[Table of Contents]
Alexander Campbell, ed.|
The Millennial Harbinger, Vol. II, No. XI (1831)
|THE MILLENNIAL HARBINGER.|
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.
MR. ANDREW BROADDUS somewhere in his pamphlet asked the question, "How are the baptized to obtain remission of any sins which may be committed after baptism--must they be rebaptized as some have been?" This question we answered not in our Defence of the Extra, because we knew that both the writer and the reader understood full well its impertinence to the question at issue; and because in proposing such a question our friend Broaddus could expect no other information than what he already possessed on this matter, he knew that christians have an Advocate with the Father, and if they sin and confess it, and sue for pardon through their Advocate, it is promised. But the making a question of this sort, if it were not to throw dust in the eyes of his reader, indicates a gross misapprehension of our views of Peter's command to the Pentecostian converts.
Baptism is no where proposed as an expiatory rite. He that regards it as such--he who goes to the water as a Jew to the altar, and is baptized merely to obtain the remission of his sins, mistakes the whole matter.
I have never heard of any person being baptized for the remission of sins committed since his first baptism, as the case is made out by our querist; but I have heard of some who were once baptized into Christ, and who in faith were buried and raised with the Lord, and had understandingly assumed him as their Saviour; not, however, having special regard to remission of sins in their baptism; I say, I have heard of some such being rebaptized--not for the purpose of being immersed into Christ, into his death, or of assuming him as their Saviour, but solely for the remission of their sins, that they might have the testimony of God assuring them of pardon. Of such cases we have heard. But how many honest and well disposed persons have been mistaken in their reasonings, and how many have acted in all great matters more from the impulse of the moment, than from calm and sober reflection!
Their argument appears a very specious one when regarded only in one point of view. One says, 'Was I ever baptized for the remission of my sins! No, I reflected not on the matter; I had no special  attention to the promise of remission. Indeed, I thought I had the remission of my sins through faith before I was baptized; and, therefore, expected it not at that time. I wished to obey the Lord, and obtained the answer of a good conscience that the Lord then approved me; but so soon as I saw that remission of sins was promised to be conferred through immersion, I concluded (to make the matter sure) to be immersed a second time, solely to obtain an assurance that I was forgiven. I found this assurance, and since I have been more happy than before.' Such experiences I have heard. Others, however, have told me that they had no more happiness nor assurance after the second, than they had after the first immersion, for then they had all peace and joy in the Lord.
This is the case fairly made out, as far as I am informed upon the subject. It appears, indeed, that this was making baptism a mere expiatory rite, and regarding it as designed alone for ablution. It made void the former baptism, not because the subject did not believe and confess that Jesus was the Messiah the Son of God--not because the subject was not intelligently immersed into Christ, and did not constitutionally put him on, being, according to the commandment, immersed on said profession, into the name of the Father, Son,, and Holy Spirit, and thenceforth admitted into the family of God; but because the subject or the administrator did not fully understand the whole purport of the institution.
As for the peace and assurance which some have obtained by a second baptism, it is easily explained. Let any person think, or imagine, that any act is ordained for any religious purpose, and when he has performed that act he will find peace. Some persons have been rebaptized in order to obtain the gift of the Holy Spirit, and have felt assured that they did obtain that gift, consequent upon their third baptism; but this was to be expected from the same law of our nature for all who think must perceive that good or evil tidings, whether true or false, if only regarded as true, will operate upon the heart according to their nature; so of the objects of hope, joy, or any of the affections. It is only, however, when the hope, joy, or peace arises from the testimony of God, apprehended and embraced, that it can be permanent, or ought to be regarded as genuine. All true joy, peace, and hope must be resolved into truth. There is false joy, peace, and hope when the causes are imaginative or false.
I trust we need not attempt to show that Jesus Christ has not ordained any institution solely for the remission of sins--any rite or observance for expiation. Remission of sins is, indeed, connected with baptism; but so is adoption, sanctification, and all the blessings of the new institution. The salvation of the soul, which comprehends every thing which can be enjoyed in this present world, is attached to it. He that believes and is baptized shall be saved. To be baptized for the remission of sins exclusively, is not what is meant by putting on Christ, or by being immersed into Christ. No person, intelligent in the christian religion, can be baptized for the remission of his sins apart from all other blessings. For one, then, that has been born again,  born of water and of the Spirit, one who has been baptized into Christ, confessing his faith in the person, character, and mission of Jesus, to be baptized a second time for the remission of sins by itself, or for the Holy Spirit by itself, or for any one blessing, is without command, precedent, or reason from the New Testament.
Besides, no person can be born twice to come into the same kingdom. The first birth introduces us into the kingdom of nature; regeneration, or being born of water and the Spirit, brings us into the kingdom of grace; and being born from the grave will introduce us into the kingdom of glory. No man can be born twice into one and the same kingdom.
How a person who has been born again and entered the kingdom of grace, can die in that kingdom, and be buried in that kingdom, and be born a second time into it, is not for me to explain. There is but one baptism, and but once baptism under the Christian King. Indeed, I know not how any proclaimer of the gospel, how any intelligent disciple, can presume to bury a living disciple; [it is against the law!] how he can immerse a believer a second time into Christ, into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. He must have received a new commission. The old apostolic commission authorizes it not. I know some will say that the candidates which they immersed a second time did not rightly understand baptism the first time. Well, I am persuaded they did not understand it the second time; and shall they be baptized a third time! But did all the believers whom the Apostles baptized understand their baptism in all it designs, meaning, and bearings. We presume not, else the Apostles need not have written to them to explain it: "Know you not," said Paul to the Romans, "that so many of us as were immersed into Jesus Christ were immersed into his death." But did Paul command any one to be baptized a second time, because he did not fully understand the whole import of his baptism? Did Peter command Simon to repent and be baptized again for the remission of his sins? If any person ought to have been rebaptized, it was this Simon the sorcerer. But no such idea is suggested any where in the New Testament.
