THE MILLENNIAL HARBINGER.

No. 9. BETHANY, VIRGINIA: MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 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.

From the Christian Messenger.

      THE question is going the round of society, and is often proposed to us, Why are not you and the Reformed Baptists one people? or, Why are you not united? We have uniformly answered; In spirit we are united, and that no reason existed on our side to prevent the union in form. It is well known to those brethren, and to the world, that we have always, from the beginning, declared our willingness, and desire to be united with the whole family of God on earth, irrespective of the diversity of opinion among them. The Reformed Baptists have received the doctrine taught by us many years ago. For nearly 30 years we have taught that Sectarianism was antichristian, and that all christians should be united in the one body of Christ--the same they teach. We then and ever since, have taught that authoritative creeds and confessions were the strong props of sectarianism, and should be given to the moles and the bats--they teach the same. We have from that time preached the gospel to every creature to whom we had access, and urged them to believe and obey it--that its own evidence was sufficient to produce faith in all that heard it, that the unrenewed sinner must, and could believe it unto justification and salvation--and that through faith the Holy Spirit of promise, and every other promise of the New Covenant, were given. They proclaim the same doctrine. Many years ago some of us preached baptism as a means, in connexion with faith and repentance, for the remission of sins, and the gift of the Holy Spirit--they preach the same, and extend it farther than we have done. We rejected all names, but Christian--they acknowledge it most proper, but seem to prefer another. We acknowledge a difference of opinion from them on some points. We do not object to their opinions as terms of fellowship between us. But they seriously and honestly object to some of ours as reasons why they cannot unite. These we shall name, and let all duly consider their weight.

      Objection 1st: That we have fellowship, and commune with unimmersed persons. They contend, (so we understand them) that according to the New Institution, none but the immersed have their sins remitted; and therefore they cannot commune with the unimmersed. On this point we cannot agree with them, and the reason of our disagreement, is, that this sentiment, in our view, will exclude millions of the fairest characters, for many centuries back, from heaven. For if the immersed only, receive the remission of sins, all those millions that have died, being unimmersed, have died in their sins, or unwashed from their sins. Jesus said, "If ye die in your sins, where God is, you can never come." Of course they are excluded from heaven. Hell, therefore, must be their portion; for Protestants do not believe in a purgatory. Why are they sent to hell? For disobedience to the one command of being immersed. Hear the poor creature's complaint, while suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.. On earth, says he, in obedience to the King, [385] whom I loved, whose laws I loved, whose family I loved, I denied myself took up my cross and followed him. I was taught that it was my duty to be baptized, and that baptism meant to be sprinkled with water; in the humble spirit of obedience 1 submitted, not knowing but that this was the very way the King meant this command to be observed. But now, alas! for my ignorance of the right way of performing one command, I must be forever banished from God into everlasting punishment. What should we think of an earthly king, if a province of loving subjects, being ignorant of the meaning of a certain law, and yet endeavoring to obey it according to their understanding of it, should by his order be cut off by an excruciating death? Surely, we should reprobate his conduct, and should see in his character that which is less amiable than otherwise. Is it possible to divest ourselves of the same thoughts and conclusion respecting the lovely King of saints? Should we not, by representing his character in this view, expose it to the contempt of a scoffing world?

      I know our brethren say, We do not declare that they are excluded from heaven, but only from the kingdom on earth. We leave them in the hand of God. But does not the sentiment lead to that conclusion? We believe, and acknowledge, that Baptism is ordained by the King a means for the remission of sins to penitent believers; but we cannot say, that immersion is the sine qua non, without maintaining the awful consequence above, and without contradicting our own experience. We therefore teach the doctrine, believe, repent, and be immersed for the remission of sins; and we endeavor to convince our hearers of its truth; but we exercise patience and forbearance towards such pious persons as cannot be convinced.

      2dly. Another cause or reason why we and they are not united as one people, is, that we have taken different names. They acknowledge the name Christian most appropriate; but because they think this name is disgraced by us who wear it, and that to it may be attached the idea of Unitarian or Trinitarian, they reject it, and have taken the cider name, Disciple. This they have done in order to be distinguished from us. Hence it is concluded that they wish to be a party distinguished from us, and have therefore assumed this name as a party name. This at once bars us from union in the same body, and we cannot but believe it was assumed for this purpose, by some. We should rejoice to believe the contrary. Until a satisfactory explanation be given on this subject, we must view ourselves equally excluded from union, with the congregation of the Disciples, as from any other sectarian establishment. We object not to the scriptural name, Disciple, but to the reasons why our brethren assumed it.

      We are ready any moment to meet and unite with those brethren, or any others, who believe in, and obey the Saviour according to their best understanding of his will, on the Bible, but not on opinions of its truth. We cannot with our present views unite on the opinion that unimmersed persons cannot receive the remission of sins, and therefore should be excluded from our fellowship and communion on earth. We cannot conscientiously give up the name Christian, acknowledged by our brethren must appropriate, for any other (as Disciple) less appropriate, and received to avoid the disgrace of being suspected to be a Unitarian or Trinitarian. We cannot thus temporize with divine truth.

      We have frequently, and for more than a quarter of a century, contended for the name Christian as that given by divine authority, and designed to supersede all other name's of the Lord's followers. We are sorry that the New translation, purporting to give us that of Dr. Doddridge on the Acts of the Apostles, has rejected his, and given us another of Acts xi. 26. Dr. Doddridge's translation is "And the disciples were by divine appointment first named Christians at Antioch." If this be a correct translation, then the matter is forever put to rest, that the will of God is, that the older name Disciple should cease, and the new name Christian should forever after take place of it. To reject the name Christian for any other is to act in opposition to the [386] will of God; so it appears to us. Doddridge in justification of his translation, observes in a note, "I think with Dr. Benson, that the use of the word Chrematisai (named) implies that it was done by a divine direction. As proof he refers us to Matt. ii. 12, 22. Luke ii. 26. Acts x. 22. Heb. viii. 5-11; vii, 12, 25, where the same word is used. Let us examine every passage in the New Testament where the word Chrematizo (was called) occurs; and, I think, that the translation, were named by divine appointment, will be found correct and true. In Matt. ii. 12, 22, the word is translated, "being warned of God"--or divinely warned. In Luke ii. 26, the word is translated, It was revealed to him by the Holy Ghost. In Acts x. 22, the word is translated, Cornelius "was warned of God by a holy angel to send for thee." In Heb. viii. 5, it is translated "Moses was admonished of God." Heb. xi. 7, it is rendered, "By faith Noah being warned of God." In Heb. xii. 25, "See that ye refuse not him that speaketh; for if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth"--the word spake is translated from the same word Chrematizo, and should, according to the translations above, be rendered, refuse not him that divinely spake, admonishedor warned on earth. It is too plain to deny, that Moses spake by divine authority, and therefore his warnings and admonitions were divine oracles. The same word occurs Rom. viii. 3, "So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress;" that is, she shall be called by divine authority an adulteress. This is the natural meaning, from which none can dissent.

      Dr. A. Clark, on the text, (Acts xi. 26) is of the same opinion with Dr. Doddridge with respect to the meaning of Chrematizo; he says, it signifies, in the New Testament, to appoint, warn, or nominate by divine direction. The learned Doctor adds, "A Christian, therefore, is the highest character which any human being can bear on earth; and to receive it from God, as those appear to have done, how glorious the title!"

      To confirm this meaning of the word Chrematizo, I will add a few extracts from Josephus, a Classic Greek writer. They are cited by Dr. Parkhurst on the word. "Moses Echrematizeto, was instructed by God in what he desired." "Josephus calling an oracular dream of Jaddus the Highpriest's, to Chrematisthen, what was divinely communicated to him." I think I have referred to every passage of the New Testament where the word occurs, and it is now left with the public to determine whether Dr. Doddridge's translation be not correct, i. e. that the disciples were by divine appointment first named Christians at Antioch.

      This translation of Doddridge fully comports with the prophecy of Isaiah, lxii. 2. "And thou shalt he called by a new name, which the mouth of the Lord shall name." Again, liv. 15. the Prophet speaking of the fall, rejection, and overthrow of the Lord's people, the Jews, says, "And ye shall leave your name for a curse unto my chosen; for the Lord God shall slay thee, and call his servants by another name." This new name the ancient fathers believed was Christian. Eusebius thus speaks of the first converts of christianity: "It is most certain, when as the coming of our Saviour Christ was now fresh in the minds of all men, that a new nation, neither small nor weak, neither such as was conversant and situate in corners of fountains and well-springs, but of all other most populous and most religious, secure as touching danger, and of invincible mind, aided continually by the divine power of God, at certain secret seasons, suddenly appeared; the same, I say, being beautified among all men by the title and name of Christ: the which one of the Prophets foreseeing to come to pass, with the single eye of the Divine Spirit being astonished, spake thus: Who hath heard such things! or who hath spoken after this manner! Hath the earth travailing brought forth in one day! Hath any nation sprung up suddenly and at one time! In another place he hath also signified the same to come to pass, where he saith, They that serve me shall me called after a new name, which shall be blessed on earth. Isaiah 66 and 62. Although presently we plainly appear to be upstarts, and this name of Christians of late to have been notified unto all nations," &c. Lib. 1. ch. 5. [387] In this same chapter Eusebius goes on to show that the saints of old, as Noah, Abraham, and others, were Christians in deed, though not in name, and quotes as proof the 105th psalm--"See that ye touch not my Christs, (that is, anointed,) neither deal perversely with my Prophets." This name Christian was the new name given by the Lord to his people, according to the early fathers, and by which they were called.

      It was the name by which the disciples of Christ were peculiarly distinguished after they were called so at Antioch. Agrippa said to Paul, "Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian." Acts xxvi. 28. Peter said, "If any man suffer as a Christian, let him not he ashamed." Peter iv. 15. The Lord commends the church in Pergamos, that "thou boldest fast my name," and the church in Philadelphia, "Thou hast not denied my name." Against the name Christian persecution raged, and thousands suffered martyrdom for it. Had they denied the name, their lives would not have been taken. It is an old argument, yet its antiquity does not make it weak, that as the woman takes the name of her husband--so the bride, the church, should properly be called by that of her husband, Christ. It is believed there are none who deny that Christian is the most appropriate name for the followers of Christ, though many prefer others for various reasons. It is the name which must and will supersede all other denominations, and be a means of uniting the scattered flock.

      Our brethren, the Disciples, ask us, How can you grant the privileges of the kingdom to such as have not been immersed, when it is plain that by immersion only they are born or made members of the kingdom? How can you commune with such at the Lord's table? I answer, that there are many things done under the New Institution or Covenant which were divinely instituted before that Covenant was fully confirmed and declared; yet these things were designed to be perpetuated to the end of time. Thus prayer, praise, thanksgiving, teaching, preaching, and even the Lord's supper, were divinely instituted before Jesus died, was buried, and rose again; consequently, before the foundation of the New Institution was fully laid, and, of course, before any were built upon it. John's baptism brought none into the new kingdom. The disciples, and the rest of the 120 on Pentecost, were therefore not inducted into this new kingdom by immersion; yet they prayed, praised, and communed with those in it, and these divine acts were reciprocated. As well might we forbid unimmersed persons to pray, to praise, to teach, as to forbid them to commune. These privileges were enjoyed before the kingdom was established and before the New Institution took place, and we dare not say they are now taken from them! It was not done at Pentecost. It has not been divinely done at any period since. What authority have we for inviting or debarring any pious, holy believer from the Lord's table? Though it is done by many, we see no divine authority for it. The King's will is, that his friends do this in remembrance of him--and all that his law expressed on the subject, is, "Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat and drink." If he eat and drink unworthily, he eats and drinks damnation to himself, [not to others,] not discerning the Lord's body. He has no where established a court of inquisition to fence his table, nor to prevent any from praying, praising, or worshipping him unless they have been immersed. We confess we cannot see why so much more importance should be attached to the Lord's supper, than to the other divine commands. We have long feared that the feast of love has been made by designing men an occasion of discord and division among the saints. We have seen many unimmersed possess the spirit of the kingdom; and we have seen many immersed destitute of it. To receive the latter, and to reject the former, we cannot view divine.

      If we philosophize on religion, we may amuse the intelligent, but are unprofitable to all. Nothing but truth--truth felt, truth preached in the spirit, and truth copied in our lives, will arrest the attention, and gain and fix the heart of a drowsy, dying world. [388]

      I have long thought, and seriously thought, whether a formal union on the Bible, without possessing the spirit of that book, would be a blessing or a curse to society--whether it would be better than faith without works, or than a body without the spirit--whether it would not rather be a stumbling block, a delusive snare to the world. O, my brethren! let us repent and do our first works--let us seek for more holiness, rather than trouble ourselves and others with schemes and plans of union. The love of God shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost given unto us, will more effectually unite than all the wisdom of the world combined. Endeavor to walk in peace and love with all. Then shall we feel a reviving from the presence of the Lord, and see flowing to the Lord, weeping penitents, pleading for mercy, and praising aloud for mercy received through our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

      IN speaking or writing on this subject of Union more than on most others, we deceive ourselves and one another, without knowing or intending it. The want of precision in the meaning attached to our terms may be the cause of this. It might appear hypercritical, or perhaps something worse, to ask the worthy editor of the Christian Messenger what he means by "union in form?" Does he mean a formal confederation of all preachers and people called "Christians," with all those whom he calls Reformed Baptists? (rather reforming, than reformed;) or (as he represents them as prefering for a sectarian purpose the name) disciples. If so, what shall be the articles of confederation, and in what form shall they be ministered or adopted? Shall it be in one general convention of messengers from all the societies of "christians" and "disciples," or one general assembly of the whole aggregate of both people? Shall the articles of agreement be drawn up in writing like the articles of the "General Union" amongst the different sects of Baptists in Kentucky?

      Has there been such an incident in ecclesiastical history of a whole people formally and in good faith uniting with another whole people without such a formal confederation? Or does he expect a "union in form" without any form of effecting it? If he do not, then it is out of order to complain of the want of a formal union until a proposition made to that effect shall have been submitted by the complainant, and rejected by the defendant. But such a proposition has not, as we have heard, been tendered; nor have we heard of any general meeting among the Christians to deliberate upon the terms and conditions. Or does he think that one or two individuals, of and from themselves, should propose and effect a formal union among the hundreds of congregations scattered over this continent, called christians or disciples, without calling upon the different congregations to express an opinion or a wish upon the subject?

      It is, too, a question with some weak consciences, whether there can, in spirit and in truth, under Jesus Christ, in existing circumstances, be such a thing as some might denominate a wholesale union between two whole societies as such. Men, we know, grouped in whole states, can confederate for political purposes; but it is for [389] temporal and temporary objects, in which other principles are supreme, than those refined sensibilities springing from faith in Jesus and love to the saints, which constitute, if not the bond, the concentrating principle of union, among the faithful followers of Jesus Christ. These are questions which we only propose without a discussion or an answer. We solicit the most definitive view of brother Stone on these topics.

      We discover, or think we discover, a squinting at some sort of precedency or priority in the claims of the writer of the above article, which are perhaps only in appearance, and not in reality; but if in appearance only, he will prevent us or any reader from concluding unfavorably by explaining himself more in detail than he has done. He says, "The reformed Baptists have received the doctrine taught by us many years ago." "For nearly thirty years ago we taught," &c. &c. From what source or principle these sayings proceeded, we do not pronounce sentence; but if they are mere words of course, and he intended to plead nothing from them, we would suggest the propriety of qualifying them in such a way as to prevent mistake.

