives are at war with religion and morality. Could I have supposed that there [43] was any man so stupid as to think that we had any faith in the happy death of a wicked man, other than as he may die insensible as a beast, I should, like a certain painter, have written the name of the animal below the painting. It is, however, probable, that if any person should say that the Editor of the Chronicle had, without reformation, "died in perfect composure and resignation" I might publish it without note or comment; as another proof of the delusion of irrational theories--as another proof of how little consequence it is for a man of an unrighteous life to say he dies in peace with God and man.

      A third proof of the morality of the chronicler is the remarks made by him on an extract from page 442 of the Harbinger, concerning the character of some spirits opposed to reformation. He labors hard to make his readers think that I intended these characters for Messrs. John Taylor, Brantly, Clopton, &c. After he has elaborated these insinuations, and worked up the mind of his readers into a belief that these were the persons designated, he pours out his furies upon me in the following strains:--"The God of heaven sees through the veil behind which this modern Munzer attempts to shelter his wickedness. A most striking evidence of an entire prostration of moral principle in this affair, is, Mr. C's utter disregard of truth. One source of consolation among the friends of truth, is, that Mr. C's entire destitution of candor and disregard for truth are becoming so notorious, that his arrows of detraction are rapidly losing their point and venom, and fall comparatively innoxious at the feet of those whom he would injure." The reader will please to remember, that although Mr. Chambers is a lawyer, he professes to be a religious and moral man. Now had Mr. Chambers proved first that these were the persons of whom I spake: and in the second place, that they were innocent of the charge, the above vulgar abuse would not even then been admissible. But what shall we say of it when I have positively excepted these, and excluded the logical possibility of them, or any of them mentioned by him, as being included or alluded to in the remarks quoted. The persons alluded to are marked out as "the first to stir up sedition among the people." They are again described as once having some influence among the people, and as having lost it. Yet with these designations, limitations, and restrictions before him, regardless of them, he represents these characters as possibly applying to those persons he named, and then denounces me as if they certainly were the persons intended.

      But instances of this sort are numerous in every number of the Chronicle which I have read. On the cover of this same 11th number, concerning my visit to Georgetown, there are several falsehoods; but so palpable, that few, if any, can believe them; such as my saying that "nothing is more absurd than to call upon a sinner to repent." Such misrepresentations carry their own cure with them. To make even religious lies credible, they must not be quite so gross. This is, however, not a grosser misrepresentation than many others from the same source. This writer only wants time to render himself incredible to [44] all who think. Can any person believe him moral or sincere in thanking me for my visit to Kentucky, because he represents it as likely to aid his cause, while in the same breath he recommends the shutting of the meeting houses against me; and that by publishing; upon his own responsibility, that neither myself nor my friends will be permitted to occupy hereafter the Baptist pulpit in Georgetown? Why, then, Mr. Chambers, thank me for my visit, and represent my discourses as injurious to the spread of the principles I plead? If you cannot believe yourself sincere and honest, how can others believe you?

      This is a meagre specimen of the morality of the opposition. I proposed also to furnish a specimen of the religion of this editorial club, from the number before me; but in reviewing it the only specimens are such as the following:--"If this" (myself) "papas supremus of the Reformers be right, why was not Simon Magus a christian?" "Mr. Campbell, I can neither attend to you nor any of your understrappers" p. 104. "These outlandish renegado preachers?' "Do you know, sir, there is a heavy rod in soak for you?" p. 166. "Belching forth the most furious splenetic and slanderous vituperation of which the foulest malignant heart could be susceptible" "How vile and relentless must be the heart of him, who, sheltered under the apparent sanctity of his ministerial cloth, will, without remorse or scruple, deliberately and with malice aforethought, thrust his envenomed poinard of detraction into the vitals of the fairest reputations" "Who but Alexander Campbell and his reckless followers would do it?" p. 173. These are a few samples of the religious feeling, and of the gracious words of the Chronicle and those who aid him in supporting the projects of the opposition.

      Such is a fair sample of the literary, moral, and religious character of the "Baptist Chronicle and Literary Register," of Georgetown, Kentucky. I have hitherto paid little attention to it; and if my readers will forgive me, I think it will be a long time before I trouble them with another notice of a work which no man can touch without being polluted. It has been now for nearly one year abusing myself and many of the most intelligent and pious men in Kentucky, in the style of this 11th number. It is due to the friends of reform, to the cause which I plead, and to the next generation, that such samples of the talents, taste, morality, and religious character of the opposition to reform, should be preserved and exhibited. But we will content ourselves, and, I think, our readers will be contented with this notice of the first book of the Chronicles of the advocates of the priesthood, the creeds, and the traditions of the elders. While our opponents have reason to offer we shall attend to them; but to render abuse for abuse, and railing for railing, we have neither time nor taste; and, what is still more decisive, the King positively forbids it. [45]

Mulberry Grove, Tennessee,             December 24, 1830.