But were not many of John's disciples baptized again? Not one of them was baptized twice into John's baptism; but some of them were once baptized into Jesus Christ. John baptized not into the name of the Lord Jesus, but into reformation, saying that "his disciples should believe in him that was to come after him." There is neither precedent nor analogy to support this practice.
In political regeneration how is it? A German desirous of holding an estate in fee simple, is naturalized. He understood that no foreigner can hold an estate in fee simple, being an alien. He was born again, or naturalized. This was all he desired and expected. But an election draws nigh: he hears the citizens talk of voting. He never thought of this at the time of his naturalization. He wishes to vote as a citizen. Must he be naturalized again? He need not. He cannot.
A Frenchman migrates to the United States. He is a republican in principle. He desires to become a citizen purely because he  approves proves and loves the government, or the political institutions. He thinks about nothing but the adoption of the constitution, and the renunciation of monarchy forever. After some years he wishes to he a legislator, to be a candidate for congress. Of this he had neither knowledge, expectation, nor will at the time of his regeneration. Must he be regenerated again? No, the right to vote and to be voted for, the right to hold the soil, the right to be a magistrate, legislator, or judge, was all secured in the act of naturalization. These are, at least analogies, as far as suits this subject, and may illustrate the idea that every birth secures to a person all the immunities, rights, and privileges of the kingdom into which he is born, whether he distinctly understand them or not at the time of his introduction.
In all covenants all the items of the covenant are secured to the person on the confirmation of the covenant. It is so in the marriage covenant, the national covenant, and the new covenant of our Lord Jesus Christ. And here we cannot but use another interjection. How can any person who constitutionally ever received the cup of the Lord with these words, "This is the new covenant, or institution, in my blood, shed for you," persuade himself to go out of the covenant to disbelieve these words, to disfranchise himself, to make himself an alien, in order to be introduced a second time, to secure some one blessing in that covenant which he did not regard at the confirmation of it!
Such a one resembles an over-squeamish husbandman who covenanted for a farm, and obtained a deed according to law, securing to him all the premises, with all the appurtenances thereunto belonging. After living some years upon it, he discovered a gold mine. He then reasons with himself, saying, 'When I covenanted for this farm I had respect only to the soil and the improvements upon it, together with its situation, &c. but never thought of buying a gold mine. I will go and purchase the farm over again; or rather, I will have the covenant renewed with this specification, that I shall have a right to work said mine for the interest and behoof of my family.'
While on the road to find the other party in the covenant he meets with a friend to whom he relates the whole matter. His friend, better acquainted than he with the nature of covenants, asks him to show him the deed. He does so. 'Why neighbor,' says he, 'you have not read or attended to all the clauses in this instrument! Do you not observe that "all the appurtenances thereunto belonging" are secured to you with the soil itself?' 'I never perceived it,' replied the honest swain; 'but now I see it, and regret that I did not sooner discover the gold mine; and when I did discover it, that I did not understand that I had a right to enjoy it. It would have saved me much labor for the years that are past, and would have relieved my mind from many anxieties.'
To as many as received Jesus he gave the privilege of becoming the children of God. In constituting them children he bestowed upon them all the privileges of children of God, made them heirs of God, joint heirs with Christ. Few understand all that is comprehended in  this; but every new discovery does not render all the past void, nor make it necessary to be born again. And he that insists upon a person being rebaptized in order to fellowship, makes his own inferences a bond of union, and adds to the commandments written in the book.
But my friend Broaddus knows full well that we teach no such doctrine; but if a christian errs from the good ways of the Lord we exhort him to repent and pray--not to repent and be baptized again; but to confess and forsake his error, and through the Divine Advocate he will find mercy and forgiveness.
He must also perceive from our defence of the Extra, if he have not before, that we do not insulate the remission of sins as the only blessing connected with baptism, nor as the only thing necessary to salvation; but, with his own confession of faith, as well as the Westminster, we regard baptism as securing to the believing subject all the blessings of the new covenant, and especially the remission of sins, on which we emphasize when we address penitents, or those who make baptism a mere ceremony.
REASON EXAMINED BY INTERROGATORIES--No. I.
REASON, what art thou? What dost thou know of thyself? Art thou a faculty--an organ--or the name of a mere action of a thinking being? Art thou a substantive--a verb--concrete or abstract? Say, art thou the mind's eye--ear--hand--or the mind itself? Canst thou originate any thing, or dost thou compare, weigh, measure, and decide things created, originated, and furnished to your hand? I know not what to call thee, nor what to ascribe to thee. Thy worshippers are so numerous, I fear their proscription and anathema; and yet so divided, I know not to what sect I ought to pay my homage. Some make thee every thing, and some make thee nothing. Some say thou art a creator, some say thou art but a creature, and some make thee neither creator nor creature, but an ideal thing, which has neither substance, attribute, nor accident; without nature, name, or habitation; a phantom, an ignis fatuus, like conscience, (thy twin sister,) another name for education!
In this musing soliloquy style I talked with myself, as simpletons are wont to do, and Reason made me no answer. Indignant at her silence I determined to put her to trial by torture, and shall now disclose what I compelled her to acknowledge. I asked her, could she prove any thing, even her own existence? Could she prove there is a God, or there is not? Could she prove that he had spoken to man, or that he had not; and if he have, that the Bible contained his communications, or that it did not?