      I am, as at present advised, far from thinking that the present advocates of reformation are only pleading, or at all pleading, for what was plead in Kentucky thirty years ago, after the dissolution of the Springfield Presbytery. If such be the conceptions of brother Stone, I am greatly mistaken. That he, with others, did at that time oppose authoritative creeds, and some articles in them as terms of communion, and some other abuses, we are not uninformed; but so did some others who set out with him. And as he would not consider them as now pleading the cause which he now pleads, so we cannot think that the cause which we plead was plead either by him or any one else twenty years ago. Many persons both in Europe and America, have inveighed against sects, creeds, confessions, councils, and human dogmas, during the last two centuries, and some even before Luther's time; but what have these to do with the present proposed reformation? That is only the work of a pioneer: it is clearing the forests, girdling the trees, and burning the brush.

      I am not ashamed to own that the greatest heretics in christendom have inveighed against creeds, councils, and human dogmas. And every man who has been persecuted rightfully or wrongfully, has denounced the creed and the council which decreed him to the stake. Our opponents tell us of all this; and if Satan, even Satan tell the truth, he ought to be believed. But this admitted neither makes their cause who oppose us the better, nor ours the worse.

      Both friends and foes of the cause which we now plead, seem to be agreed that not the anti-creed, and anti-council, and anti-sectarian questions, but what may be denominated the questions of "the ancient gospel and ancient order of things," distinguish it most easily from every other cause plead on this continent or in Europe since the great apostacy. Not, indeed, because it has not some things in common with other causes; but because when all the common things are taken into the account, it presents what some of our opponents call a new [390] religion--an exhibit of christianity as different from the sectarian as Protestantism differs from Popery; and if I were to give my opinion, I would say, much more different.

      I trust our brother Editor will not think that we are merely disputing his claims to priority, as it is not assumed by us that he has set up such a claim; but only that in appearance it squints that way: but that he will consider us as endeavoring to prevent the confounding of the ancient gospel and ancient order of things with the anti-creed, or anti-council, or anti-sectarian cause. Sorry would I be to think that any would be so indiscriminating as to identify the principles of this reformation with the principles of any other reformation preached since Luther was born.

      Catholics oppose sects as much as the Editors of the Messenger and Harbinger. Methodists oppose hypercalvinism as much as either of us; and all heretics oppose authoritative creeds which condemn their opinions. So far I am a Catholic, a Methodist, and a heretic. But many great and good men have opposed these evils as much as either Catholics, Methodists, or heretics.

      Our eagle-eyed opponents plainly see the difference between the radical and differential attributes of this reformation, which they ignorantly call a deformation, and any other cause, however unpopular, plead in the land. "The Christians" in some places, nay, in many places, are quite respectable in the eyes of those who contemn "the disciples" as unfit for good society. And I think the amiable editor of the Christian Messenger himself told me last winter, that even he and some of his brethren were considered by the orthodox as degrading themselves because they associated with us most "unworthy disciples?' Indeed, it was no mean proof of his christian spirit to see him so condescending to persons of such low degree in the estimation of the noble christians of the land. His willingness to fraternize with us in despite of the odium theologicum attached to our ancient gospel, I must ever regard as an additional proof of his unfeigned regard to the authority of Jesus as Lord, and his love to all them who esteem the reproach of the Messiah greater riches than all the treasures of Egypt.

      For our part, we might be honored much by a union formal and public, with a society so large and so respectable as the Christian denomination; but if our union with them, though so advantageous to us, would merge "the ancient gospel and ancient order of things" in the long vexed question of simple anti-trinitarianism, anti-creedism, or anti-sectarianism, I should be ashamed of myself in the presence of him whose "well done, good and faithful servant," is worth the universe to me. We all could have had honorable alliances with honorable sectaries, many years since, had this been our object.

      These remarks have all grown out of the seeming identification of the cause we plead with that plead in Kentucky some 25 or 30 years ago. Had not these appeared in the preceding article, there would have been no occasion for saying a word on this subject.

      Our good brother Stone has not been himself when he wrote the [391] above article, as we are not ourselves when we read it. He says, "We do not object to their opinions as terms of fellowship between us but they seriously and honestly object to some of ours." This fails not in christian courtesy to our honesty and sincerity; but in argument it fails: for when he proceeds to state his opinions, which are supposed to be our reasons why we cannot unite in form with them, these reasons and opinions are comprehended in a unit, and that happens to be not an opinion, but a practice. It is called "Objection 1st." (but I cannot find the 2d.) and reads in the following words:--"That we have fellowship and commune with unimmersed persons."

      This is the only objection which is alleged in the whole article as lying in the way of our uniting with them. It is, then, the practice of setting aside a divine institution, not in the judgment of the person received, but in the judgment of those who receive him.

      It was not through design, but I think through oversight, that our worthy brother then turns the attention of his reader from this practice to the meaning of baptism for remission of sins: for it is not because of our views of the meaning of immersion, (in which he seems to agree with us,) but because the "Christians" now make immersion of non-effect by receiving persons into the kingdom of Jesus, so called, irrespective of their being legitimately born; or, in brief, regardless of the command, "Be baptized every one of you."

      Thus he loses sight of our objection altogether; and we find him lamenting the fate of some poor Paidobaptist, not in Hades, not in Purgatory; but, as he says, literally and truly in Hell, praying for himself because he had simply mistaken his road.

      The words which our brother Stone has put into the mouth of this mistaken Paidobaptist, suffering the vengeance of an eternal fire, are not exactly in point. It was, indeed, kind to make this imaginary Paido tell as good a story of himself as possible: "In the humble spirit of obedience I submitted to be sprinkled." But I do not know how this Paidobaptist could, even in torment, so far forget himself as to say that "in the humble spirit of obedience he submitted to be sprinkled," when in fact he was, when a crying babe, sprinkled in his father's arms. And to be in point, such must have been the fact; for it is not fair to take any other than a common case to sustain a common practice.

      But in this whole case there is an entire mistake of the whole question. It assumes a principle inadmissible, viz. That God's rule or principle of rewarding men hereafter, is to be, as near as we can guess at it, the rule of our conduct to them in receiving them into his kingdom on earth, and in treating them as members of it. I will undertake, without fee or reward, to plead the cause of every soul in torment, and guaranty his release, or prevent his condemnation to it, on the principles embraced in the prayer of this unfortunate Paidobaptist. Every sincere Mussulman, Pagan, Infidel, Jew, Deist, Atheist, under Heaven, may convert Hell into a Purgatory, if you will give validity and prevalence to this plea. And as for the insincere, we shall find for them a good plea of another sort. But the question [392] is. Are we authorized to make the sincerity and honesty of a person's mind a rule of our conduct? 'Tis God alone who is judge of this, and surely he would not require us to act by a rule which we can never apply to the case. Neither, perhaps, is it a fair position to assume that any man's sincerity in opinion or belief will have any weight in the final judgment; but whether or not, it cannot be a rule of our proceeding in any case. We judge from actions--God judges the heart; and, therefore, we look for visible obedience; and when we are assured that the Lord has commanded every man to confess him, or to profess the faith and be immersed into his name, we can never justify ourselves before God or man in presuming in our "judgment of charity" to set aside his commandment, and in accepting for it a human substitute. We do not recollect that we have ever argued out the merits of this "free and open communion system." But one remark we must offer in passing, that we must regard it as one of the weakest and most vulnerable causes ever plead; and that the "great" Mr. Hall, as he is called, has, in his defence of the practice, made it appear worse than before. In attempting to make it reasonable, he has only proved how unreasonable and unscriptural it is.

      But of the following sentence we complain:--"We cannot, with our present views, unite on the opinion that unimmersed persons cannot receive the remission of sins." This is not the question at all. And long before a word was said about baptism for remission, our friend plead for dispensing with it, because, in his judgment, it ought to be no term of communion. But we shall dismiss this topic, and when our friend Stone shall think good to reconsider his remarks, we shall more in extenso exhibit the true merits of this objection.

      An attempt is made by our friend to draw out of a remark on the appropriation of the name Christian, vol. 1, p. 373, a second objection urged by the friends of reform against union with the Christians. But I must confess I never heard that any advocate of the ancient gospel asked any person to give up the name "Christian" and to substitute for it the name Disciple. Yet he says, ""We cannot conscientiously give up the name "Christian," acknowledged by our brethren most appropriate, for any other (as disciple) less appropriate, and received (assumed) to avoid the disgrace of being suspected to be a Unitarian or Trinitarian. We cannot thus temporize with divine truth." Well, brother Stone, do not temporise with divine ordinances by substituting sincere sprinkling for sincere obedience, or for immersion. But, really, I confess ignorance on the whole subject of this requisition to abandon the name Christian. I only wish, for my part, that we were worthy of it. It is easy to assume a good name, but how hard to deserve it! I am not prepared, either, to say Amen to all the criticism offered to prove that we must, by divine authority, be called Christians, whether we deserve it or not.

      The controversy about the name by which we shall be called, is, and must necessarily be, one of subordinate importance. We could not in good conscience substitute the opinion of Dr. Doddridge for the [393] literal import of the word (chrematizo.) We must always in interpreting distinguish between the opinion of a translator and the meaning of the word. Every body knows that there are no words in the Greek corresponding to "divine appointment." And if ever chrematizo signifies to name or call by divine authority, it is most certainly from accident or from circumstances, and not from the import of the term for it means no such thing. The root of the word is chrema, business; and because it was usual to designate or name persons from their business, as Smith, Taylor, Baker, Clark, &c. so the word chrematizo, formed from chrema, came actively to signify, to name, or to call, and passively to be named or called.

      When brother Stone was quoting the 4th meaning of the word from Parkhurst, it would have been well for him to have let his readers know the mind of this same Mr. Parkhurst. He says, "Wetstein on Rom. vii. 3. has abundantly proved that the verb frequently signified in the Greek writers to be named or called. But Doddridge thinks that chrematisai, Acts ii. 26. denotes to be named by divine appointment or direction. I cannot, however, find that the verb ever has this signification. The passages of scripture to which the Doctor refers in proof of his interpretation, do by no means come up to his point." With this opinion of Parkhurst I do most sincerely concur, and when it becomes necessary I will go into the details.

      Our worthy friend has been too precipitate also in quoting Adam Clarke on this passage. Adam Clarke begins the section from which he quotes with an if--"If, therefore, the name was given by divine appointment." He enters not decisively into the matter.

      That the word sometimes signifies to warn, admonish, or appoint, whether by God, angels, or men, is abundantly evident, and occurs sometimes in this acceptation in the New Testament. In this we agree with Adam Clarke. But with Dr. Campbell we agree that chrematizo does not necessarily imply from God more than the word warning does. This is evident from the reference which, both in sacred authors and in classical, it often has to inferior agents. He condemns Dr. Doddridge's version of Acts ii. 26. (See his note on Math. ii. 12.) I any bold to affirm, in the face of all criticism, that there is not the least authority, in the word here used, for concluding that the name Christian came from God, any more than from Antiochus Epiphanes! This may be too strong, for some who contend that the name Christian is of divine authority; but let them put me to the proof.

      That it was given neither by dream, oracle, angel, nor apostle, is, in my judgment, by far the more probable opinion. If it had been given by the authority of the Lord it would not have been delayed for ten years after the day of Pentecost, nor reserved for the city of Antioch to be the place of its origin. 'The disciples were first named Christians in Antioch, A. D. 43.' But some person may say that the disciples had not become Christians till 43, and that the conferring of the name at Antioch was because it was the first time the disciples deserved it. It is true the term disciple is a much more humble name [394] than the name Christian, and that persons may be found worthy of the name disciple, who are not worthy of the name Christian. To be a Christian is to be a follower of Jesus Christ, and a disciple is a learner, a scholar. One who wishes to be a Christian may he called a disciple; but every disciple of Plato, Pythagoras, or Christ, is not worthy to be called a Platonist, a Pythagorean, nor a Christian. But there is a loose, as well as a strict use of words; and there is a national and sectarian, as well as a literal and philological usage of them. Hence every citizen of the United States is a Christian in Algiers, in India, or Japan. But not to lose sight of the subject before us; with us it is a strong argument, that had the disciples been first called Christians by divine appointment at Antioch, then the Apostles would, from that time forth, have addressed the disciples by this divinely appointed name. But this they did not so much as once in any public document which has come down to us. The Antiochians called the disciples first Christians; Agrippa used the term once in reference to himself; and Peter said, that if any man was endited as a Christian, or, "if any man suffered as a Christian, let him not be ashamed;" which argues that it was under this name their enemies persecuted and traduced them. But no document has come down to us authorising us to think that this name Christian was regarded by arty of the Apostles as of divine appointment.

      If Paul, in any of his letters--if Peter, James, or John, had only once said, "To the Christians in Rome, Corinth, Galatia, Greece Asia, Judea," or any where else; then, indeed, there might have been some ground to think that they regarded it as of divine appointment! And recollect it was 50 years and more from the time they were first called Christians, before all the New Testament was written. They are called disciples, saints, believers, the called, sanctified, in the Acts and in the Epistles; but never once addressed under the name Christians.

      Now let it be remembered, that we have no objection to the name Christian if we only deserve it; nor predilection for the name disciple, except for its antiquity and modesty: but when it is plead for as of divine authority, and as the only or most fitting name which can be adopted, we must lift up our voice against the imposition, and contend for our liberty, where the Lord has left us free. Would to God that all professors could be addressed as saints, faithful brethren, disciples indeed, christians.

      Our brother of the Messenger has called for these remarks, which are offered in the same candor in which he appears always to write. We have very high respect for him and the brethren who are with him. Many of them with whom we are acquainted we love as brethren; and we can, in all good conscience, unite with them in spirit and form, in public or in private, in all acts of social worship.

      We do not conceive that we have adverted to every thing in the preceding article worthy of our attention. We have reserved some items for another occasion; but the chief points are noticed directly or indirectly in the preceding observations. We should like to have [395] a very free, familiar, and affectionate correspondence with brother Stone on these subjects which he has introduced through the medium of the press. As I have copied his communication into these pages, I doubt not but he will copy these remarks in reply into his. And indeed I think the question of union and co-operation is one which deserves the attention of all them who believe the ancient gospel and desire to see the ancient order of things restored.

EDITOR.

      Austin. Since we last separated I have overcome a difficulty which at our first interview I thought insurmountable.

      Timothy. And pray, what is it?

      A. It is, that besides what is written in the book, there can he no new light communicated to the mind, no new arguments offered to convert men to God.

      T. And to this you should add, that all the converting power of the holy Spirit is exhibited in the Divine word.

      A. This I might add, were I fully persuaded that light alone constitutes all converting power. But of this I am not yet fully convinced.

      T. I think we agreed;, in our first interview, that moral light is contained in words; and, therefore, where there are no words there can be no light.

      A. On reflecting on that saying, I have since suspected its truth, because deaf and dumb persons have some light, some moral light, I mean, on some subjects; and if all moral light were contained in words, how could they have any light, never having heard a word?