}

EDITOR.

      ALL that we have ever asked is conceded to us here--a candid examination, an argumentative opposition, and, if it can be produced, a scriptural refutation, or a cordial reception:--

Ed. M. H.

      "Mr. A. Campbell, of Bethany, Va.--However correct or incorrect Mr. Campbell's religious opinions may be, we think it may be said of him, as Dr. Johnson said of Goldsmith, "Nil tetiget quod non ornavit."--that he has touched no subject which he has not adorned. We have given some extracts in today's paper, from his "Millennial Harbinger--Extra," which we think will be read with interest. Mr. Campbell is, no doubt, cordially despised by many sectaries, and denounced as a "disorganizer," a "reformer," and a "dangerous man;" but one thing, we believe, will not be denied, that wherever his Christian Baptist or Millennial Harbinger is read, it begets a desire to "search the Scriptures;" that the New Testament particularly is more generally read, and there is a more thorough inquiry "whether these things be so." There is, in this country, a novelty in the doctrine contained in these extracts that cannot fail to attract attention. If Mr. Campbell be right, it seems to us that he has presented the subject of religion in a most beautiful, simple, and fascinating light. That mysticism and priestcraft may seek to hide their deformities in vain, when compared to the alluring aspect of the simple and naked truth. If he be wrong, his writings s should be met and refuted; and to do this he challenges the world. If his doctrine be correct, we wish our readers to have the benefit of it, so far as our extracts extend. If it be wrong, it is dangerous, and should be mildly but vigorously opposed; and this is our reason, if it be necessary to give any, for the extracts. Religion is surely a rational subject, and one which will not shrink from investigation; for truth is consistent, immutable, and will prevail."

[Huntsville Democrat.]

      William Polke, Vincennes, Ind. paid for himself, H D Wheeler, P Ruley, J Reed, and Mrs Beeman. J. L, Bustis, Brookneal, Va. paid for himself and J Calloway; also, 1 dollar for John Bustis. T J Latham, Pantego, N. C. paid for himself. E Sweat, Lebanon, Ten. paid 3 dollars, for whom not stated. J Park, Knoxville, Ind paid for himself, J Blackstone, E Whitington, and Dr Williams. A. Weimer, Batesville, O. paid for himself. R. Thompson, Georgetown, Ky. paid for himself, S G Marshall, J W Grant, J Stricklen, T. Tombleson, B. S. Chambers, J. Gaines, Col W Johnson of the Great Crossings, and H. Marshall of Frankfort. G W Young, Augusta, Ga. paid for himself. J. Terril, Dover, paid for himself and J Biggs. J Spencer, Lebanon, Ky. paid for himself and J Coppage; also, 1 dollar for F Roy. A Kirkpatrick, Meigsville, Ten. paid for H Hall, P Mulkey, William Hamilton, and himself; also vol. 2 for N Fisk of Hilham. T. Nichols, Maysville, Ky. paid for himself. A Runyan, Mary's Lick, Ky. paid 50 dollars through T. Campbell, Sen. (names not stated.) G Archer, Decatur, O. paid 10 dollars through T Campbell, Sen. (names not given.) J Hall, Carlisle, Ky. paid for himself Charles Williams, Mount Sterling, Ky. paid for himself. J Collerman, Flemingsburg, Ky. paid 8 dollars, for whom not stated. D Crawford, Georgetown, O. paid for himself. T. J. Murdock, Burlington, Ky. paid for J Stephens, P Price, Miss Frances Spencer and Mr. Pearson, J Butterford and J. W. Martin, Wheeling, Va. paid [46] for themselves. W Cole, Wilmington, O. paid for J Shockley, J. Howe, W. Hibbins, J Vandernort, A Wilson, D. Radcliff and Dr U Farquhar. Joseph Doddridge, Esq. Williamsport, O. paid for himself, George Alkine and F Graham. S Stone, South Hill, Va. paid for Eliza-Ann Creath. F. V. Sutton, White Chimneys, Va. paid for C. Coleman and W. Allen. N. H. Turner, Jackson, Va, paid for W C Thomas and Miss Sarah H Vest; also, I dollar for Miss Sarah Purrington. J. Patton, Jun. Paris, Ky. paid for G. Gates and W S Bryant, also, 1 dollar for L. Warfield, W Vadon, Bolivar, Ten. paid for himself. N P Goodall, Kirkland Mill, O. paid for himself. W Bootwright, Richmond, Va. paid for M W Webber, B Gates, L. L. Montague, D Carder and William Piper. J Jackson, Jetersville, Va. paid for W C Jackson, and T E Jeter; also, 1 dollar for himself. J Smith, Economy, Ind. paid for T P Burras; also, I dollar for himself. T J Allen, Bricksville, O. paid for himself and J Patrick. W. Hayden, Austintown, O. paid for J Cotton and W. Shakspear. J. W. Fort, Denmark, Ten. paid for J B Fort, Dr W Evans, B Hill, E Cross, and himself. H. Edwards, Bloomfield, Ky. paid for J Summers and D Lewis; also, 1 dollar for S. Stone. P Stout, La Grange, Ala. paid for A Hicks and J M Northcross; also one dollar for himself. N. K. Whitney, Kirkland Mills, O. paid for himself. D. M'Donough, Washington, Pa. paid for J M'Donough, J. Pangburn, and J. Witherow. P S Van Ingan, Albany, N. Y. paid vols. 1 and 2 for himself. T. Crane, Cincinnati, O. paid for himself. P Applegate, Green Castle, Ind. paid A R Runyan, May's Lick, Ky. for the following persons: George Piercy, B. H. Vandike, H Starks, W Wright, J Trigg, and B. H. Nichols. J Loop, Elyra, O. paid for himself and W Carter. J. Chinn and N. Offout, Leesburg, Ky. paid for themselves. G W Nuckles, Shelbyville, Ky. paid for J Richardson, Capt. Watts, and S Vaughan. C Hunter and L Suggett, Frankfort, Ky. paid for themselves. J Scofield, Frankfort, Ky. paid for himself. J. M. Dupuy, Versailles, Ky. paid for vol. 2. S. Curts, Stradfort, Con. paid for himself. J Rudolph, Hiram, O. paid for J Ridor. W. D. Jourdan, Locust Shade, Ten. paid for C Welch and J. T. Coffee. J. B. New, Vernon, Ind. paid for himself. S C. Earle, Earle's Store, S. C. paid for S Hymer.