After much compulsion and many denunciations, she very laconically and quaintly asked me, 'Can your eye prove that it exists, unaided by any thing apart from itself? Can it prove that it sees by arguments drawn from itself? Can it see itself, or can it see any thing by itself alone? Is seeing in the light, or in the eye? Is seeing, or the eye, the man, or a part of the man? Tell me,' said she 'are you  conscious of any thing; and can consciousness prove itself to itself, or to any thing else? Torture me not, unless you will submit to torture also. But if you will patiently wait upon my responses, I will give you a history of myself.
'I am neither seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, nor feeling. I am neither perception, reflection, memory, imagination, nor judgment, I am neither love nor anger; faith nor hope; joy nor sorrow; passion nor affection; appetite nor propensity: but I am Reason! I compare and decide, and yet am neither comparison nor decision: judge and elect, yet am neither judgment nor election: I was, jure divino, monarch of the senses, faculties, taste, passions, and affections, though under certain limitations and restrictions. I was once the absolute faculty of faculties; but now I am but a faculty in company with others, restricted, limited, and sometimes controlled by these which ought always to have been my servants--never my masters. My mandates are seldom obeyed at all, often resisted, and never yielded to but with opposition, murmurings, protests, and appeals.
'I have almost said that I am a faculty; but this is because of the barrenness, or rather teeming luxuriance of language. We have the faculty of speech, of hearing, of memory--of every thing intellectual and physical. We seldom abuse language so far as to say we have the faculty of loving or hating, though we approximate near those high latitudes when the wind and sea run high. But I stand in the inward man, in relation to all other faculties, pretty much as the eye to all the senses in the outward man; and, compared to the organs of the body, I am the hand of the soul. Make me the eye and the hand, or unite in your conceptions of me the attributes of the eye, and the hand, and you begin to conceive of me aright. As the eye discovers the relations of things, their magnitude, attitude, distance, proportion, color, &c, and as the hand arranges and disposes of the things within its reach; so I perceive the agreement or disagreement of ideas with things, and their mutual relations; and I arrange and dispose them in such order as to suit my designs with respect to myself and every other faculty, passion, appetite, or propensity in man.
'But call me a faculty until a better name can be found, and regard me only as a faculty whose exercises are bounded and circumscribed like the eye or the ear--like the memory or the imagination. But as the eye cannot see without light, or exercise itself without objects; as the hand cannot dispose, arrange, or accommodate things, unless they are within its reach; so I can do nothing without ideas. These I can examine, compare, and arrange; but I must first possess them. I am, therefore, younger than perception, younger than memory, younger than sensation; indeed, I am the youngest of the whole brotherhood of faculties which belong to man. The infant sees, hears, smells, tastes, feels, and perceives through these senses, reflects, remembers, before I am born, or before it reasons. As the Lord made not man until he had prepared a world for him, so I am not called into existence until there is in the magazine of the human soul something for me to work upon. 
'The principles of reason, unless the phrase means the laws which govern me, is a phrase without any meaning. There are no principles of memory, of seeing, of hearing, nor of reason. Men have made me an Argus, a Proteus, a Centaur--any thing and every thing; but I am only a mere faculty, a power which belongs to man. I can prove nothing; but I can decide upon the pretensions of every thing claiming to be true or real. But this I can do only by the assistance of my fraternity, the faculties of the human understanding, and by my cousins the Five Senses. Take away or impair the outward senses, or the objects on which they act, and I am like Sampson shorn and his eyes extinguished.
'I am a friend to Faith, and always lend her my hand in comparing, examining, and deciding upon testimony. But when Faith becomes intoxicated with the gas of enthusiasm, I permit her to take her own course, and make it a rule to aid her in nothing unless she ask my aid.
'I am also a friend to Revelation, and always vote for her at the polls. I only, however, decide upon her pretensions and upon the meaning of her words. She permits my interference, she solicits my aid no farther; and, indeed, this is all I am able to do for her.
'I have many very ignorant, but enthusiastic adorers. They make me ashamed by the fanaticism of their adulation, and put me to the blush by the extravagances of their eulogies. I have been much injured by the hypocrisy of many of my devotees; but more discredited by the hyperboles of my most sincere, but mistaken admirers. Some of them confound me with Experience and Observation. One says he can, by my aid, prove that an acorn will, under certain circumstances, become a tree, and that this tree will produce an acorn Another says that by my aid he will prove that heat is necessary to animal and vegetable life; and that without moisture neither animal nor vegetable can exist. Thus he confounds me with his eyes and his memory, or with his own observation. He might as well say he will prove that he sees by his ear, or that he will prove that he hears by his eye.
'Many deify me, and give me the power of creating the ideas which I compare and arrange; and others, detecting these absurdities, say I am good for nothing, an ignis fatuus, a nonentity; and yet I am as sinful as Satan. They call me carnal, and will not allow me to interpret a word in the Bible, or to examine an idea which they call spiritual.
'Thus, betwixt my friends and my enemies, I lead a miserable life. At one time I am God--at another, Satan. Now I am able to prove every thing--then able to prove nothing. Again, I am above every thing human or animal, and anon every thing is above me. I claim neither legislative nor executive power in any government. I belong to the judiciary. Give me a seat among the judges, and make me independent of the caprices of men, and I will give a faithful verdict according to the law and the testimony in the case. Such are my pretensions; and farther than this deponent saith not upon the first interrogatory. But on the other specifications I beg leave to be heard again! 
ON THE LAWS OF INTERPRETATION.