      T. But signs of any sort, which represent ideas, are comprehended in our acceptation of words. Words, it is true, are signs of our ideas; but not the only signs. Actions are also signs of ideas. Actions presented to the eye are equivalent to words addressed to the ear. But without actions, or rather without stipulated signs, i. e. signs agreed upon, there can be no idea communicated to the human mind, and therefore all moral light, or all truth, is received by signs. And as the stipulated signs of ideas with us are words, it is in no sense improper to say, that all the moral light which we enjoy is received by words, or, if you please, to be hypercritical, by signs equivalent to words.

      A. Grant it, and then it follows that light is but a figurative name for truth.

      T. It is, in all languages, a metaphor. Light stands for knowledge, and knowledge is an acquaintance with truth. A man of knowledge, and an enlightened man, are equivalent designations. "Once you were darkness, but now are you light in the Lord," is a saying which will remind you of a hundred others in the sacred style to this effect. [396]

      A. Let it be admitted then; for I see nothing to be gained by the exception which I have taken, nor by an over squeamishness about words. I accede to the proposition that all moral light or moral truth is contained in words, or represented by them. But still the question recurs, is light all that is necessary to convert men?

      T. The question is equivalent to--is truth all that is necessary to convert men? To answer this with a yes or a no might subject us to misapprehension, and consequently to misrepresentation, and therefore we must qualify our answer to this question. There is something in the New Testament called the truth, the light, to give it emphasis and to distinguish it from all other truth. "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." This is a eulogy on the truth pronounced by Him who called himself "the Truth and the Life." There are many truths which cannot convert men, for they have no moral power; but there is the truth which has all moral power, and that is the truth which makes men free. "Sanctify them through thy truth, thy word is the truth," said the Saviour. All the moral power of God or of man is exhibited in the truth which they propose. Therefore we may say that if the light or the truth contain all the moral power of God, then the truth alone is all that is necessary to the conversion of men, for we have before agreed and proved that the converting power is moral power.

      A. But I think you first introduced this proposition to show that the Spirit could exert no more power in converting men, and could give them no more light, than what is contained in the written word, provided the written word contains all the light or revelation that is necessary to salvation.

      T. For this purpose this proposition was submitted. To illustrate it I would call to my aid a similitude; but, indeed, neither ancient or modern history, observation nor experience, furnishes us with a worthy similitude. Suppose, however, that the subjects of some prince had revolted from his government, their own crimes inducing them to suppose that he had become their irreconcileable enemy. They seek to dethrone him because, in consequence of their ingratitude and acts of rebellion, they infer that he is incensed against them. He, by calling on other provinces, might crush them by physical power, but chooses rather to reconcile them to himself, and convert them from enemies to friends. He loads them with innumerable favors, sends dignified messengers to declare his merciful dispositions, sustaining their representations by appeals to his generosity, and the multiplied instances of his bounty which they continually enjoy. After remonstrating in vain, he permits them to wreak their vengeance on his only Son, whom be delivers up to their will in proof of his benevolence. After this he has nothing to propose except forgiveness for all their acts of cruelty and rebellion, and a restoration to his favor and friendship on condition of their submission and return to their duty. He can do no more. This is the sum total of his moral power. Their destruction or his dethronement is the only alternative; other arguments he has not to offer. These slighted, and [397] mediation is at an end. Now when all this is stated and proved, nothing can be added by any new messenger or mission. This scheme is both the wisdom and the power of the prince to the reconciliation of every one who receives it. It is his whole wisdom and his whole power to effect a reconciliation. He who rejects it, must dethrone the prince or be destroyed.

      We have only alluded to the outlines of the arguments. They may be developed and placed in various lights before the minds of those addressed; but yet, when all is fairly told and fully presented, no new light, truth, argument, or power, can be exhibited.

      A. This I perceive; but yet there is a difficulty in my way. To remember the similitude you have brought, this is a matter of report or of testimony to most of his subjects. Such also is the fact with regard to all the living as respects the things reported by the Apostles. It comes by faith, or our assurance depends upon testimony which we cannot believe of ourselves without some assistance. Now this is still the great question.

      T. Assistance to believe! This is a metaphysical dream. How can a person be assisted to believe? What sort of help? and how much is wanting? Assistance to believe must be either to create in a man a power which he had not before, or to repair a broken power, You do not think of this. Will you explain what you mean by assistance to believe!

      A. I do not mean creating a new power of believing, because men can believe the truth when told them by men, but we must be made to feel our need of a Saviour before we will seek an interest in him, and before we believe in him.

      T. It is by faith we discover our need of a Saviour; for if we did not first believe the testimony of God, we could not know that we had sinned against God. So that faith in the testimony must precede all conviction, repentance, reformation; all sorrow, all feeling of every sort. That which makes men feel, love, fear, tremble or rejoice, is in the testimony; and without faith in the testimony, nothing which it contains can move us more than that which we never saw nor heard. Without faith in the Divine testimony, it is impossible that any thing in that testimony can more us--So that faith precedes all feeling. Now if a person can believe one part of the Divine testimony without new power, or without new faculties, or without any aid, be can believe another part of it, for it is all alike credible or incredible.

      A. Well: something must be first, I admit; and I suppose faith had as well stand first--but whatever comes first, we must be aided in doing that. We all want most help when we are beginning any thing. All that I plead is a little help at first.

      T. Is the help to be within us, or without us?

      A. Within us. The Holy Spirit makes the word more powerful, or increases our strength to receive it.

      T. If it make it more powerful, it must be by revealing some more powerful ideas, not in it; by adding to it some corroborative arguments. Can you conceive what they are? [398] A. No. I rather would suppose that its help consists not in revealing new arguments, but by enabling us to understand those revealed.

      T. But you must not hide the subject from yourself by words without meaning. To enable a person to understand any subject, we explain it by illustrations, analogies, or more familiar terms. Is this what you mean?

      A. No. The more I strive to explain my meaning, the less meaning I can find in myself upon the subject. I will reason no more in this way, for I see I cannot find premises to favor my conclusions. I will appeal to the scriptures.

      T. To this I have no objection; for indeed this has been my object, to force you from all false reasonings to the scriptures. But now let me ask you, how are you going to make your appeal to the scriptures?

      A. I will make my appeal to the whole book on the subject of conversion.

      T. Conversion to Noah, to Moses, to John the Harbinger, and to Jesus Christ?

      A. No: I mean the instances recorded in the New Testament from the ascension of Jesus Christ.

      T. That is fair ground. The Holy Spirit was not given until the day of Pentecost. Hence, if the Holy Spirit aided men to believe in Jesus Christ, it must have been subsequent to that date. Besides, it is conversion to Jesus Christ, and not to Moses, which interests us. Mention, then, any person of whom it is said that the Holy Spirit enabled him to believe.

      A. I will begin with the preaching of the gospel after the ascension, and appeal to the first discourse. We are told in the 1st chapter of the Acts that Jesus commanded the Apostles not to preach until they were endued with power from on high. This was to help them to preach. For without this help from the Lord, they could not have spoken successfully.

      T. True. But observe that the descent of the Holy Spirit was to help them to prove that what they spake was true. In this way persons can be helped to believe, and this is the only way in which one can help another to believe. For this help we contend. This was the use of the miracles, the tongues, the gifts of healing, the powers, &c. which attended the preaching of the Apostles. But you spake of an internal operation upon the mind to produce faith. You talk of a faith wrought in the heart. You might as well talk of light, or seeing wrought in the eye; of sound, or hearing wrought in the ear; of taste wrought in the tongue, or of feeling wrought in the hand. It is the quintessence of mysticism. To help one to see, we increase the light; to help one to hear, we speak loud. The creating of eyes and ears is a different work. But for this you do not plead. But this is only returning to the topics on which we spake at our last meeting. Mention only one person in all the New Testament who was aided, or who asked for help to believe.

      A. The first three thousand converts. [399]

      T. You cannot allude to the first, or Jerusalem converts, for the miracles convinced them. This is the reason why they believed, Peter taught the first congregation the use of miracles in the following words: "Men of Israel, hear these words--Jesus the Nazarene was RECOMMENDED to you by God; by powerful operations, and wonders, and signs, which God wrought by him in the midst of you, as yourselves also know." The Holy Spirit also accompanied the speaker by visible and audible signs, which convinced the hearers that these things were as reported: but no Holy Spirit operated upon their hearts otherwise than through these glorious gifts. These pierced them to the heart. The Holy Spirit may figuratively be said to open the heart, to move or quicken the soul by these displays of its power and glory. Thus it opened by signs and wonders the hearts of 3000 on the first day of its advocacy of the pretensions of Jesus; for to plead his cause, and not its own, it was sent from heaven. The power of the Spirit as displayed on the cripple in Solomon's portico opened the ears and hearts of many: for after Peter had explained the miracle, the number of the men was about 5000.

      After the power displayed on Ananias and Sapphira, and after "many signs and wonders were wrought among the people by the hands of the Apostles, believers were the more added to the Lord--multitudes both of men and women." Again: The Lord opened the hearts of the Samaritans to attend to the things spoken by Philip, "beholding the miracles and signs which were done." Thus the Holy Spirit operates upon the hearts of men; but his dwelling in them is another matter. This was promised only to those who believe.

      A. And are all the examples found in the Acts of the Apostles similar to those you have alluded to?

      T. I have made no selections. I have taken them as they come. It is not usual to repeat all the same incidents in narrating similar events. The sacred historians, like other historians, in first describing any new events, are more particular in giving all the incidents. But were we to examine all the conversions found in the book, we should not find one to suit the popular imaginations on this subject.

      A. What miracles did the Ethiopian eunuch see?

      T. The Ethiopian eunuch, like Lydia, had his heart opened, as we have now, by reading and observing the ancient prophecies and recorded miracles of the Jewish scriptures. He, and Lydia, and the Bereans, are all cases in point. Of him it was said he was devoutly reading the Prophets; of Lydia it was said, she was a devout woman, whose heart the Lord had opened; and of the Bereans it is said, "they searched the scriptures daily whether these things were as reported; THEREFORE many of them believed" But, mark it, there was no need of a miracle to secure the attention of the eunuch to Philip--there was no need either of Philip's expounding the prophecies to him, if, as the theorists say, the Holy Spirit illuminates the mind, either by taking the veil from the scriptures or off the heart. But Philip preached Jesus from Isaiah, and by demonstrating what the Spirit had spoken concerning him, persuaded him to obey the [400] gospel. There is no mention of the Holy Spirit in this case, save that it induced Philip to preach to the eunuch, and took him hence when he had done.

      A. But was not Saul of Tarsus struck down by the Holy Spirit, and convicted by its internal operation?

      T. No. The Holy Spirit is not named in the whole narrative of Paul's conversion, till after Ananias visited him. It was then first mentioned to Paul. It was the Lord himself that appeared to Saul, to show him that he was the Messiah, that he might be an Apostle, and be able to say with the other Apostles that he both saw the Lord and heard him speak. If you will examine the same section that informs you of Saul's conversion, you will find other cases similar to those which I have already noticed. Peter bade Eneas, a paralytic of eight years standing, to be whole, and he arose immediately. The consequence was, that "all who dwelt in Lydda and Saron saw him and turned to the Lord." Dorcas, too, is raised to life by the same Apostle; and as soon, as it was known through Joppa, many believed in the Lord."

      An acquaintance with the prophecies and ancient miracles, or a sight of the miracles of the New Mission, opened and prepared the hearts of Jews and Gentiles to obey the gospel. This is that work of the Spirit which is essential to recommend Jesus to men, and to enable them to believe on him. None are intelligent and true believers who believe not upon such evidence. This is all the Lord of the Spirit can do to produce faith; for he taught us that if men will not be persuaded by miracles and prophecies, by Moses and the Prophets, neither would they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.

      A. I don't wish you to cite all the New Testament to prove this point. It is proved incomparably better now than half the thirty-nine articles of my grandfather's creed, and by more reasons than my father ever gave for becoming a Methodist, or my mother for becoming a Baptist. I can now see that the external evidences of christianity are externally operative upon the hearts of men; that they are addressed to unbelievers; that, in brief, these signs were written as well as wrought, that men might be able to believe that Jesus was the Messiah, and that believing this they might be saved, or have life, through his name.

      T. So an Apostle decides. The Spirit of God, the author of these proofs, by them opens men's minds to hear, to obey the gospel.--Those who obey the gospel are in that gospel declared to be sons of God, and as such receive the Holy Spirit, promised through faith, and are not only adopted, justified, sanctified, but filled with the spirit of sons, with all goodness, gentleness, and love.

      A. It has been more from a wish to explore the whole rationaleof this much vexed question than from any returning doubts, that I have led you more in the train of former reflections than into new associations of ideas, or permitted you to prosecute the developement of [401] some ideas expressed in our last interview. Unless something new occur to my mind on this subject, I will not call you back to it.

      T. I shall take it for granted, then, that neither on any just principles of reason, nor from any declaration of scripture, can it be made either evident or probable that the Spirit of God, in producing faith, any other way operates upon the hearts of men than through the recommendations once given by signs and wonders, and all the variety of supernatural operations formerly addressed to the senses of mankind, and now written down and stamped with the indubitable marks of Divinity, open and plain to every one desirous of knowing the truth. In this way the Spirit now convinces men of sin, of righteousness, and future judgment, and opens their hearts to receive the gospel.

      A. I discover many decided advantages resulting from a correct knowledge of this subject, among which this deserves attention, that admitting that this is the ancient, and the true way of producing faith, which I think must be conceded by the intelligent, then the efforts of all proclaimers, of all parents, guardians and instructers of youth, ought to be directed to developing and enforcing the certainty of the religion, by laying before the minds of the unconverted all the demonstrations of the Holy Spirit, and all the Divine attestations given to the mission of Jesus, that their faith may rest in the power of God, which was the foundation of the faith of the ancient converts, and which ever must be the only true foundation on which the faith of man can rest.

      T. This is unquestionably plain. If we have the same faith which the first christians had, it must rest upon the power of God, the same power of God on which theirs rested. Happy they who, not having seen the actual displays of that power, yet, through the testimony confirmed by the blood of the original witnesses, and by all its internal and external evidences, do believe in Jesus!

      This view of the matter is, moreover, equally honorable to the Spirit of God, and gives as much divinity, spirituality, and holiness to our faith, to say the least, as hypercalvinism itself. I would say, incomparably more; but we need not claim more. According to these principles, faith is the product of the Holy Spirit, wherever it is found. If true faith--if faith of the ancient school, it is the result of Divine influence; and he that requires greater proof of this matter, is prepared to question whether any thing be the gift of God which does not come direct from God without the ministry of angel, spirit, or the operations of the laws of nature.

      This view of the question is equally opposed to the enthusiasts of preacher and hearer. This is the disgrace of this age. Next to the superstition of the dark ages is the enthusiasm of the present time. No wonder that atheists and sceptics scoff at our religion. Such an army of lilliputians in reason, and giants in noise, verbosity, declamation and shouting, never stood forth the advocates of christianity in any age or country as the preaching corps of these United States. The cause is the popularity of the prayer for "baptism in fire." Fire, [402] fire, holy fire, the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost, is the text, the sermon, the song, and the prayer.

      The experiences told are the burnings of this fire: many of them are as fanatical as that which I shall now read you as the close of our present chat, to be resumed when you can find a convenient time. This I received yesterday from Princeton, Kentucky; the writer of it has found a key for interpreting the Revelation of John. He is at the head of the fanatics of this our day and generation--

ED.