      W Hayden, Austintown, O. paid for R Craig. J Rittenhouse, Brownsville, Pa. paid for himself and W Shanks. J Deardorff, Waynesborough, Pa. paid for himself, O. Johanstock, H Strickler, P Hoover, A Stoner and E Horner. S G Earle, Earle's Store, S. C. paid for S. G. Clanahan. J. Fosset, Columbus, Ind. paid for J Houser and R Miller. W. Duffield, Springfield, O. paid for himself. J. L. Buster, Brookneal, Va. paid for J. M'Haney and C. Clements; also, 1 dollar for J Buster. W Bruce, Bruceville, Ind. paid for D Davis and Elizabeth Spencer. A Kyle. Harrodsburg, Ky. paid for. J. Bowman, J. R. Chapline, D Hart, J. Hewitt, Isaac Chapline, W. A. Bridges, J. P. Williams. Jacob Creath, jun. Louisville, Ky. paid for J M'Intosh, Dr H Young, and H Moore. Wm Ralls, Rushville, Ill. paid for S Honory and J. Rogers, also. 1 dollar for himself. H Broom, Cambridge, O. paid for himself. Abraham Smith, Burnt Tavern, Ky. paid for himself. J N Walter, O. paid for E Phelps. O. Clapp, Mentor, O, paid for Lewis Smith. D. Dye, Washington, Pa. paid for himself and G. Smith, T Edwards, Lebanon, Ten. paid for J. Bell and W. Terrill. J Anderson, Sparta, Ten. paid for T. Lovelady and J Rhea; also, 1 dollar for A. M'Bride, J. L. Hickman, Lexington, Ky. paid for himself. George Carpenter, New Store, Ky. paid for himself. E. A. Smith, Danville, Ky. paid for J. D. Ayres, W Helm, J. Muilis, M A Stemmons, J Helm. jun. S Hooker, E Romme, H. Hackley. C. Fleece, M. Helm, James Crow, E. Dawson, N. Waters, J Helm, sen. and Mrs P Cornett. J Ballenger, Lancaster, Ky. paid for himself J. B. Edwards, King William Court-House, Va. paid for T. W. Atkinson and W Elliot; also, 1 dollar for C. Lipscomb. J Crum, Milton, Ind. paid 10 dollars, (for whom not Stated.) J Bridgewater, Columbia, Ky. paid for himself. A Clempd, Ky. paid for himself Joel Prewitt, Fayette, Mo. paid for Dr J Bull, J. C. Kerr, H. Chisman, J. Nanson, and George Giddings. G Fassett, Scottsville, Pa. paid for himself, [47] B. S. Hendrickson, New York, paid for E White, J Franks, T Hogg, T Stephens, H Porter, and A Bowman. F V Sutton, Bowling Green, Va. paid for C Baylor. D Kellough, Bloomington, Ind. paid for Dr S. Roach. J Robison, Madisonville, Ky. paid for himself and W. Noel. H. C. Ewing, Trenton, Ky. paid for himself. A. Adams, Hadensville, Ky. paid for G. Miller, T. Cross and J. Cross; also, 1 dollar for J. and S. Mallory. G W Trabue, Glasgow, Ky. paid for J. Trabue, T. Crenshaw, A. Trigg, W. Wood, jun. and W. A. Brush. Joseph Feland, Bowling Green, Ky. paid for himself. A. Reynolds, Dripping Spring, Ky. paid for himself, J. Whitton, H. Jameson, J. C. Rountree, and M. Duncan. N. G. Smith, St Lawrence, N. C. paid for himself. J. Hawkins, Connersville, Ind. paid for J M Wilson and A Woodyard. N. Ross, Martinsburg, O. paid 1 dollar for himself. J Richard's, Bowler's, Va. paid for J. Janey. W Button, Covington, Ind. paid for D Anderson, R Landers, J N Spinning, J H Martin, J H Graham, J Hickman, B Restine and himself. T. Purkins, Mount Pleasant, Va. paid for W Greenlaw, L. Marders, R. P. Marshall, F. Jetts, S. Coghill, and