A MORE essential service, in our judgment, no man can render the present generation, than to call the attention of the readers of the Sacred Scriptures to the standard rules of interpretation. We are daily more deeply convinced that the confusion, ignorance, enthusiasm, and superstition of this generation are attributable more to false principles, or, perhaps, to the lack of all principles of interpretation, than to all other causes combined. It is the teachers that cause the people to err more in this respect than in any other. One says the Bible means what it says; another says it means not what it says. One denounces the literal, another the spiritual meaning of the book. One is all for the spirit, another all for the letter; and some are always in quest of the recondite and hidden meaning. Thus the people know not by what star to steer their course, and are in worse circumstances than if they acknowledged no other guide, overseer, or ruler, than plain, honest common sense.
Commentators are as much to blame for this confusion as the sermonizers. All, with a very few exceptions, have a system of religion already perfected before they undertake the interpretation of the book, and that decides more than all the rules of interpretation the true meaning of the words of the book.
Demosthenes, Cicero, Tacitus, Homer, Horace, Virgil, can be translated, commented on, and with the exception of some allusions to ancient places, persons, and customs, universally understood by all readers, and with the most exact concurrence in almost every sentence. How comes this to pass? Were they more familiar, plain, and intelligible writers than the Evangelists and Apostles of Jesus Christ? Are the flights of Homer, the fancies of Hesiod, the odes or satires of Horace, the Æneid or Georgics of Virgil, the orations of Demosthenes or Cicero, less figurative, more perspicuous than the pleadings and preachings of Jesus, of Paul, of Peter, or of John? All christendom will respond, No. Have not these writings of the Greeks and Romans passed through as many hands, come down through as many generations as the writings of the One Volume? Most of them are of higher antiquity than the New Testament, and most of them have been translated into many languages, and read by an equal proportion of educated readers in all generations, with the exception of the present and one or two centuries back. Why is it, then, that a concurrence so general, an agreement so universal obtains in regard to the meaning of these poets, philosophers, orators, and historians, and so great a discrepancy, so general a disagreement as to the meaning of these sacred writings? The secret is this: All writers, commentators, and critics upon the classic authors of Greece and Rome are governed by the same rules of interpretation, and expect to find the sense by the aid of dictionaries, grammars, geographies, and histories pertaining to the countries, times, and languages in which these books were first written. And when translated, the reader of the  translation, except through the use of the dictionary and grammar, or if he understand not the system called grammar, the current usage of the words which has obtained in his mother tongue, expects not to understand them; and by these alone he hopes to come at the meaning. In this course, too, all who make a rational effort arrive at the full assurance of understanding.
Not so the readers of the sacred writings. Grammars, dictionaries, geographies, and contemporary historians are regarded as carnal weapons, and the meaning of the words as mere letter--of no account in arriving at the true meaning. A person will be ridiculed by a Quaker, mocked by a Swedenborgian, and denounced by some Calvinists for presuming to understand the "true doctrine" of the Bible by the aid of such means and rules as enable him to understand any other book. The very reason which he employs, and to which God speaks, is called natural or carnal reason; and the person who presumes by such means to understand these writings is a mere natural man, without the Spirit, and without religion. Some person must bear these reproaches, or the world will continue to grope on in the dark three hundred years behind itself in every thing else, and I know not why we should not bear a part of this reproach.
We do not, in saying this, make light of the Spirit of God. And, indeed, we discover that the more intelligent of all societies abandon their own system of spiritual aids when they come to defend the common or any other version of the Bible. They draw their first argument from the number, erudition, and talents of the translators. I have not met any person so visionary as to pretend to think that the Spirit of God ever aided a translator in finding the meaning of a word in the dictionary, in determining the proper application of a rule of grammar, or in revealing the import of any allusion to any geographical, historical, or political facts or things. None pretend that his translation was perfected by the assistance of the Holy Spirit. Now if the Holy Spirit aided not the translator, he surely aided not the commentator nor the sermonizer in finding out the meaning of what is written: for surely all will agree that the work of a translator is incomparably more important, more useful to mankind, than the work of either the commentator or the sermon-maker. All depends upon the translation, and nothing but the ordinary rules of interpretation which are applied to Xenophon, Demosthenes, or Plutarch, can open a single period of the New Testament to any nation or people. Here we stand upon a fact universally admitted; but, alas! how soon lost sight of in the polemic theology of the day; and what is still worse, in the practical reading and examination of God's book.
Any visionary, dreamer, or enthusiast may exclaim, "You heretic! I am sound in the faith. I have got the spiritual meaning." But, pray, from what copy--the original or the translation? From the translation. Then your guide is better acquainted with English than with Greek, and chose to reveal to you English words rather than Greek words! But here we shall not contend with the mystics nor the spiritualizers. We all agree in one great fact, and that proves all  I ask, and disproves every false system of interpretation; and that great fact is, That all translators, in transferring the Revelation from one language to another, depend upon, and are governed by, the dictionaries, grammars, histories, &c. of the language from which, and of the language into which the translation is made. And by these alone can the ideas be communicated.
I hail one of the signs of the times with more than ordinary welcome, because it is one that augurs much good to the coming generation. The most distinguished men for talents, erudition, and veneration for the Holy Oracles, in all denominations, are awaking to the importance of fixing and working by the established rules of interpretation. It is becoming a favorite saying with even some of the most learned Rabbis of this and other lands, that "true orthodoxy is the right interpretation of the words of the New Testament;" or, as expressed by others, "the doctrine of Christ is the meaning of the words of the Saviour and the Apostles." I feel myself authorized to marshal Michaelis of Gottingen, Horne of Cambridge, and Stuart of Andover, on this side of the question. But I only name these for their high standing and notoriety. I might add a hundred names of high renown: but the writings of these three will do more to direct the generation to come, than perhaps any other three men in Europe or America. Their reputation for orthodoxy, their literary eminence, their connexion with the most flourishing theological institutions, and the force, vivacity, and elegance of their various writings, omen well on this subject.