"A BRIEF SKETCH

      Of the experience of one who hat passed through the gospel conversion; and now stands in the full faith of life and immortality for soul, spirit, and body on this globe.

      Some ten years ago, I, as it were, imperceptibly fell under the most awful concern about things spiritual and eternal. To speak of the difficulties I met with is impracticable from the measure of scepticism and infidelity with which I was possessed, so as to threaten a disorganization of my mental faculties, from which I was miraculously delivered, as I was riding along in broad day, musing and meditating to the extent of my powers; when the visible heaven and earth seemed to sink into nothing, and I, surrounded with a light and glory which I could not have stood two instants, which impressed me with certainty there was a God, a Spirit, "above all and through all." Then my former difficulties of infidelity ceased, and a new scene of apparent difficulties arose. How so bright and glorious a being could be approached by so defiled and corrupted a one as I was? Seasons of prayer and abasement succeeded, until some six months after, I was again visited with a similar manifestation--that it was only through his mysterious manifestation in the flesh, that be could be approached. There a ray of certainty reached my mind, in relation to myself, that I had gained two points in the trinity. Then ensued a reading, sighing, fasting, and praying for the operation of the Holy Ghost upon my heart, to bring me into the just fear and favor of God. Some time rolled round and I experienced a conversion from darkness to light, which seemed to exhibit as ecstacy and power of eternal truth in an extraordinary manner, by wholly banishing doubt and fear for a time, and which was abundantly attended with seasons of high joy and sublimity. But soon found I was not converted from the power of Satan unto God, so as to let me continually move in the heaven-born spirit of love and equality. I then moved without sectarian bonds, among all the trinitarian churches, with charity to all others, until the overcoming Spirit saluted me, and I began to hunger and thirst for abiding substance, when I was led to peep into the celebic family, which seemed to captivate my every power, as it promised victory over sin in the destruction of all sensual appetites, by the sublime principle of God in man and man in God, so as to create a mountain of purity, of which the world should be ignorant; which, if so much as a beast touched, it should be stoned. Seasons and scenes of delight ran high with me here, until I found something which, to me, did not show the perfection of love. Occasional times of weeping and wailing succeeded, because I felt death was in the pot, so I struggled in spiritual morality, sustained by dreams and visions, fasting and prayer, until I experienced an internal, silent, solid peace, which really turned what I called curses into blessings, so much so, that I felt and expressed my conviction of being the subject of the first peace known on earth, and which continued for months, until sore temporal trials of principle suspended the sweet ecstacy, though left the rich, and assured confidence of the blessings of truth. So I stood in the full gaze of hope and expectation, until the testimony of life and immortality for body, soul, and spirit, saluted my ear, from the most unlikely outward prospects of spiritual instruction. But I soon began to say within me, the half had not been told me, and all that was within me seemed to be crying, Lord, who is sufficient for these things? To believe that which is contrary to all past experience and [403] observation. Then seemed to be sorrow of sorrows; but as it was presented to me by faith, so I heard, and so it sprang up is my mind, and I came to believe that my body should endlessly exist on this globe, and I seem to have no power over my spirit to disbelieve it since; and I must farther say, when it (faith) reached the mind, it was the easiest thing I ever attempted. I will here remark, that a short time previous to this, at the end of four days fasting from food and water, faith and truth had been presented to my mind in a higher point of view than I had ever before looked upon them. And so I stand in the full assurance of faith, which delivers from the fear of death and judgment, together with all the snares, gins, pits, and prisons of ignorance and superstition, age and infirmities; and which does really let in the millennial brightness and glory of the Most High, so as to unite in an eternal oneness all things, above and below, that the sublime anthems of peace and good will may be sung in heaven, on the globe."

      HAVING now published every thing in Archippus' essays directly bearing on his peculiarity, I will close my review of his premises and reasonings by more formally attending to a favorite retreat from some of the plainest passages in the book. It is customary to elude such strong sayings as "wash away your sins," "baptism saves us," "the washing of regeneration," &c, by telling us gravely that these are figurative expressions; that baptism is but a sign, a figure, &c. A few words on these figurative expressions, and we have done with Archippus for the present:--

      Is baptism a sign and seal of any thing? Those who contend that it just fills up the place of circumcision, argue that it is a sign and seal in the full sense of circumcision. For our part, let it be noted here, that we consider that analogies do not constitute substitutes. That there is a resemblance between circumcision and baptism we never doubted either as a Baptist, or as a Paidobaptist: but the discovery of an analogy between any two persons or institutions does not compel us to substitute the one for the other. There is an analogy between Adam and Christ, between Moses and Jesus; but we cannot thence infer that Christ stands in the room of Adam, nor in the place of Moses as a substitute or successor. There is an analogy between the redemption of Israel from Egyptian tyranny and the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. There is an analogy between the immersion of Moses and the Jews in the cloud and sea, and the immersion of Jesus and his disciples; but they are not of the same import, nor is the latter a substitute for the former. There is an analogy between the Jewish Sabbath and the Lord's Day--between the Passover and the Lord's Supper--between the Year of Jubilee and the Reign of Grace--between the City of Refuge and Zion the City o the Lord. But we cannot, in good reason, nor in accordance with what is written by the Apostles, substitute one of these for the other. The weakness of even strong men, as well as of weak men, is most apparent in riding metaphors to death, in running parables out of breath, and in converting analogies into substitutes. Of this we have the most illustrious proofs in the thousand fruitless attempts which have been made to prove infant baptism from infant [404] circumcision; to make the circumcision of infant males, by their own mothers, on the eighth day, and of male servants because of their political relation to Abraham, a law and a precedent for sprinkling infants, male and female, on any day, by a Priest too, but not of male or female servants, nor of any person, adult or infant, on account of political relation to a son of Abraham.

      But to the question again: "Is baptism a sign and seal of any thing?" Our best creeds answer the question in the affirmative. The Westminster speaks for most of the orthodox. It says, "Baptism is a sign and seal of the covenant of grace; of engrafting into Christ; of remission of sins," &c To be orthodox, then, we must say that "baptism is a sign and seal of remission of sins." So far I am a Presbyterian, a Methodist, an Episcopalian, and a Roman Catholic. So far is Archippus orthodox also.

      Let us, then, see what we mean by saying "Baptism is a sign and seal of remission." A sign and seal that our sins are remitted before we were baptized? Or is it a sign and seal that they will hereafter be remitted? 'These are the two great questions. None of our opponents maintain the latter. Hence the question is, Is baptism a sign and seal of past remission? "Of past remission," says Archippus; of accompanying remission, say we. Now for the argument. Are, then, we ask, the blessings stipulated in any covenant conveyed before it is sealed? or are they conveyed at the time of sealing? Doubtless not before, but at the time of sealing. One may stipulate, propose, and promise blessings in word or writing, and another may hear and believe the ability and faithfulness of him that proposes; but neither party is bound until the covenant is ratified. If, then, baptism be a seal of remission, or of a promise or covenant concerning remission, that promise, or blessing, or covenant cannot be received, nor secured, nor enjoyed until it be sealed. And just in the act of signing and sealing it is confirmed. If, then, baptism be a seal of remission, then no person is in fact pardoned until baptized. Now Archippus and our opponents, one and all, maintain, as far as we are informed, that baptism is a seal of remission of sins; consequently, they virtually, and in fact, contend that no person has secured to him, can receive or enjoy the remission of his sins, until he is baptized. But this is not the first time, nor the only time in which even the ingenuous are constrained to admit and adopt principles and premises subversive of their own prejudices and conclusions. It is as hard to be consistent in defending error as it is to kick against the spurs without inflicting wounds upon ourselves.

      But it is a sign of remission as well as a seal. Now it must be a sign the same point of time in which it becomes a seal. It cannot be an sign of the past and a seal of the present. It must he a sign and seal in the same tense. And hence the propriety of the sign. Water is the cleansing element; and next to its refreshing influence when drunk, is its purifying efficacy on that which is polluted. It is applied not to the clean but to the polluted, when applied either literally or figuratively. As it cannot be the means of literally cleansing what [405] is not polluted, so it cannot be the sign of cleansing any thing which is already clean. Its figurative truth depends upon its being applied to that which is figuratively polluted. It cannot be the sign of remission when applied to one who has received pardon; for in that case it would be a falsehood in a figure--it would be the sign of that which exists not. If, then, it be a sign of remission, no person conscious of being morally cleansed can rationally receive it. Its meaning and its truth both require that the subject of this sign he considered as not cleansed, as not washed, as not pardoned. If, then, baptism be a sign and seal of remission of sins, it is clear that the pardon of sins is not previous to, but attendant on, submission to it.

      There are two passages in the New Testament on which Archippus and his brethren are not a little perplexed. The first is, that in which Paul is commanded by the authority of the Lord "to wash away his sins." This, say they, is a figurative expression. So say we. But wherein is the figure? In the water of baptism. In submitting to immersion he washed away his sins. If before his immersion he had received literal remission, in immersion he could not be figuratively remitted. To suppose the contrary is to destroy the figure: for a figure implies something corresponding which is real. If there was no correspondence, there was no figure. If there was no real washing away of previous sins at that time, there could he no figurative washing of sins in that ordinance. I am as much astonished at their want of reflection as they are perplexed in evading these decisive testimonies of the sacred scriptures. Archippus might say that Paul received a real remission through faith, and a figurative remission in baptism, provided he could show that remission was not granted through faith only when accompanied by baptism. But to argue that Paul was literally forgiven three days before by faith, destroys the possibility that he was figuratively remitted in immersion.

      We shall seek an analogy in a parallel case. Suppose, for example, that a controversy had arisen among us moderns on what constitutes marriage, or rather on what gives a woman a right to the name, honors, fortunes, and relations of a husband. All parties agree that three things are necessary to a true and proper marriage--the head, the heart, and the hand; or, to speak plainly, the belief of the professed affection of the suitor, the yielding of the affections, and the giving of the right hand in the forms prescribed by law, as a public pledge of devotion to that person. But while all parties agree in each and every one of these as necessary to a full and perfect marriage, a question arises among the curious whether in law or reason it is the first or last act that secures to the woman the name, the honors, the fortunes, and the relations of her suitor. One party contends that the moment she believes the professed affection of her suitor, she is married and has all the rights of a wife: but at the same time admits that this is a very peculiar sort of faith, and implies in it or attaches to it both the giving of the affections and the tendering of the hand according to law. The other contends that although faith and affection are in the order of things necessary antecedents, yet it is not one or [406] both of these, but the actual giving the right hand before witnesses, and as prescribed by law, which gives her any right, title, or interest in the name, honor., fortune, and relatives of the suitor.

      In the course of these wordy strifes and debates on this question, one of the parties finds a document in the writings of certain political sages, whom all parties allow to be paramount authority in the case, and reads it in evidence of the justness of his position. He quotes one of these sages as saying to a certain eminent lady, "Arise--why do you tarry? give your hand, and become the wife of David, calling him your husband." His respondent says she was in reality his wife before, and this giving of the hand was but a figure: before this she had a right to the name, honors, fortunes, and friends of David; but this was only a figurative way of showing it forth publicly. But, replies his friend, why does the sage use words indicative that the relation was not yet formed: and this is not all, for on your own admission that giving the hand was but a sign or figure, let me ask, was it a figure of what had formerly been done, or a figure of what was to be done at the time of performing the act commanded? The parallelism for which we contend must be apparent to all; and I shall leave it to my friend Archippus to say whether the above words do not, when fairly interpreted, imply that she was not married until her hand was given, and therefore could have no right to the name, fortune, &c. of her suitor? And is not the giving of the hand a figure of the giving up the person whose hand it is, at that instant in which the hand is extended, and not a commemoration of some previous transaction between the parties? This we shall leave to his candor.

      The second passage to which we refer is that in 1 Peter iii. 21. "To which water, the antitype immersion, (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God) now saves us also through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." These printed letters are the antitypes of the types which formed them. The type exists for the sake of the antitype. The deluge, then, in Peter's wisdom, was a type of immersion, and saves us by the resurrection of Jesus. Water saved Noah by an ark, while it drowned all who had not faith to enter the ark. The allusion to the Jewish washings, shows that the water of baptism is more effectual than the water which only sanctified to the purifying of the flesh. The Jewish washings did not make them who submitted to them perfect as respects the conscience. But by this institution understood, the answer of a good conscience is obtained. This answer of a good conscience is the difficulty with our friend Archippus. He would have the water of baptism only to take away the filth of the flesh or to have some commemorative retrospect to a good conscience obtained by faith. But Peter declares that immersion now saves us through the resurrection of Jesus. As this was a strong expression, Peter explains by saying it is baptism not for putting away the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience. This as certainly implies remission of sins as did the command from this same Peter (the preacher of water!) on Pentecost. Baptized for the answer of a good [407] conscience, or for the remission of sins, are phrases metonymically equipotent. He that obtains the answer of a good conscience through immersion, obtains the remission of sins. But he that does not, either mistook baptism or himself.

      Having now attended to all the reasonings of our friend Archippus, we shall hear him assign what reasons he has to offer why sentence of heresy should not now be passed upon him.

EDITOR.

      IT is useful to some minds to be informed that the most comprehensive and best cultivated minds, in all sects, have either virtually or formally contended for the distinguishing principles of the present proposed reformation. We rely exclusively upon what is written in the book, but many are strengthened in their convictions from the concurrent views of persons of elevated minds. For their sakes we have, on sundry occasions, backed our peculiarities, as some call them, from the concessions and declarations of men universally acknowledged to have been both great and good. Such is the reputation of Grotius and Le Clerc. Grotius' treatise "De Veritate Christianæ Religionis," is universally admitted to be one of the most masterly performances, and his name is enrolled amongst the first class of distinguished men. Our reading, and that of our correspondents, would enable us to furnish many interesting documents from the highest sources and human authorities, in vindication of our most offensive propositions. But originally deriving our views from the only infallible fountain of information, we are studious to draw our arguments from that source, and to recommend the study of the book rather than of human authorities for giving confidence and rest to the mind. We are willing to rest the controversy on the scripture premises alone; but when our opponents back their opinions by great names, we are willing to show them that great names can be arrayed against them--

ED. M. H.

For the Millennial Harbinger.