himself. S. E. Shepherd, Alba, Pa. paid for J. C. Rockwell. O. Newcomb, Wadsworth, O paid for C. Derthick and E Crosby. F. Henry, Hollidaysburg, Pa. paid for himself. G. D. Boner, West Liberty, Va. paid for himself. S. Young. Centreville, Miss. paid for J. S. Hatfield, T. Sellers, W. E. Matthews, A. Wilcox and Mrs Penelope Stewart. M. Winans, Jamestown, O. paid for Lockhart & Blain. N. Smith, Wooster, O. paid for himself. Jacob Dubois, Fairfield, Ind. paid for himself and J B Haden. M. D. Anson, Petersburg, Va. paid for himself, A. Evans, R. H. Thompson, W. Johnson, T. Brian, M. Eaton, G. W. Harrison, A. Pond, T. Jordon, L. H. Goodrich, J. J. Cooper, J. M. Hurt, H. Harris, J. Swails, J. M. Newell and J Diekman. D Round, Ellisburg, New York, paid for himself. A. Chatley, Beaver, Pa. paid for himself. J. C. Talliaffero, Enfield, Va. paid for himself. J. Farrington, Franklin, Ten. paid for J. Swanson, W. Johnson, J. Carl, W. H. Hill, S. Sparkman, A. Craig, W. Anderson, J Park, P. Youncey, D. M'Phail, T. H. Blain, and J. L. Noland. J. Anderson, Franklin, Ten. paid for himself and A. H. Olmsted; also, A. Craig paid 5 dollars for subscribers, names not stated. L. M'Connico and G. M'Connico paid for themselves. T. Alderson, Columbia, Ten. paid for himself, A. Cathey, J. Woodruff, M. Warfield, Dr T Brown and A Marlin. U. M. Roberts, King Creek, S.C. paid for himself. M. R. Trimble, Sangamo, Ill. paid for C. Brady, A. Vance and L. Cantrall. J. W. Williams, West Chester, O. paid 1 dollar for himself. W Hurlburt, Mount Zion, Miss. paid for himself. F. V. Sutton, Bowling Green, Va. paid for R Parrott. R. M'Glure, Wheeling, Va. paid for J Boughner. W. Sanders, Indianapolis, Ind. paid for himself. T. Poindexier, Hopkinsville, Ky. paid for himself. J. Briant, Hopkinsville, Ky. paid $27.75 for subscribers, names not given. W. Davenport, Hopkinsville, Ky. paid for himself. S. Muir, Hadensville, Ky. paid for himself. R. G. Kay, Bucknersville, Ky. paid for himself. James D. Gerrard, Elkton, Ky. paid for himself. P. S. Fall, Nashville, paid for himself and H. Ewing. T. N. Loving, Nashville, Ten. paid for himself. William Hopper, Hopper's Tan Yard, Ky. paid 10 dollars for subscribers, names not stated E Creel, Greensburg, Ky. paid for himself. J P Smith, Columbia, Ky. paid for himself. L Page, Russellville, Ky. paid for S Wilson and A. Burruse. L. Lindsey, Bucknersville, Ky. paid for Win Morrison, Wm Daniel and himself. T. W. Coleman, Oak Grove, Ky. paid for J H Robbins. A. Fulkerson, Perryville, Ky. paid for himself. [Receipts for Vol. II. crowded out of this number, shall appear in the next.]

      A disappointment in the receipt of paper in due time for this number, has been the cause of its non-appearance till this time. A large supply was to have been forwarded us by the 15th ult., which, through some cause unknown to us, did not arrive here until the 6th inst. It is hoped that measures will be adopted to prevent a recurrence of a similar failure in the publication of this work.--[Print.]

      January 22, 1831.

[The Millennial Harbinger, 2 (January, 1831): 1-48.]