I am not to be understood as alleging that the rules of interpretation, or of translation, applied to authors of the same antiquity, did not regard words as having not only different meanings, but different sorts of meanings, such as the literal, figurative, typical, parabolic. All these varieties of meaning are found in the scriptures, and in many other works, ancient and modern. We plead for no special rules for the Bible. We take all the rules necessary for translating or expounding any ancient human composition.
Nor would I be understood as intimating that the doctrine of the New Testament, which is the proper meaning of its words, whether regarded as literal, allegorical, typical, or parabolical, does not exert a moral or spiritual influence upon the mind which understands and believes it. Nor that christians do not receive and enjoy the Holy Spirit promised in the New Institution; that the Heavenly Father will give his Holy Spirit to them that ask him. This is all true in its place: but this is a different subject, and here we should not have mentioned it but because of the fastidious jealousy of some, and the avowed hostility of others, to any thing and every thing we may say on this subject.
Before introducing these rules, it will be necessary to premise still farther on the various senses of words. To do this with the most effect, we shall examine and apply a favorite saying among the reformers--"The Bible means what it says" This ought to be true of every other book in the world. If any book says what it does not mean,  who shall find out what it does mean? Not by its words. By what then? by some interpreter? But what does he interpret? The words, we suppose. If the words are explained by the Dictionaries and Grammars of the language, they mean what they say; if not, then it is not human language at all. And so the maxim applies equally to all books: for a book that means not what it says, means nothing at all.
But some carry this maxim so far as to say, that there is but one meaning in every passage, and that is the literal. Now while we agree that there is but one meaning in every passage, we are not prepared to say that that meaning is always the literal. Take a few examples: Zechariah vii. 12, "Yea, they made their hearts an adamant stone, lest they should hear the law." Luke xiii. 32, "Go and tell that fox Herod."--John i. 29, "Behold the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world." None will say that the literal is the true meaning of these phrases. The hearts of the Jews were not adamant stone; Herod was not a fox, nor Jesus a lamb. Many such expressions occur in both Testaments. In these the figurative sense is the true meaning. Yet still it must be remarked that the literal import of adamant stone, fox, and Lamb, is virtually the import when used figuratively. It is transferred from a physical to a moral quality. A "heart of stone" denotes a hard heart; but hard is itself a metaphor, equivalent to obdurate, unfeeling: a "heart of flesh signifies a tender heart. A "heart of adamant stone" means a very hard heart. Herod was very cunning, and Jesus was the innocent and harmless person represented by the atoning lamb of the Jewish Institution.
In the scriptures there are parables, allegories, and types. Hence we have the parabolic, allegoric, and typical sense. This has been called the mystic, and sometimes the spiritual sense. Mystic comes from a Greek word, MUO, to shut up, or hide. In allegories and parables the sense is hidden; the mystic import is the sense concealed in the allegory, type or parable. Spiritual has frequently been used, of ancient times, to denote this sense. Babylon is spiritually called Sodom, and Egypt. But a species of sermonizers, of the school of Origen, or rather of Ammonius Saccas, found out that every word in the book had a spiritual sense, and this caused the term spiritual to be taken in malem partem, and to be discarded even where it might have been tolerable.
When carried so far as to make Joshua the son of Nun denote spiritually Jesus the son of man, and "seven women taking hold of one man" seven converts coming to Christ, it was full time to lay it aside!
John Cocceius, of Leyden, about two hundred years ago, perfected this system. His fundamental rule of interpretation was this: "The words and phrases of scripture, are to be understood in every sense of which they are susceptible;" or, "that they signify every thing which in effect they can signify." He is the parent of a numerous progeny of spiritualizers.
We object not to the allegoric, parabolic, and typical sense; or, to express it in one, word, the figurative sense. But we do not expect to  find any other than the literal sense except where figures are used. We shall conclude this introductory essay with a sentence or two from Horne's Introduction, vol. 2, p. 492, and from Mosheim:--
"Although in every language there are very many words which admit of several meanings, yet in common parlance there is only one true sense attached to any word, which sense is indicated by the connection and series of the discourse, by its subject matter, by the design of the speaker, or by some other adjuncts, unless an ambiguity be purposely intended."
We could wish that the Quakers, Regular Baptists, and the Wesleyan Methodists, would read twice, if not three times, the following extract from Mosheim, History of the Reformation, vol. 4, p. 296. Speaking of the change introduced by Luther and his coadjutors, he says:--
"All these expositors and commentators abandoned the method of the ancient interpreters," (not fully, I say) "who, neglecting the plain and evident purport of the words of scripture, were perpetually torturing their imaginations in order to find out a mysterious sense in each word or sentence, or ever hunting after insipid allusions and chimerical applications of scriptural passages, to objects which never entered into the views of the inspired writers. On the contrary, their principal zeal and industry were employed in investigating the natural force and signification of each expression," (I wish they had been more successful) "in consequence of that golden rule of interpretation inculcated by Luther, 'That there is no more than one sense annexed to the words of scripture, throughout all the books of the Old and New Testaments.'"
The Westminster Divines sanctioned this, and therefore decided, "that the sense of scripture is not manifold, but one."
|For the Millennial Harbinger.|
IN my last, I did not quite finish my extracts, from whence the author contends every one ought to learn the knowledge of the christian religion.