      IN my researches into ecclesiastical history, I accidentally got hold of Hugo Grotius on the Christian Religion, who, it appears, wrote in the year 1638. The compiler, or reviewer of this work, in the close of the volume, has made, in my estimation, some very sensible and appropriate remarks. I design to take extracts from time is time and forward them to you, and should you think them worthy of a place in the Harbinger, you can lay them before your readers in order that they may see that good and great men have lamented the divisions among the worshippers of God, and labored to remedy this evil by calling their attention to the word of God alone:--

      "Amongst christians says Le Clerc, "that differ from each other, and not only differ, but (to their shame) condemn one another, and [408] with cruel hand banish them from society; to agree to any of them without examination, or, according to their prescript, to condemn others without consideration, shows a man not only to be imprudent, but very rash and unjust. That congregation which rejects, though but in part, the true religion (a representation he has formed in his own mind) and condemns him that believes it, cannot be thought by such a one a truly christian congregation in all things; nor cause that he should also condemn every man which that church shall deem worthy to be condemned and cast out of the society of christians. Wherefore a wise and honest man ought above all things to examine into these dissentions among christians, who they are that best deserve the holy name of disciples of Christ and adhere to them. If any one should ask what we are required to do by the christian religion, supposing there were no such christian society at all, amongst whom the true doctrine of Christ seems to be taught, and amongst whom there is not a necessity laid upon as condemning some doctrine which we judge to be true; in this case he who apprehends these errors ought to endeavor to withdraw others from them; in doing which be must use the greatest candor, joined with the highest prudence and constancy, lest he offend men without doing them any advantage, or lest all hopes of bringing them to truth and moderation be too suddenly cast off. In the mean time we are to speak modestly and prudently what we think to be truth; nor should any one be condemned by the judgment of another, as infected with error, who seems to think right. God has never forsaken, nor never will forsake the christian name so far as there shall remain no true christians, or, at least, such as cannot be brought back into the true way; with whom we may maintain a stricter society, if others will not return to a more sound opinion; and openly withdraw ourselves from the obstinate, (which yet we ought not to do without having tried all other means to no purpose,) if it be not allowed to speak your opinions fairly and modestly amongst them, and to forbear condemning those whom you think are not to be condemned. The christian religion forbids us speaking contrary to our mind, and falsifying and condemning the innocent; nor can he be acceptable to God, who, out of respect and admiration of those divine precepts, can endure any thing rather than they should be broke. Such a disposition of mind, arising from a sense of our duty and a most ardent love of God, cannot but be highly well pleasing to him."

      "Wherefore, amongst Christians who differ from each other, we are to examine which of them all think the most right; nor are we ever to condemn any but such as seem to us worthy to be condemned, after a full examination of the matter; and we are to adhere to those who do not require any doctrines to be believed which are esteemed by us to be FALSE, nor any to be condemned which we think to be TRUE, IF WE CANNOT OBTAIN THIS OF ANY CHRISTIAN SOCIETY, WE, TOGETHER WITH THOSE WHO ARE OF THE SAME OPINION WITH OURSELVES, OUGHT TO SEPARATE FROM THEM ALL, THAT WE BETRAY NOT THE TRUTH, AND UTTER A FALSITY." [409] "But it is a question of no small importance, and not easily to be resolved, Who of all the societies of the present christians have the truest opinions and are most worthy of that name by which they are called. All the christian churches, as well those who have long since separated from the Roman church, as the Roman church itself, do every one of them claim this to themselves; and if we lay aside all the reasons, we ought no more to give credit to the one than the other; for it were a very foolish thing to suffer such a choice to be determined by chance, and to decide all controversies, as it were by the cast of a die. Now since Grotius has not proved the truth of the particular opinions of any present sect of christians, but only that religion which was taught mankind by Christ and his Apostles; it follows that that sect of Christians is to he preferred before all others, which does most of all defend those things which Christ and his Apostles taught. In a word, that is in every particular truly the Christian religion, which, without any mixture of HUMAN INVENTION, may be wholly ascribed to Christ as the author."

      "IF ANY ONE ADDS TO, OR DIMINISHES FROM THE DOCTRINE DELIVERED BY CHRIST, THE MORE HE ADDS OR DIMINISHES SO MUCH THE FARTHER HE GOES FROM THE TRUTH. Now when I speak of the doctrine of Christ, I mean by it the doctrine which all Christians are clearly agreed upon to be the doctrine of Christ; that is, which, according to the judgment of all Christians is EXPRESSLY TO BE FOUND IN THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.¹ As to those opinions, which, as some Christians think, were delivered by word of mouth by Christ and his Apostles, and derived to posterity in a different method, namely, either by tradition, which was done by speaking only, or which were preserved by some rite, as they imagine, and not set down in writing till a great while after; I shall pass no other judgment upon them here, but only this, that all christians are not agreed upon them as they are upon the books of the New Testament. I will not say they are false, unless they are repugnant to right reason and revelation; but only they are not agreed about the original of them, and therefore they are controverted among christians, who in other respects agree in those opinions, the truth of which Grotius has demonstrated, (i. e. the New Testament;) for no wise man (christian) will allow us to depend upon a thing as certain, so long as it is uncertain to us, especially if it be a matter of great importance.

T. M. H. [410]

      WE have received sundry letters of late on this subject, as well as on former occasions. The following under date of July 7, 1831, calls the subject up:

      "Mr. Campbell--In this section of country much is said, and much collision exists among those who should he disciples of Jesus, on the subject of washing the christians' feet. The 13th chapter of John's testimony is adduced as legitimate proof of its being a church ordinance.² Others deny. From numerous requests, and expressive of my own feelings, an essay from your pen, through the medium of the Millennial Harbinger, is fervently solicited. Do, sir, as early as practicable, grant the request; for which you will receive our highest regard. Obediently,

A SUBSCRIBER."

      In the Christian Baptist for March, 1826, vol. 3, 2d ed. p. 336, the following remarks will be found:--

      As to the washing of the saints' feet, there is no evidence that it was a religious ordinance, or an act of social worship. Yea, there is positive evidence that it was not. Paul, in his directions to Timothy, at Ephesus, tells him that certain widows were to be supported in certain circumstances by the church. These widows were members of the church, and as such must have been regular attendants on, and partakers of all its institutions.

      Now in describing the character of those widows which were to be supported by the congregation, Paul says, "If she have brought up children; if she have lodged strangers; if she have washed the saints' feet; if she have diligently followed very good work." Had the washing of the saint's feet been a religious, or what is called a church or social ordinance, it would have been impossible for her to have been in the congregation, and not to have joined in it. He might as well have said, 'If she have been baptized, if she have eaten the supper," as to have said, "if she have washed the saint's feet," had it been a religious institution But he ranks it not amongst social acts of worship, not amongst religious institutions, but amongst good works. When, then, it is a good work, it ought to be performed, but never placed on a level with acts of religious worship. It is a good work when necessity calls for it, and though a menial service, the Saviour gave an example that no christian should forget, of that condescending humility which as christians we are bound, both from precept and example, to exhibit towards our brethren in all cases when called upon. Besides the design of it at the time he practised it, is ascertained from a regard to the mistaken and aspiring views of the disciples respecting the nature of places of honor in his kingdom.

      It was a good work, and still is a good work, more frequently in Asia than America. The soil, climate, and dress of the Asiatics more frequently called for it than our circumstances require it. But we argue not from these circumstances--we use them as illustrations of the fact that Paul the Apostle has positively decided that it is not a religious institution, an act of religions worship, or an ordinance in the church, but simply a good work; and I have experienced it to be a good work in my own person more than once, even in these United States.

      To this let me add, that good works being the fruits of wholesome principles, partake of the principles from which they proceed, as the apple partakes of the nature of the tree on which it hangs; but still the apple is not the tree. Neither are good works religion, but the fruits of religion. Acts of worship are not called in the scripture good works; nor good works, acts of worship. Prayer, praise, immersion, the Lord's supper, are no where called good works. These [411] are acts of worship. When an assembly comes together to worship God, it is preposterous to make washing the saints' feet a part of the worship, or a religious observance of the day. It is superstition, and not religion--it is converting a good work into a religious observance. But when the washing of a brother's feet is necessary to his health or comfort, we are taught to humble ourselves, if humility it may be, to serve in any way a son of God, an heir of immortality; I say, by the example of the son of God, we are taught to wash one another's feet. The passage is a most instructive one--John xiii, 12-17. "After he had washed their feet he put on his mantle, and replacing himself at the table, said to them. Do you understand what I have been doing to you? You call me the Teacher and the Master, and you say right; for so I am. If I, then, the Master and the Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example that you should do as I have done unto you. Verily, verily, I say unto you, the servant is not greater than his master, nor the apostle greater than he who sendeth him. Happy are you who know these things, provided you practise them!"

      We do not wonder that they who love the Saviour would he desirous of imitating his example in this glorious act of condescension: nor do we wonder that some disciples, like Peter, should refuse at first to submit to have it done. Both, however, err. The brother who will not submit to have it done when preferred, and when it is necessary, deprives his brother of the pleasure of imitating the example of the Saviour of the world. And he who makes it an act of public worship, or rather a public usage, of the same significance and form of a stated part of religious worship, discriminates not between good works and the worship of God. Paul ranks the "washing of the saints' feet" with "visiting the afflicted and the lodging of strangers." See 1 Tim. v. 9-11. "Let no widow under sixty years old be put on the list. Having been the wife of one man, is she eminent for good works? Has she brought up children? Has she exercised hospitality? Has she washed the saints' feet? Has she assisted the afflicted? Has she been assiduous to perform every good work?" So it may be read--so Thomson has rendered it. It is, however, of the same signification in all versions. The remarks in the next article will reflect some more light on this.

      On this subject, too, we have had many queries; and many of our correspondents are very inquisitive on this, as well as every other practice which has the appearance of any apostolic sanction. A five years' observation of the tendencies of this practice, and experience of the revival of it, I do not find much to add to, or much to subtract from, the remarks we made upon it in the March number of the C. B. 1826. We shall lay them before the readers of the Harbinger. vol. 3, p. 337, 2d edition:--

      Much the same sort of evidence exists in proof that the kiss of charity is not a social or church ordinance. A great deal more, however, can be said in behalf of it than of either of the preceding items. It is argued that it is five times [412] positively commanded in the epistles written to the congregations set in order by the Apostles. From this I would conclude that it had not been established by the Apostles as an act of religious or social worship in those societies as a part of their usual and stated worship; for if it had, there could not have existed a reason for enjoining it so repeatedly as we find it enjoined. Hence we do not find one commandment in all the epistles to the churches respecting baptism, the Lord's supper, or the Lord's day: certain things are said of them, and in relation to them, as already established in the church, but no command to observe them. From the fact of the kiss of charity being so often mentioned, and from the circumstances of the congregations to which it is mentioned, I argue quite differently from many zealous and exemplary christians.

      Christians are to love one another as brethren. This is the grand standard of their affection. Whatever way, then, I express love to my natural brother I should express it to my christian brother. If the custom of the country and those habits of expressing affection which it familiarizes to our minds, require me to salute my natural brother when I meet him by a kiss on the lips, neck, or cheek, so let me salute my christian brother. But if the right hand of friendship and love be the highest expression of love and affection for a natural brother, to salute a christian brother otherwise is unnatural. For example--suppose that after an absence of seven years, I were introduced into a room where one of my natural brothers and one of my christian brethren were sitting, and that I should kiss the latter and shake hands with the former--would net this diversity be unnatural, and contrary to the generic precept, "Love as brethren?" I contend, then, that neither the customs in dress, wearing the beard, or mode of salutation, is the meaning of the requirements, of the precepts, or examples of the Apostles. But that the genius and spirit of these injunctions and examples, are, in these things, expressed by the customs and habits which our country and kindred adopt, and by means of which we express the spirit and temper which they inculcated and exhibited.

      But to make this a regular and standing ordinance of christian assemblies appears to be entirely unauthorized by any hint, allusion, or command in the apostolic writings. I speak neither from prejudice nor aversion to this custom. For my own part, I can cordially comply with either custom, having been born in a country where this mode of salutation was more common than in this; but to advocate or enjoin it as of apostolic authority, I cannot. When misunderstandings and alienations take place amongst brethren, and a reconciliation has been effected; when long absence has been succeeded by a joyful interview; or when about to separate for a long time, the highest expressions of love and most affectionate salutations are naturally called for, which the customs of the country have made natural. And these become holy amongst christian brethren on account of the high considerations which elicit them.

      In a word, whatever promotes love amongst christian brethren, whatever may increase their affection, or whatever expressions of it can best exhibit it to others, according to the customs and feelings of the people amongst whom we live, is certainly inculcated by the Apostles. And if christian societies should exactly and literally imitate and obey this injunction, no man, as far as I can learn, has a right to condemn or censure them. Nor have they who practise according to they letter, a right to insist upon others to think or practise in a similar way, so long as they exhibit that they love one another as brethren.

      If the Romans had usually saluted one another with a holy kiss in the organization of the congregation, or had any other congregation, the Corinthian or Thessalonian, been taught this as a regular usage from their introduction into the kingdom, why would the Apostles, so many years after they had received the christian institution, have commanded them to salute one another with a holy kiss? Why not have simply reminded them of THE holy kiss, as he did of the [413] Lord's table, or the first day of the week, or the fellowship, or the collection for the saints?

      Our brethren the Baptists, in Europe and America, for times immemorial have reasoned themselves in a similar way into a general practice from a special occurrence: in other words, they have drawn a general conclusion from a particular incident, and made it an essential part of the observance of christian immersion. Because we are told that Philip and the Eunuch went down both into the water, it is plead that the administrators must, in all cases, go down into the water with the subject of the institution. Thousands there are who would not think they had immersed a person according to the divine institution, and tens of thousands could be found who would not have peace of conscience if they had not been accompanied into the water by the baptizer. Now, with all due deference to the Baptist christendom, I would beg leave to say that I am logically compelled to infer from the narrative of Luke, that the accompanying of the Eunuch into the water on the part of Philip, was a peculiar circumstance occasioned by the position of the water to which they came. They came to a certain water, like many of our streams so shallow along its margin as not to admit of an immersion but by going some distance into it. The historian Luke tells all the circumstances of this singular incident, and explains how it became possible to immerse a person in such a stream. Remember, candid reader, that this is the only allusion in all the New Testament to the baptizers going with the candidate into the water; and that the circumstances, not the meaning of the institution, made it then and there necessary. In countries and cities where baths, public and private, were as common as brick ovens in Pennsylvania, there was no necessity, and certainly there is no meaning in the administrator's accompanying the subject into the water. Some imagine that John the Baptist was almost amphibious; that he stood in the Jordan all the day long; not noticing that there were certain places in the Jordan to which John resorted, probably too, because of the convenience which they afforded for immersing without walking into the stream with every candidate. They have also forgotten the many baths at Enon too, and the myriads immersed in cities. But I do not argue this question. For our own part we have always accompanied the candidate into the water, not as an essential part of the institution, nor as any part of it; but because, like Philip on the high road, we have found no place prepared where we could immerse conveniently without going down into the water.

      But some person will say, Sir, your reasoning weakens the cause you plead. You plead for a restoration of the ancient order of things. When we are for doing every thing found in the book, you tell us some things are a part of that order of things and others are not. And moreover, you weaken our cause with the Paidobaptists: they will say some instances are recorded of believer baptism; but you Baptists reason illogically: these are particular cases, and from them you draw general conclusions. Very good: let them show only one [414] example for their practice before they talk of general or particular conclusions from their premises. The fact is, they have no premises at all, general or special. But we are not to be driven into fallacious reasonings by the perversity or obliquity of false reasoners. A weak or a false argument must soon or late injure a good cause. We care not what apparent advantage an opponent may find in any concession which a regard to just principles of reasoning, or to revealed truth, compels us to make. We will make all just and reasonable concessions; and when this is done, there is not a single item of the christian institution, in faith or practice, weakened, obscured, or misrepresented.

      But to return from this digression, though illustration it may be called, to the kiss of charity. The congregation in Rome, and that in Corinth, are commanded to salute one another with a holy kiss; the congregation of the Thessalonians (1st Epistle) are commanded to salute all the brethren with a holy kiss; Peter also, in his first letters, commands all the brethren scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia Minor, and Bythynia, to salute one another with a kiss of love. Sometimes it is rendered greet, and sometimes salute; but it is one and the same word, "aspazo," in the Greek. Ten or twelve manuscripts with the Syriac version have "holy kiss," in Peter, instead of "kiss of love." It is also said by Justin Martyr in his apology for the Christians, "Prayers being ended, we salute one another with a kiss, and then the loaf and cup are brought to the President," &c. "There was no promiscuous kissing of males and females in the ancient christian meetings; because as all antiquity avouches, they adopted the mode of sitting in their assemblies which obtained in the Jewish synagogues. The females all sat together on one side, and the males on the other; and when they arose to salute one another, each saluted those who sat next them." So say some of the commentators on ancient usages. Here are all the premises in favor of the practice found in the apostolic epistles, and the best fragment of antiquity which has come down to us.