"As to the rest, about which they contest, since they are not so very plain, a religious and pious man may and ought to deliberate concerning them, and withhold his judgment till they appear more evident to him. For it is very imprudent to admit or reject any thing, before it sufficiently appears to be either true or false.1 Nor is eternal salvation, in the books of the New Testament, promised to any one who embraces this or that controverted opinion, but to him who heartily receives in his mind, and expresses in his actions, the sum of the christian religion as we have described it." 
"This therefore is the only thing that can justly be imposed upon christians; that they embrace whatever they think is contained in the books of the New Testament, and obey those things which they find there commanded, and abstain from those things which are there forbidden; if any thing further be required of them as necessary, it is without any authority. For would any fair judge require a christian to believe a doctrine come from Christ, which he does not find in the only faithful and undoubted records, in which all are agreed the revelation of Christ is derived down to us? Let other doctrines be true; let us take this for granted a little while; they cannot, however, be esteemed true by him who, among the different sorts of christians, follows the middle way, and allows of no certain record of the revelation of Christ, but the books of the New Testament. Whilst he believes this, nothing else can be justly required of him; and he will believe this, till it shall be made appear to him by plain arguments, that the knowledge of christianity is safely to be read some where else, which I believe will never be done."
"If any one, therefore, attempts to take away from christians the books of the New Testament, or to add to them such things as do not appear to be true, we are by no means to hearken to such an one, because he requires that of us which no prudent man will allow, that he should believe that which we are not certain of, or neglect that which all own to be the sure record of the revelation of the gospel. Whoever imposes any thing upon us, as necessarily to be believed, which we cannot believe, drives us from himself; (think, reader, who does this) because belief cannot be extorted by force, nor will any one who fears God, and is a lover of truth, suffer himself to profess what he does not believe, for the sake of another?' (Is this principle maintained among the sects of this day? I answer, No.)
But they who differ from this, object, that if every one be left to their own liberty in judging of the meaning of the books of the New Testament, there will be as many religions as there are men, and truth, which is but one, will immediately be oppressed by a multitude of errors. But I think, that before an opinion which is established upon solid arguments be opposed by objections, the foundation upon which it is built ought to be overthrown; because so long as that remains firm, the whole superstructure raised upon it cannot be shaken, as we see here. For if any inconvenience should follow from what has been said, it is nevertheless true, till it be made appear not to be fixed on a firm bottom. But to pass by this now; it is false that the revelation of the New Testament is so obscure that the sum of the christian religion cannot be truly learned from it, by any one of a sound mind, who is desirous of truth. It is evident from experience that it may be truly learned from thence; for all christians, as has been already shown, agree in the principal parts of it. We have no regard here to a few simple or wicked men, since whole societies of christians who in other respects, out of their too great eagerness of contention, are ready to differ from one another, and to run into the contrary extremes, are here agreed." 
"No inconsiderable number of christians at this day contend, that many errors in former ages crept by degrees in among the sects of christians. It must not indeed be dissembled, that many things foreign and unknown to the books of the New Testament, have been added and thrust into the christian theology; whence it is, that the true wheat of the sower in the gospel hath not brought forth so much fruit as it would otherwise have done, had the ground been cleared of thorns and hurtful and unprofitable weeds. Many vices and faults were not only admitted or borne with, but applauded also. Yet was not sound doctrine ever the less safe, whilst the books of the New Testament remained, and whilst christians were endued with common sense; for by this means, very eminent men were often raised up, who corrected the errors and vices of their age, and ventured to oppose the torrent. Thus, according to the promise of Christ, God hindered the gates of death, from prevailing against his church; that is, did not suffer every society wherein the christian doctrine was preserved entire, to be extinguished; though sometimes they were blended and obscured with foreign and contrary opinions, and sometimes more sincere and pure. Wherefore, (to observe this by the way) unless this doctrine (the New Testament) was really sent us from God, it never would have escaped out of such a deluge of vices and errors, but would at length have been overwhelmed by the changeableness and folly of human nature, and have entirely perished."
"Perhaps some may here object against what has been said, that the divine providence would have better consulted the preservation of christian doctrine, if it had prevented the errors that are and have been among christians, and maintained truth and constant agreement, which is the companion of it, among them, by its omnipotence. But it is not for us to instruct God how he ought to direct himself, in the government of human affairs, that they might be better. On the contrary, it is our duty to think that God had very wise reasons for suffering what he did suffer, though we cannot so much as guess at what they are. But if any probable reasons can be given for, the things that are done, we ought to believe that God permits those things which daily come to pass, to be done for these, or more weighty reasons."
To make a conjecture from the reason of things, we are above all things sure that the design of God was to create men free, and to suffer them to continue so to the end; that is, not so good that they should necessarily continue good always, nor so bad that they must of necessity always submit to vice, but mutable, so that they might pass from vice to virtue, and again from virtue to vice; and this with more or less ease, according as they had longer or shorter time given up themselves to virtue or vice. Such we see the Hebrew people of old were, and such were the christians afterwards. Neither of them were drawn by an irresistible force either to virtue or vice, but only restrained by laws, which proposed reward to the good, and punishment to the bad, to which were added by the divine providence  various incitements to virtue, and discouragements from vice; but yet neither of them deprived man of his native liberty, whereby he had a power of obeying or disobeying God, as is evident from experience; for there were always good and bad, though the divine laws prescribed virtue and prohibited vice equally to all. That this would be so among christians, Christ has plainly signified in two parables, the one of the tares which the enemy sowed after the wheat was sown, the other of the net which took good and bad fish alike; by which he signified that there would always be in the church a mixture of good and bad christians; whence it follows, that he very well saw the evils that would always be in the christian church."
|T. M. H.|
The following article, from the "Reformer," has the wrong heading. It is prosecution for irreligious practices, not prosecution for religious opinions. Still, however, the remarks of O. P. Q. are just, and admonitory to all sectaries and civil rulers. We do not know what, in the English law, constitutes blasphemy. If it be constructive, wo awaits the government that legislates upon constructive blasphemy; but if it be what we understand Mr. Taylor was fined and confined for, the Hospital, or Lunatic's Asylum, would have been more appropriate medicine for such a mind and body--"Sana mens in sano corpore"--'a sound mind is usually found in a sound body.'
|E D. M. H.|
PROSECUTION FOR RELIGIOUS OPINIONS.
A Mr. TAYLOR, in England, has lately been tried on a charge of blasphemy, and sentenced by the court "to be imprisoned two years in the county jail, and to pay a fine of £200, and enter into his own recognizance in the sum of £2500 for his good behaviour, and find two sureties of £250, for the next five years." Mr. Taylor received much the same sentence some years ago. The able and intelligent writer for the London Morning Chronicle at Paris, under the signature of O. P. Q. writes as follows on the subject of the above trial and sentence--
"Whilst I offer you our congratulations and sympathy on the progress of the Reform Bill in England, and on the triumphant majority on the second reading, allow me to express our lively regrets at the prosecution for religious opinions instituted by the state, or with its connivance, against Mr. Taylor.
"The prosecution of Mr. Taylor was unwise and unnecessary, and the sentence pronounced against him is excessive and absurd! I will tell you why I say this, and I am much mistaken if you do not agree with me. In the first place, I hold, that in a free country like England, I have the right to believe what I will, and reject what I will; and either to be Deist, Churchman, Catholic, or Unitarian. In the second place, I hold that to have the right of believing, without having the right to propagate my belief, is no more than having the right possessed by every human being, even under the most cruel and despotic governments. Liberty of thought can never be denied by human laws,  but only liberty of action; and the moment I am denied the right of propagating my creed, I am enslaved. Then in the third place, the liberty I claim for myself I am willing to confer on others; and therefore on Mr. Taylor. Nor can I do such injustice to my own creed, as to believe that it will be really injured by the propagation of error. For example--1st, I consider my creed, which is contained in the Old and New Testaments, to be the most rational, philosophical, and perfect system, ever proposed to the consideration or belief of man. I believe that God is its author--for that it is too perfect to be invented by man: and 2d, I consider the creed of Mr. Taylor to be as defective, and as irrational and absurd, as mine is perfect, rational, and divine. And I have therefore, 3d, no sort of fear that in the present enlightened state of society, the system of Mr. Taylor shall be preferred to mine; and, on the contrary, I know it to be a fact that christianity is spreading every year, and every hour of every year; and I should as soon expect to behold the solar system changed by the fiat of some wandering astrologer, as I should to see the christian religion overthrown by the sophistries of this preacher of ignorance.
"Poor Mr. Taylor must die one of these days, and then a decent sort of funeral will be got up for him; and when the founder of the sect is dead, the followers will disperse themselves, and yet christianity will continue to spread from the mountains of the Balkan to the mountains of the new world. We may all be sure of this. Why, then, should we prosecute Mr. Taylor? Why make a madman a martyr, or subject a philosopher to imprisonment? If his system be false, then why fear its propagation? and if it be true, then can we arrest truth by dungeons? When the author of our religion commenced the propagation of christianity, he entered into the synagogues of the Jews, disputed with the doctors, overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and attacked all the prejudices of the age in which he lived. In the end he was crucified, and the wretched murderers of their great and glorious victim shouted with joy, and exclaimed, 'Your king is dead, and your system is overthrown!' But how does experience mock their prediction, and laugh at their momentary triumph! Where is christianity now? Why, every year she is gaining new and bloodless triumphs, and the standard of the cross of Christ is now borne in triumph in the isles of the Pacific, the deserts of Africa, the perpetual snows of the polar regions, where the peace loving Moravians inculcate its doctrines, and live according to its rules; and from north to south, and east to west, the religion of Christ is becoming the religion of the world. Now, what should we desire more than this? Will heaven be defeated by the infidelity of Mr. Taylor, or the spread of christianity be arrested by his Sunday ministrations? No, no--it is only prosecutions and recriminations which can gain votaries to his system, or hearers to his chapel. Thus indeed he becomes a martyr, and I would subscribe to pay the expenses of his defence. Let him preach, let him print, let him publish, and let a christian government show to an anti-christian declaimer, that it can well afford to be generous to the unfortunate, and that it has too much confidence in the  religion in which it believes, to appeal to any other weapons than those of truth, argument, and history.