      Sundry questions are proposed on these premises; first, "Why is it called a holy kiss, and a kiss of love? It was called a holy kiss to distinguish it from a common kiss, which was the usual mode of salutation, and which is still the common mode of salutation in many eastern countries. D'Arvieux, (Voy. dons la Pal, p. 71) describing the meeting of Arabian chiefs, says--"All the Emirs came just together a little time after, accompanied by their friends and attendants, and after the usual civilities, caresses, kissings of the beard and of the hand, which every one gave and received according to his rank and dignity, they sat down upon mats." Irwin (in his Voyage, p. 248) says: "When the Shaik of Ghinnah held a court of justice and condemned his Vizier, he was immediately surrounded by a crowd of his courtiers, who kissed his hands, embraced his knees, and interceded with him for the pardon of his Vizier."

      The Old Testament, in numerous passages, shows that kissing was a common practice among the Jews and in all the surrounding nations, [415] and that the Jews, in their dispersions, always kissed one another upon meeting. It became a proverb, in Solomon's time, "the kisses of an enemy are deceitful." Isaac said to Jacob, "come near and kiss me, my son." Pharaoh, in the Hebrew, says to Joseph--"At thy word shall all my people kiss." " Joab took Amasa by the beard, and kissed him;" and Judas betrayed the Saviour by a kiss. It was then a common salutation. There could have been no holy kiss if there had not been a common kiss, as there could not have been a deceitful or treacherous kiss if there had been no kiss of love.

      But with us we have no common kiss; that is, we have no common salutation of this sort, either amongst males, or promiscuous between males and females: and it may be fairly a question among us, whether we are justified in introducing new customs rather than in consecrating those which are in existence among us.

      If persons of all ranks, Jews and Gentiles, had not at that time been accustomed to salute one another with a kiss, it is, in my judgment, very obvious that no such a custom would have been originated by the Apostles. When Peter tells the brethren, in the dispersion, to salute one another with a kiss of love, it was no new custom commanded them, but a new version of an old custom--'you formerly saluted each other as Jews in this way, now do it as christians.' This is the force of his exhortation. But there is a very great difference between sanctifying a customary expression of love and friendship to denote a higher love, or a different love, and introducing a new custom, never with us the sign or token of even common or uncommon friendship among men.

      It cannot be, in the nature of things with us, at first, a natural expression of love; it is with us an act of obedience rather than a spontaneous expression of affection. It becomes with us an observance: not so the shaking of hands. This is as natural as our mother tongue; but a kiss resembles a Frenchman speaking English, or an Englishman speaking French. It is the result of effort. The affection of an Asiatic flows to his lips, of an American to his hands. It requires some time and management to change its current.

      But while these are, in our judgment, reasons against the introduction of such an usage, it is going beyond the bounds of every thing written in the book to enjoin it upon all churches as the holy kiss, and to make it an ordinance or usage in the stated meetings of the disciples. And to make it a common salutation every time we would, according to our custom, shake hands, is also travelling out of the record; and rather caricaturing than exhibiting christian affection. Every one who enjoins it upon another by Divine authority, mistakes the whole matter; for affection or love cannot be regulated by CONSCIENCE at all, and the Apostles never gave it as an injunction upon all churches, nor as an injunction upon any statedly, nor upon them once as a law, but as an exhortation with a reference to circumstances some way peculiar to them. It is not said to any congregation, Salute one another statedly, at any given period, but just when they received the letter from the Apostle. It must be so understood, because ranked among the other salutations in the close of the letter. [416]

      It does not appear that even on ordinary occasions the brethren saluted the Apostles with this peculiar kiss. Luke mentions it as one of the peculiarities of the parting scene at Miletus. The Ephesian elders "fell upon Paul's neck and kissed him." This is connected with their being much grieved, and sorely weeping at his final adieu.

      Again, its effects upon society now are very different from what might have been expected among a people addicted to a common kiss. No mind then revolted at it, as unnatural or unbecoming; but experience creates more than a suspicion that it is, when made a part of the christian institution, prejudicial in some instances to its happy influences upon society. And he that taught that even things lawful were not always expedient, and who became a Gentile among Gentiles that he might gain Gentiles: who would neither eat flesh nor drink wine, rather than by so doing grieve the conscience of a weak brother, would never have originated among us in the remote west such a custom, any more than the custom of wearing beards or seamless garments, or writing on parchment rather than using types and paper.

      We cannot answer all the questions submitted on this subject at this time. I have attended to one or two of them. If any brother has any reasons to offer against the views herein submitted, we will, with pleasure, publish them.

      For our own part, I must again repeat, that while I would wash the feet of any disciple of Jesus Christ who would permit me, when it was a good work; and while I can say that I would salute any christian African on the continent with a holy kiss, if I regarded it as a part of the christian religion, as an essential custom, or a part of the fixed manners of Christ's family, I cannot treat any otherwise than I have done this subject, with regard to all my views of the whole institution, nor my brethren who practice the holy kiss in any other way than I have heretofore treated them: that is, salute them in this way on such occasions as feeling, not conscience, may prompt me or them; but as at present advised we cannot countenance them who would introduce this practice among us as one of the established customs or manners of the Christian Kingdom. On this subject, as on some others, we are taught to bear with one another, and while differences of opinion may exist, to maintain the unity of the Spirit by the bonds of peace.

EDITOR.

      THE ground assumed in the proposed reformation is the highest ground which can be assumed at any time or under any circumstances, and it is the only rational and lawful ground which human ingenuity and christian integrity can propose. It is not a restoration of Primitive Methodism, Lutheranism, Calvinism, Quakerism; but a restoration of primitive christianity in faith, sentiment, and practice--in religion, morality, economy, manners, and customs. If we fail it cannot be in the object proposed: for in this no people can excel us--none can claim higher, more rational, or more scriptural ground. [417] None can go farther back than the apostolic age--none can adopt a purer creed than the New Testament, nor recommend more wholesome practices than the Apostles enforced. If, too, christianity is ever to he restored, pure and heaven-born religion, to occupy the place of superstition, formality, ceremony, hypocrisy, enthusiasm, pharisaism, and sadduceeism; if the disciples of Jesus Christ are ever to be united, if sectarianism is ever to be put down, if the world is to be regenerated and its kingdoms to bow to the sceptre of Jesus, we are assured it must be by the means which we recommend, as far as moral means can effect these objects; it must be by placing the Apostles upon the thrones which Jesus promised them, by making them the infallible arbiters of every question of faith and morals, by regarding them as competent and faithful instructers of mankind upon the whole of religion and morality, and by submitting to their teaching, their recommendations, their entire system, without an admixture of humanism, however venerable, ancient, commendable, popular, or reasonable it may seem. If there be a rock, if there be a sure and well-tried foundation on which to build in the moral and religions desolations of christendom, this is the foundation. No man, with any pretensions to a very moderate quantum of knowledge in human affairs, in history, or the Bible, can expect that any human creed, or human system, or sectarian foundation, can achieve all that christianity proposes to do on earth, or even all that the great mass of professors expect and desire to be done. All the intelligent look for, long for, pray for, some great change in religious affairs, as preparatory to a better, a more desirable state of society.

      It has been our lot, we know not why, to propose to the consideration of our cotemporaries the ground on which all that moral means can achieve may be accomplished; the ground on which all the devout, all the pure in heart, all the faithful, and honest, and honorable disciples of Jesus Christ can unite, co-operate, and cordially meet, without the sacrifice of any thing but human traditions, and without any infringement upon the rights of private judgment--without any discreditable or dishonorable concession whatever. We have all to carry to the same altar of truth and union our prejudices, and make a burnt-offering of our humanisms for the sake of the full enjoyment of the freedom of the City of the Prince of Peace.

      The gospel as promulged by the Apostles, and the order of things which they instituted as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles and in the Epistles, is all that is necessary to the attainment of the highest object to be gained on earth, and to secure to mankind the fullest enjoyment of christianity promised to man in this state of discipline and trial. Other foundation for the church, and for the union and harmony of all the family of God can no man lay than that which Jesus laid and the Apostles preached, which is the gospel, or Jesus is the Christ.

      But it is not to commend, to explain, or to sustain the ground proposed we now address you. Of this you are already informed; though perhaps, its full tendencies and results none of us fully, as yet, [418] appreciate or perceive. But, brethren, while we have seized the ground which heaven and earth must approbate, as far as earth can relish or approve the things of heaven; while we stand upon an eminence from which we can see the smoke of the many-tongued city, and the confusion of her inhabitants; while we have ascended to the foot of the apostolic thrones, let us remember that it is one thing to seize the best ground, and another to occupy it in the best manner. We have to unlearn what we have learned from human authorities, to unteach what we have taught of human traditions; we have to learn a new vocabulary; and what is still more difficult, we have to learn to practice what we preach--to cultivate and to exhibit the spirit of the ancient gospel, and to abound in all the good works which it commands and commends. And who of us, nurtured in the bosom of our meretricious mothers; who of us, nursed and cherished in the lap of sectarian affections; who of us, educated in the schools of an apostate church, can at a single effort, or by a few good resolutions, free ourselves from all these Babylonish influences and habits, and exhibit the simplicity, the meekness, mildness, purity, zeal and heavenly mindedness which adorned the first advocates for he sovereignty of Jesus the Messiah?

      I speak not of that lame charity which only mutters out the defections of the age; nor of that "christian spirit" which bids God speed to every thing which assumes the garb of religion, which flatters the inventor of every scheme, which virtually dethrones the Lord of Christians, and which recommends every device that decorates itself with the character of christian benevolence. I speak not of that mildness, gentleness, and meekness which dare not reprove the works of darkness, nor rebuke with authority the corruptions of the gospel of salvation; which fraternize with all who evince sincerity, regardless of the principles with which that sincerity is allied. But I speak of that mildness, gentleness, and meekness which instruct with condescension them that oppose themselves, which discriminate between the deceiver and the deceived, which soften with sympathy and tenderness the testimony we offer against error, and which regard with all benevolence the subjects of mistake, error, and delusion.

      The Editor is at fault here if his motives and the reasons of his conduct are not estimated according to his conceptions of the state of society when he began his efforts in this cause. He viewed the whole christian community as a physician views a plethoric paralytic patient. Desperate diseases require desperate remedies. The lancet, blisters, and the severest friction are the mildest remedies to restore sensibility and a healthy action of the nervous system to such unfortunate invalids. In a word, and without a figure, he regarded the so called christian community as having lost all healthy excitability; and his first volume of the "Christian Baptist," the "most uncharitable," the most severe, sarcastic, and ironical he ever wrote, was an experiment to ascertain whether society could be moved by fear or rage--whether it could be made feel at all the decisive symptoms of the mortal malady which was consuming the last spark [419] of moral life and motion. It operated favorably upon the whole, though very unfavorably to the reputation of its author as respected his "christian spirit." It brought some hundreds to their senses: and as the morbid action began to yield and to be succeeded by more favorable symptoms, he gradually changed his course, and has been ever since adjusting his modus medendii³ to the indications of the disease. He has obtained a favorable hearing to a very considerable extent, incomparably beyond all his expectations; and now begins to think of still more radical changes in his course. His preaching, however, has always differed much from his writing. He never thought that a promiscuous assembly, convened to be addressed on the great principles of reformation towards God and faith in Jesus Christ, ought to be addressed as expediency may justify him to write. He has frequently happily disappointed his hearers. They expected a portion of pepper, and salt, and vinegar; but on many occasions have confessed it was manna, and wine, and oil. But in speaking he addressed not systems nor system-makers, but men and women, saints and sinners. To edify the former and to convert the latter, was, then, the all-absorbing consideration.

      He is obliged to give this account of himself because he has learned from various sources that the severity of his writing has been appealed to in vindication of severity in preaching, and of harsh and sarcastic addresses to the great congregation. If he have knowingly ever addressed a congregation in this style, it was when the clergy and their vindicators were present; and if at any other time, he confesses he was at fault, and asks forgiveness.

      But, brethren, while we proclaim the ancient gospel, let us do it in the spirit of that gospel. Let our object be to turn sinners to God. Gravity, sincerity, mildness, and benevolence, must be the attributes of every successful proclaimer of the word. If we teach or exhort christians, let it be with the tenderness, affection, and long-suffering of Paul and his great master--the Teacher sent from God. No witticisms, puns, jests, or satires, become him who pleads with men to be reconciled to God. A dead fly has often caused the most precious ointment of a whole discourse to send forth an unpleasant odor.

      But my address is not only to them who labor in the word and teaching, but to all who have come up to the help of the Lord against the mighty. The cause you have espoused is the most dignified on earth. All in heaven approve it; but we have made ourselves a mark for the archers, and their bows, though not like ours, bows of steel, send forth many missiles. Let us be clothed with the armor of light, take hold of the sword of the Spirit, and fight the battles of the Lord, with coolness, courage, and perseverance. But temper, good temper, love, tenderness, ad all condescension to the infirmities of our contemporaries, next to our giving a living form to the whole religion in our whole behavior, are worth all the rhetoric and logic of the schools, and infinitely more powerful than all the censures, sarcasms, ironies, and smart sayings of all the wits of the age. But of this more hereafter.

EDITOR. [420]

      I HAD the pleasure of conversing the other day with two persons from Wales, who have recently emigrated to this place, and united themselves to the congregation here. They cannot speak good English; but I learned from them the following interesting particulars:--

      "The gospel is proclaimed with great success in the north part of Wales, and the ancient order of things is in a good measure restored in some congregations in that country--in how many we could not learn. The congregation from which these disciples came assemble on the first day of every week, having two Bishops or Presidents; one is a very old man, not able to speak much; the other, a younger man, labors in the word and teaching, and occupies in the congregation a good part of the afternoon meeting. When they assemble in the morning they first attend on prayer, praise, and thanksgiving, and some of the brethren exhort or address the congregation. An address to those without is then tendered, and an invitation given to any who have heard and believed the gospel to obey it--to come forward and confess the Lord.

      "Those who come forward are required to make the same confession which Philip required of the Eunuch. They are then immersed with these views. They represent the persons immersed as first having been begotten of the word; as soon as they ascend from the water they contemplate them as newborn babes, and now to become the subjects of such impressions as are to be made upon them by their mother, the congregation. In the next meeting, on the same day, the newborn, or immersed, are embraced or saluted by the brethren, and they all assemble round the Lord's table, and eat and drink in memory of their Lord and Saviour, and rejoice with the new converts in having obtained the remission of their sins and the hope of immortality.

      "These brethren thought that out of Wales there were no people who thus understood the gospel and practised the same things. They had just adopted the book for themselves, and were led to these views and practices from reading it alone. Shortly before leaving Wales they had heard that this same gospel and pretty much the same order of things were taught in these United States, and were as much astonished as delighted to hear it. When I heard their narrative I thanked God and took courage.

	"Yours in the Lord,
R. D."

      THE ancient gospel is now proclaimed in Great Britain, Ireland, the Canadas, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and in every state and territory in this union, and is daily diffusing its influences on society. The community seems to be prepared for it. Thinking and intelligent persons are every where jaded and sickened with sectarianism, and there appears a more general disposition or determination to abandon all human platforms, creeds, and rubrics, and to build upon the Apostles and Jesus Christ alone, than ever appeared in [421] christendom before. To this cause, as well as to others, we attribute the almost unparalleled progress of the ancient gospel and order of things; which, indeed, in contrast with any sectarian scheme, when carried out fully presents a new religion both in faith, hope, love, and their tendencies. Many societies are, it is true, yet but talking about these things and recommending them; but the proof of the excellency of this cause is the carrying out of all its principles into full practice.

EDITOR.

Dear Sir,

      A SNEER from you at the dream of Joseph comes with a worse grace than all the sneers of Voltaire against Moses and Jesus. What! a Jew sneer at the dream of Joseph, when the dream of another Joseph saved your nation from famine, from starvation! But perhaps you will tell me that your father Levi, and all his brethren, did not believe in the dreams of Joseph! Yes, and you may add, not only hated him because of his dreams, but sold him a slave for the price which Judas set upon the head of the Messiah: and why? because he dreamed a dream which your fathers did not like. But, recollect, my good sir, that Joseph's dream made him a slave because his brethren hated him, but Pharaoh's dream made him a governor, because the Lord was with him; and therefore your father Jacob and all his sons bowed to him.

      Remember, my dear sir, that the dream of an Egyptian king saved your mother Sarah from the bed of Abimelech, and thus verified the prediction that she should be the mother of the child promised to Abraham as the inheritor of Canaan. Why then, son of Sarah, should you laugh at the dream of Joseph, so similar to those dreams which saved your nation from ruin, and without which the promises to Abraham could not have been fulfilled?

      Your first objection, which you represent as the great "stumbling block," having been disposed of and shown to be a verification of one of the most literal promises of Isaiah, I will just notice your allusions to John the Harbinger. These are full as logical as your allusions to the dream of Joseph. To notice the "shall come," and the "is already come," may appear on my part giving importance to that which few of your brethren may think worthy of much consideration. All authors are guilty of making quotations from the tongues and pens of men. To quote a passage in the tense in which it was spoken, and then declare that it is fulfilled, is surely not a monstrous contradiction! And for John to say that he was not Elias, nor the prophet of which his contemporaries spoke; for him to tell the truth, cannot, indeed, be a very great sin in your eyes. John was a reformer like Elias; and it is neither unprecedented nor unusual, in all languages and among all people, to give a person the name of one renowned for the qualities, good or evil, which he possesses. Of a certain minister of state we say, he was the Ahitophel or the Talleyrand of that Court; of a king renowned for wisdom we say, he was [422] the Solomon of that age, John the Baptist was the Elijah of his time. He came in the spirit and in the power of Elijah.

      The prediction in Malachi was fulfilled in John, and never can be fulfilled in any other person--"I send my messenger before thy face." He was to appear before the destruction of the second temple: "Even the Lord whom you seek shall suddenly come to his temple." And soon after him was to come "the great and terrible day of the Lord" on the land of Judea, on the city and temple. Now that John filled the whole scope of the prediction as to his office, work, time of coming, and all the adjuncts thereof, cannot be denied. But no person can now come to the temple of the Lord which stood in Jerusalem; no person can come before that great and terrible calamity on your city, temple, land, and people. Now I ask you, as a son of Abraham, as a man of good reason, is it argumentative, is it rational to oppose to these incontrovertible facts the mere criticism, I will not call it quibble, about the name Elijah.

      Some of your scribes used to teach that in the times of the Messiah both Moses and Elijah should revisit the land of Judea, in their own proper persons. This tradition, you know, obtained much credit with your people. And it came to pass that Moses and Elijah did, in their own proper persons, visit the land of Judea in the time of the Messiah. Now if you quote the words of Matthew and John, and reason from them as having been sincerely and honestly spoken, just as they appear on record, you have as good reason to admit his testimony concerning what happened in the Mount when Moses and Elias appeared.

      As to the two disciples sent by John to Jesus--whether for their own confirmation, or for the removal of some doubts of his own, not concerning the mission of Jesus from the Father, but concerning other matters--I can see no real difficulty which it can create, as to the pretensions of Jesus, more than the frequent mistakes and questions proposed by his own disciples concerning the nature of his kingdom, whether it was to be temporal and worldly, or whether he was to suffer or be glorified on earth. There is no contradiction in these incidents to any thing prophesied concerning either Elijah or the Messiah. John may have fallen into doubts whether there was another messenger to be sent from Heaven, or whether the kingdom which he, in common with all that generation, expected to be of this world, was then to be set up, as it may have transcended the time which he had fixed for its coming. But his mission was not to explain that kingdom, but to announce its near approach, and to call upon men to reform. But if he sent his disciples for their own conviction or confirmation, which many christian rabbis have plead, it obviates your difficulty at once. For my own part, I am of opinion that John, having had the common views of this kingdom, and not seeing any immediate tokens of its appearance, fell into difficulties about the meaning and design of the mission of Jesus. This I think is implied in the answer given to his queries. But the least in the kingdom of heaven was, in this respect, greater than John. Now, as it [423] detracts not from the respect you have for any one of the Jewish prophets because he did not know and foretell every thing, it ought not in your judgment to detract from the mission of John, as coming in the spirit and power of Elijah, because he had no better conceptions of the kingdom and mission of the Messiah than Elijah had, though it appears he was much more enlightened than even Elijah himself.

      As to your objection drawn from the predictions of the extent, duration, and prosperity of his reign, they may easily be removed from an examination of your prophets. The time when, the place where, his kingdom was to commence, its rise, progress, and consummation, are so frequently and fully developed in your prophets that it astonishes me to see you select a passage which alludes to the consummation of his kingdom, and quote in connexion with it a saying of Jesus respecting its commencement, or rather concerning his own personal labors in proving his mission. You might as well have opposed the fame of the Cesars, of Hannibal, or of Napoleon, by telling us some incident of their childhood, as to oppose the predictions of the triumphs of the Messiah to the narrative of the commencement of his career. Ought not the Messiah first to have suffered, and then to have entered into his glory, was a question which myriads of your nation unanimously decided in the affirmative, and in confirmation of which your David writes many a psalm. So fully convinced of the many sufferings, and trials, and conflicts of the Messiah foretold in your prophets are many of your Rabbims, that they have to adopt the hypothesis of two Messiahs--a suffering, and triumphant Messiah. This is good proof that your prophets say much of the sufferings of the Messiah, yourselves being judges. But a call from home compels me to break off in the midst of this investigation, which I shall resume in my next.

	In all sincerity, your friend.
EDITOR.

      BY some singular arrangement, management, or accident, this pamphlet of 56 8vo. pages made its way past me to the lower country, and was read by persons nearly 300 miles west of me before I heard of its appearance. About a week ago I read a letter from the lower part of Ohio, from brother Winans, containing his views of the "Extra Examined," which he had read I dont know how long before. This was the first time I heard of its appearance; and it was not until yesterday (August 23) that I saw it. I have only glanced over a part of it, and about starting to attend some meetings at the distance of more than 50 miles, will not, perhaps, for two weeks to come, have leisure to read it all carefully. But having only very hastily read a part of it, I can do little more at present than announce its appearance.

      Mr. Broaddus (for he wishes me to call him Mr. Broaddus, calling me Mr. Campbell,) has made the most gentlemanly effort to maintain the views of faith, justification by faith, the previous holy principle, [424] and regeneration of the heart, found in Mr. Fuller's works, which has appeared since the present controversy began. I do not, by naming Mr. Fuller, impute to Mr. Broaddus the mere detailing of his views in opposition to what he calls my "theory." I presume that he does not contend for Mr. Fuller's views, but for his own; but I say Mr. Fuller's views, because they are so generally known, and it is the most summary way of informing my readers of the ground on which the Extra is opposed.

      Mr. Broaddus has acquitted himself well, and no doubt will receive the thanks of all our opponents for this effort. He now receives mine too, for having produced a decent pamphlet, written in the style of a gentleman, and in what is usually called "the spirit of a christian" I do not think that he has designed, in any passage which I have read, to misrepresent my views, though in some places he has misapprehended them, and certainly has not, in my judgment, fairly met the great question at issue. That he has said many plausible and specious things which will pass for sound logic with many of our opponents, I doubt not. He has been at great pains to represent christian immersion as a mere "bodily act," and to speak of it as "an external act," "an external ordinance," &c. pretty much like the immersion of a cup, a table, or a couch in water.

      He also represents me as notoriously careless about the heart, as having never said or written much about the heart or the state of the mind; as, indeed, not taking that much, if at all, into the account. His words are, "The great error which lies at the bottom of Mr. C's theory, of the actual forgiveness of sins in baptism, appears to consist in an undervaluing of the exercises of the heart, and attaching to external conduct or action the importance which really belongs to these exercises." The above sentence is printed and italicised as above. I doubt not but Mr. Broaddus thinks this is all correct; and yet a more unjust representation of my views was never penned. I cannot blame Mr. Broaddus for censuring in strong terms a view of christianity against which such a charge could fairly lie. I would join with him and denounce such a representation of christianity as leaves the heart of man not only out of view, but on the back ground. How often have we said that the greatest objection we have against the whole system which we oppose, is because of its impotency on the heart? But Mr. Broaddus thinks that his system is the only one which takes the heart of man into good keeping; and consequently, he that dissents from him leaves the heart out of view.

      I do not argue any point at issue: I only inform the public that Mr. Broaddus has written a very respectable pamphlet on the Extra, and that he has, as he conceives, scattered the pillars on which our edifice was reared. But we intend, so soon as we can find a little leisure, to gather the broken fragments and erect for ourselves a shelter from the storm!

      I do not know a proposition in nature or religion against which both plausible and ingenious things may not be said. Men may argue that the Sun is not the fountain of light, and urge the many dark [425] spots of immense magnitude which appear upon its disk as proof that it is not a luminous, but an illuminated body. Mr. Broaddus has, however, the popular and much hackneyed side of the question, and whatever is familiar to many is both rational and scriptural. To the Quaker it is most unreasonable to propose water, bread, or wine in religion. They are mere external and bodily acts; and so is bending the knee, or singing a song, or making an audible prayer. To the Paidobaptist the dedicating infants to the Lord in baptism is a most rational and commendable act; and to every one what has been most familiar and most common among those he calls wise and good, is, to him, most rational and scriptural. Of great importance, then, it is to be educated in the true and proper meaning of the Holy Scriptures.

      But we shall, as soon as possible, under all our circumstances, attempt not only to examine the "Extra Examined," but the principles assumed by its author, and to fortify by additional bulwarks the citadel of truth. We hope to exhibit all candor in our Review, and to convince even our friend Broaddus that he has misconceived some very essential matters. Wherever he has found a weak place we will acknowledge it; show that he has not met the real question in the Extra; that he has failed in expounding the passages of Scripture on which we relied, (some of them are not noticed at all in their place) and, what may astonish him not a little, we expect to demonstrate that he has conceded principles which subvert his own reasonings and establish the views which he opposes. But when we have read the whole piece we will, perhaps, change in some respects our opinion of it.

EDITOR.

      IT has been stated to us that two Unitarian Universalist preachers from New York, now in Virginia, lately in Richmond, are represented, or represent themselves, as being one with us in faith; if so, they are not Unitarian Universalists, for we fraternize with none who preach that he that believeth not shall be saved; that the unrighteous shall inherit the kingdom of God; and that the cowards, the unbelieving, the abominable, murderers, whoremongers, sorcerers, idolators, and all liars and deceivers, shall have their part in the New Jerusalem in the presence of God and the Lamb forever: nor with any called Unitarians; who give to Jesus no higher honors than to Moses; who represent him as not entitled to any honor but the honors of an official name; in fine, who do not acknowledge him to be truly God's own Son, and as well entitled to divine honors as the Father who sent him. If the Father be Divine, we must regard the Son as Divine also. But we fraternize with all who speak of life and death, of heaven and hell, of the Father and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as the Apostles spoke, and who act conformably to the revealed will of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

EDITOR. [426]

From the Cincinnati Gazette.

      WE publish today a communication on the subject of Hydrophobia, that deserves some attention. Since this communication was on file, another article on the same subject, from the New Hampshire Gazette, met my eye. It is also subjoined.

      This most distressing and horrific malady, which, from the days of Aristotle, (who first wrote of it,) to the present time, has resisted all the powers of medicine, and bid defiance to Esculapian skill, has at length been conquered. Notwithstanding this disease is of such unequalled stubbornness of character, that it has never been known to yield in the least degree to medical treatment, until the constitution and all the powers of animal life have been prostrated and extinguished, its potent and deadly course has been stayed by the superior power of the Thompsonian system of medicine. Under the treatment of this system, in the incipient stages of the disease, and before the symptoms were fully developed, persons who were bitten by rabid animals have been cured in different parts of the United States; but the recent case of Mr. Clark, in this city, has afforded the first opportunity for testing the power of the system in a confirmed state of the disease. In this case the symptoms were so fully developed as to carry conviction to all who saw him before he was put under medical treatment, that it was a clear and confirmed case of hydrophobia. This was acknowledged by a number of medical gentlemen, among whom were two professors in the Medical College of Ohio.

      These facts strongly recommend a fair trial of the system to all who are unacquainted with its extraordinary and salutary powers. In short, its congeniality with animal nature is such, that although its power is unequalled by any thing known in the school of medicine, in resolving obstructions, dilating contracted vessels, allaying all morbid excitements and nervous irritations, restoring the lost energies, and equalizing the action of the whole system, that it may be applied, with care and perseverance, as far as is necessary to produce a revolution of the most stubborn fever, in its incipient stage, and the same course upon the same patient, be ten times repeated to the same degree, without any danger of undermining the constitution, or prostrating the vital powers.

      This proposition has been fairly tested in the case of Mr. Clark, and it is ardently hoped and believed that community will derive much benefit from the knowledge which this important cure is calculated to impart.

      There are, however, not a few among us at present who duly appreciate the merits of the new system in all its bearings, who have seen friends and relatives apparently snatched from an untimely grave by its salutary effects, after other medicines had been given in vain, or worse than in vain; others, after suffering and groaning for years under affliction, and all the pangs of disease and bereavement, have been relieved and restored to health and vigor, and now mountains of gold could not induce them to abandon and renounce the system, and revert to those remedies that undermine the constitution, enervate the system, and entail upon those who are pronounced cured a perpetual disease, which renders life a burthen.

      Men of medical science, perhaps, will not agree with the above statements, nor admit the solitary case of Mr. Clark as satisfactory demonstration; but since it is universally acknowledged that there is no known remedy for hydrophobia in the old Materia Medica, nor a solitary and indisputable cure reported, physicians of every order would do well to recommend the Thompsonian system in this disease, provided it could be under the management of some judicious and experienced practitioner in that order.

      Experience in the system is all-important, inasmuch as the symptoms frequently produced by its singular operations in stubborn disease which would be encouraging to the experienced Thompsonian would produce alarm in any not acquainted with its manner of operating in such cases, and probably induce him to resort to some other mode of treatment, which might be [427] dangerous and even prove fatal to the patient. The reputation of the system, like every thing else that is good, has suffered much from ignoramuses, quacks, and unprincipled men; while its doctrines, averse to those taught in the halls of medical science, have been at once rejected by scholastic theorists without, trial or investigation; though men of all ranks and conditions in life, learned and unlearned, who have acquainted themselves with its intrinsic value, have pronounced a verdict in its favor.

      If there is any who conceives it to be absurd and dangerous, and will, by fair deduction from established premises, show wherein the absurdity and danger lie, I promise, for one, to be convinced, and to acknowledge it publicly, or to show the reason why I am not convinced.

WM. RIPLEY.

      The following article was written at our request--as we conceive it to be the duty of every one who has in his possession a valuable secret, to let the world have the benefit of it in some way or other.

North Hampton, July 14, 1831.

      Agreeable to your request, I have looked for the minutes I took several years ago of information given me by Dr. Benajah Sanborn, an aged and respectable physician, of Sandbornton, in this state, respecting his treatment of Hydrophobia, and his success.

      The principal remedy was a strong decoction of lobelia, given in frequent doses till it operated as an emetic, and continued, but less frequently, afterward.

      When first called to the patient, he administered immediately, while the lobelia was preparing, a powder composed (for an adult) of 1 gram of camphor, 1 of opium, 2 of digitalis, finely pulverized and given in molasses. Half that quantity he would give to the smallest child.

      In a case in which the disease was considerably advanced, he gave the powder once in 30 minutes three times, and afterwards once in four hours.

      If I recollect rightly, Dr. Sanborn made the experiment with lobelia first on swine. The swine of four families, in the borders of Sanbornton and Meredith, were bitten by a mad dog. The lobelia was given soon to the swine of three of the families, and not of the other. The animals to which it was given all lived, and the others all died of hydrophobia.

      Dr. Sanborn was called to visit a son of 'Squire Mooney, of Canterbury, about nine years old, who had been bitten by a mad dog. It was the eleventh day of his disease. He had become very wild, and could not drink. It was necessary to confine him, and, if I remember correctly, to pry open his mouth in order to give the medicine. What was first forced into his mouth was thrown out at his mouth and nose. Continual efforts were made with success. In about three hours he was able to sit at the table, and take tea with the family comfortably.

      Dr. Sanborn was called to visit Mr. Noah Newell, of Reading, Mass. who was cured of hydrophobia by the same method of treatment.

      It is perhaps generally known that lobelia is the plant which causes horses to slaver so freely in the summer and autumn. It is very common in our pastures and often found by the sides of our roads.--Yours respectfully,

JONA. FRENCH.

From the Christian Index.

      Sir--I have been a member of a Baptist church nearly 20 years, and until within the last two years I knew nothing whatever of "Temperance Societies," as they are by themselves designated. In the land of my nativity there is, in seaport and manufacturing towns, much "intemperance," or drunkenness, practised among a certain description of people, although ardent spirits is not usually drank; but I do not think that systematic drunkenness is near so extensive, or so morally injurious to the people, as it is stated to be in this country. In my own happy country, there are various societies instituted for the encouragement of piety and virtue, and for the suppression of vice and immorality. But I never knew or heard of a society, since civil and religious liberty have been properly understood, assuming to itself the prerogative of sitting in judgment on the consciences of their christian brethren, and of making that a test of christianity or of christian character, which is not authorized by the Word of God. Your self-styled "Temperance Societies" go much further in this respect than the scriptures authorize them to do, and, as it appears to me, take a savage pleasure in ridiculing and defaming the characters and motives of those who cannot see either reason or propriety in conforming to their rules. Now, sir, much more cogent reasons and authoritative arguments than have as yet been given must be adduced, to satisfy my mind that a temperate use of what is provided by an indulgent Providence is sinful, or that to use it with discretion can be injurious to the morals or the condition of my fellow-men. The grace of God, as well as the gifts of His Providence, are subjected to abuse. But because wicked and unregenerate men abuse them to their own destruction, is no reason for my partaking of neither of them or for my rejection of either of them. And before I can admit the competency of "Temperance Societies" to become judges in this case, they mast bring unequivocal, unwrested, and direct testimony from the word of God, as their authority. Thanks to our heavenly Father, the day of human authority in matters of faith and conscience, is gone by. You are aware, Mr. Editor, that the roar of artillery, or the thunders of excommunicating laws, when they derive not their authority direct from the word of God, have no effect upon intelligent Baptists who are settled in their convictions of the truth of their sentiments. And they will not, that the word of God he superseded by human laws, and be made of none effect. Had it not been for the supercilious tone of "Temperate Societies," and had it not appeared to me that their proceedings are supererogatory, and that they are not seeking an extension of their principles in the exercise of christian love and charity towards those who, from not being able to perceive the necessity or consistency of their conduct, cannot conscientiously unite with them, you would not have been troubled with this letter--my object in writing it is not to palliate intemperance in any shape whatever. Intemperance is forbidden by the Word of God; and that, in my mind, settles the question. But [429] it does not follow from hence, that a moderate and circumspect use of the gifts of Divine Providence, in any way, must be denominated sinful, or injurious to mankind. And for any man, or set of men, by whatever name distinguished, to designate others who are as anxious as themselves to promote the same ends, "lovers of their cups"--as being "more injurious to society than practised and confirmed drunkards"--"murderers" of their fellow-men--and "Satan's agents" to send the souls of men to perdition, is unwarrantable by scripture, uncharitable and unjust to their fellow-servants in the Lord's vineyard, and totally untrue. Yet I have heard of all these ill names, and many more given to them, because they would say to these societies as they would say to any other self-constituted authority, when required to do what the word of God does not inculcate, "Who hath required this at your hands!" You know, sir, there is a marked and most important distinction to be made between the intemperate, the temperate use, and total abstinence from any of the gifts of Providence; and there are numerous things in the temperate use of which are real blessings, but in the intemperate use of them they become destructive evils. Are we to reject every thing of this nature?

      I trust, sir, to your candor and impartiality, for the insertion of this in your valuable Journal;--and believe me to remain yours, truly and faithfully in Christ,

A CONSTANT READER.

Wilkesbarre, Aug. 8, 1831.

      THE writer of the following letter belongs to the Cumberland Presbyterians, a respectable sect in the lower country, standing on the round between Calvinism and Methodism.

Ed. M. H.

      "We copy the following curious account of a "revival" from the Religious and Literary Intelligence:, published at Princeton, Kentucky.

Extract of a letter from the Rev. Finnis Ewing, dated Ewingsville, Missouri, June 24, 1831

      Our summer's campaign against the works of darkness, and the "strong man armed," opened about two weeks since near this place, in a four days battle. The issue seemed quite doubtful for more than three days and nights! The officers, especially hose in highest command, seemed to lack neither skill nor courage. Their sword appeared to be dexterously wielded; but most of the soldiers, for a time, seemed as if they had lost their armor. But the idea of essaying to fight the whole time without obtaining one victory, began to feel intolerable to both officers and soldiers. The result was, they all, or a great part of them, looked beyond each other to the "Great captain," for his interposition, and simultaneously cried to him for the sake of his own honor, not to suffer the enemy to triumph. In this spirit they repaired to the battle ground. They set in front a young, though nervous, bold, courageous, and even daring officer. It was now a time of intense and indescribable terror. The last struggle was about to commence. More than a hundred hearts were saying, "O thou Great Captain! give signals to this young officer or come and fight thyself!" The young officer, however, unsheathed his sword, and seemed to be prepared to make a mighty onset, but, seeming more tenacious of the honor of his General than his own, he, too, just after he had drawn his sword, cried to the Captain General to come and fight and he should have the honor. Many soldiers and officers responded, and said, Come! The Great [430] Captain did come; the troops of the enemy began to tremble; their strong holds were stormed and taken; the "strong man armed" dispossessed--a good number of lawful captives taken--many more deeply, we hope, mortally wounded; and the officers and soldiers of the PRINCE much encouraged to enter the "tented field" again with fresh courage and renewed hopes of victory. But, brother, it is worthy of special notice, that the young officer was not engaged, perhaps, five minutes, before it was obvious to him--to all, that Prince Immanuel was doing his own work, consequently the young officer desisted. We are looking for still greater victories. May the Cod of armies harness us all--yes, every one, for the field, and keep our eye on the great Captain General."

      J M'Vay, Claysville, Pa. paid vols. 2 and 3 for A Biddle, and vol. 2 for C Biddle and himself. J W Fort, Denmark, Ten. vol. 1 for E Cross. B hill, and 1 dollar for W Evans. W S Croxton, Tappahannock, Va. vols. 1 and 2 for R L Covington, G Taylor, and vol. 1 for R Dunn. J N Smith, Athens, Ala. vol. 2 for J Johnston and himself. L L Vail Goshen. New York, vol. 2. A B Carns, Pikeville, Ten. vol. 2 for W D Carns. R R Price, Bolivar, Ala. vols. 1 and 2 for C D Roach, and 1 dollar on vol 1 for R Price. W Hopper, Hopper's Tan Yard, Ky. vols. 1 and 2 for T M Ewing, N Fox, A Shelton, B H Logan, W M Terry, W D Cope, D H Harrison, P Anderson, R Starks, J Solomon, R Mansfield, J Vance, H P Boyd, and vol. 1 for J Holland, M W Gillum, J Settle, J Cress, W Dodd, and vol. 2 for T J Hawks, D Edwins, and J Vaughn. J G Arnold, Covington, Ky. vols. 1 and 2. T W Jones, Lexington, Ky. vols. 1 and 2. A Adams, Haydensville, Ky. vols. 1 and 2 for T W Taylor, vol. 1 for M Bourne, J Bernard, and vol. 2 for T Cross. E M'Gehee, Sandy River Church, Va. vols. 1 and 2 for W Walton. D Reed, Patterson, New Jersey, vols. 1 and 2 for J Kipp, J Duncan, A Adams, J Force, J Burden, and himself. L Zimmerman, Mount Pleasant, Pa. vol. 2. U M Roberts, King Creek, S. C. vol. 1 for J G Brown. J Groute, New Market, Upper Canada, vols. 1, 2, and 3. N Burrus, Elkton, Ky. vols. 1 and 2 for G Waddell and G Key, vol. 1 for D R Merritt, J A Bailey, J Hill, and G Fristoe, and vol. 2 for J S Anderson, T Philips, G W Gordon, J W Sumsden, W Greenfield, and R Hatcher. B Major, Hopkinsville, Ky. vols. 1 and 2. J Westbrook, Rocky Mount, S. C. vols. 1 and 2 for J Westbrook and E Mayhew. D Hughes, Springfield, Ohio, vol. 2 for J Kelso, and vol 1, and $1 on vol. 2 for himself. W Thompson, Doneraile, Ky. vol. 2 for M Stone and J Neale. W Helm, Springfield, Ky. vols. 1 and 2 for J C Riley, W Glasscock, and J Bentley. L L Hamblin, Zanesville, Ohio, vol. 2. C Artzt, Pittsburg, Pa. vol. 1. E Mustain, Augusta, Ga. vol. 2 for R Philips, C Dickinson, and himself. M P Wheat, Columbia, Ky. vols. 1 and 2 for J Smith, and vol. 2 for W Dudley, T M Massy, Sen. J D Steel, and A Allen. H Green, Deatonville Va, vol. 1 for E Green and vol. 2 for himself. E Allen, Bedford, Ohio, vol. 2 for J Hubbet and himself, W Churchill, Randolph, Ohio, vol. 1 for F Upson, I Hargel, and vol. 2 for W Richards and J Miller. G Atkinson, Holliday's Cove, Va. vol. 2. L Spivey, Manchester, Va. vol. 2. H Carpenter, Thornsburg, Va. vols. 1 and 2 for C M'Calley, and vol. 2 for 3 M Anderson. J W Jeffrey's, Jeffreys' Store, Va. vol. 2 for J M Jeter, H H Love, and 1 dollar for W Rowlett. M Ellis, Plum Orchard, Ind. vol. 2 for D Campbell, F Ellingwood, H Richardson, S Ellis, and himself. P L Thwnes, Office Tavern, Va. vol. 2 for A B Walthall, W Blanton, J B Hurt, B Bridgeforth, J C Foster, J Wood, T C Wilson, H Anderson, F Lawson, and T K Horner, P Haydenburg, Jacksonville, Ill. vol. 2 for A Brothers, Eads & Henry, A Davidson, E Davidson, and himself. R F Reeve, Minerva, Ky. vols. 1 and 2 for B Harl. W T Mills, Somerville, Ten. vol. 1 for E B M'Coy, G Bowers, and M Lynch. W B Sims, Cuckooville, Va. vols. 1 and 2 for S W Allen, vol. 1 for W P Meriwether J M Vest, and vol. 2 for N Walton. J Gaskill, New Lisbon, Ohio, $1 on vol. 2 for J Cownover. W D Carus, Pikeville, Ten. vol. 2 for P Sigler. [431]

      OF the seven christian churches of the Apocalypse, founded in Asia by the Apostles, hardly a vestige remains. Smyrna, Ephesus, Pergamos, Sardis, Thyatira, Laodicea, and Philadelphia, [see Rev. ii. and iii.] with all their power and magnificence, have fallen into utter decay; except that the first mentioned city remains a port of commercial consequence. But Ephesus is a mere heap of ruins. Pergamos has a population of 1500 Greeks, among 13,000 Turks. Sardis, once the splendid capital of Lydia, is a few mud huts. Thyatira, (now Ak-hissar) has only one miserable Greek church. Laodicea (now Eski-hissar) is a Turkish village, masses and scattered fragments of ancient architecture and sculpture. And Philadelphia (now Alah-Sher) has been shaken into dust by wars and earthquakes.

Reg. Herald.

      TO what was the law added? Gal. iii. 18.

      Answer--It was added to the promise or covenant concerning the Christ. The promise concerning the salvation of the Gentiles, or of blessing all men in the seed of Abraham--blessing them with remission of sins on earth, and an inheritance in heaven, of which Canaan was a type, constitute the covenant confirmed by God in relation to Christ; to which covenant, or promise, the law was added 430 years after; and which promise the law could not disannul because the inheritance was not through law, but through a promise anterior to, and independent of the law: for "God gave it to Abraham and his seed by promise."

EDITOR.

      AN Essay on "the middle ground" people of Kentucky is omitted because too personal, and too much in the spirit of the Opposition. "Josephus" also is postponed, because we have in the Christian Baptist done enough of that sort of work. "Flint," from Virginia, has too much fire in it; and "Martin Luther," from Pennsylvania, is too much in the temper of the old Reformer. These correspondents are persons of good talents and information, but their late productions are at least seven years after date. The time was that such philippics were necessary, but now all that can he achieved by those means is gained. It is in the present reformation as in the different dispensations: Moses pronounced curses--Elijah called for fire from heaven--John the Baptist threatened an immersion in fire--Jesus once said, Sell your coat and buy a sword; but now, Proclaim good news to the whole creation. Our brethren will please continue their correspondence; but let it be in accordance with the progress of the reformation. Select edifying topics, and speak not so much of men and measure. Let us, brethren, reform as the reformation progresses; and if there be any flagellating or scalping to do, let it be reserved for capital offences.

EDITOR.

      AN ESSAY ON PRAYER, long since solicited, shall appear soon. [432]

[The Millennial Harbinger, 2 (September, 1831): 385-432.]