"I am reminded by this subject of a circumstance which has lately taken place in Germany, at Schwerin, a town in lower Saxony, the capital of the Duchy of Mecklenburg Schwerin. A new sect of "Anabaptists," who in England are not merely tolerated, but contain among them same of the most talented, liberal, and enlightened men of the age, having made its appearance in Germany, the Prince Regent of Schwerin has commanded the magistrates to arrest, without distinction of persons, all those Anabaptists who shall dare to exercise their worship publicly, and convey them all to prison. The fact is that the Anabaptists, having been preaching with zeal against the errors of the rational religion, have made many converts. Now there is scarcely a reader of the Morning Chronicle who will not exclaim, 'Oh, intolerant Government!' 'Oh, shameful persecution!' 'Oh, horrible Prince Regent of Schwerin!' And they will exclaim justly and truly when they say this. But do you suppose that there is the smallest distinction in the principle of the verdict and sentence against Mr. Taylor, and the decree at Schwerin against the Anabaptists? Not the slightest! The verdict and sentence against Mr. Taylor are founded on the dogma, that no one is to be allowed to attack the religion of the State; and the decree of Schwerin is based on precisely the same absurdity. If you approve the one, you must approve the other; and if Mr. Taylor has no sight to teach what the British Government calls his errors in England, why the Anabaptists have no right to teach what the Government of Schwerin calls their errors in Germany! And what then? Why, then there would be an end to the missionary, to the schoolmaster, and to the progress of truth, by means of teaching and preaching. I write thus, because I have not yet read any protest in the liberal journals of England against these prosecutions for religious opinions, and because, when Lords Grey and Brougham are ministers, we expect better principles, and a sounder system of laws and reasoning."
ON PRAYER--NO. II.
THOUGH not in sequence of our No. 1, we insert as No. 2
the Essay on Prayer which
appeared in the first and second editions of our Hymn Book. Being left out of the third
edition, we give it a place in this work, under the article on prayer. We think it
necessary still to call the attention of our readers to the contents of this Essay:--
WHEN the human mind is indoctrinated into certain modes of thinking and reasoning, every exercise of the mind in religion is tinctured with the distinguishing tenets which constitute the capital points of the system. So that the refined doctrinal christian thinks, speaks, and acts, in religious matters, as if the divine approbation and the enjoyment of heaven were made to depend upon right opinions or correct speculations on the topics of revelation. Hence we find that the zeal for correct sentiments gives a peculiar turn to every act of  devotion. Baptism, the Lord's supper, the Lord's day, prayer, and praise, in the apprehensions, and in the observance of such christians, are attended on as though our acceptance depended upon the ideas or views which the mind takes of these institutions during the period of time in which we are engaged in them. So far has this matter been carried out in practice, that it is not uncommon to find our favorite points in speculative theology to engross the whole contents of a prayer as well as of a sermon. Men are now taught, both by theory and practice, to confess their whole faith in their addresses to God, as they were wont in other times to confess their sins. Sometimes we hear the terms "we believe" as often repeated in a prayer as there are principal articles in our creed;--and it is not uncommon for men when addressing their Creator, to declare to him not only their own views of his character and government, but to contrast their views with those of other men--"God, we thank thee that we do not hold this or that; and that we believe this;"--are often heard in public prayers. And it has become as common to pray the sermon over in the succeeding prayer, as it is to sing it over in a suitable hymn or psalm.
Prayer to God is one of the most interesting, solemn, and exalted exercises which falls to the lot of mortal man. It should be well understood by all christians. To contribute something to this is the design of the following pages. Conceiving that when we have been laboring to purge our psalmody and to improve our religious taste in this branch of devotion, it will not be amiss to make an effort to arouse the attention of christians to their prayers as well as to their songs of praise. Prayer is naturally divided into secret and public, or into individual and social. The Saviour commanded both. He gave promises to both--to him that enters into his closet, and to him, who agrees with others touching any thing for which they should unite in their prayers to God. Now with regard to secret prayers, there is less temptation to depart from the true and proper attributes of prayer, than in public prayer: for in secret we are freed from any restraints or inducements growing out of a regard for the opinions and estimation of others. Our wants or desires are merely to be expressed in simplicity, and just according to our actual views and feelings, win we address no ear beat that of him who hears in secret.
It is in perfect accordance with that wisdom and goodness every where apparent in the christian religion, that we are so repeatedly exhorted to enter into our closets, and to address our Father in secret, to whom, though he is unseen himself, nothing is secret. There is no school under the heavens in which the art of prayer can be so easily acquired--in which the spirit of prayer can be so fully possessed, and in which the language of prayer can be so fully and perfectly attained--as in the closet, in the fields, or forests, where no human ear can hear, and where no human eye can see. Besides, no prayers have so much influence upon ourselves as those which are offered up in secret to God. We are then, and we feel ourselves then, in company with God alone. We can tell him what we cannot tell any mortal, the nearest and dearest on earth. We can disclose all our secrets,  unburthen all our griefs, confess all our faults, and pour out all our souls before him. If we are distressed, the declaration of our distresses to him, relieves them; if we are prosperous and joyous, our thanksgivings and acknowledgments to him temper our joys and moderate our rejoicings. Equanimity is not only produced, but always retained, by this heaven-devised appointment. We are prepared for every event when we have come out from the presence of God. But there is every thing in reason, in religion, and in our condition and circumstances, to entice us to the closet, and to allure us into the secret recesses to converse with our Father who is in heaven.
According to our faith in God will be our requests, and according to our confidence in his promises will be our assurance of acceptance with him. When in spirit and in truth we call upon the Lord, our words are well ordered, because they are the words of sincerity--the language of the heart. When we speak from the heart, there is a propriety in our terms, and a pathos in our expressions, which easily distinguish them from all the language of art, and the studied forms of speech. Therefore it is that we improve so much in the style of our prayers when we are much practised in secret prayer. Barrenness in language, and a dry, frigid, and stiff style in prayer, argues that the person is a great stranger to secret communion with God. Besides, no man who has been much or long in the habit of conversing with God, can either be ashamed or afraid to pray in the presence of men; for surely he that is wont to converse with the King, will never want language nor feel himself embarrassed when he speaks in the presence of the King's servants.
Some, no doubt, will urge their own experience against this last paragraph, and will feel that it is incorrect as respects themselves. But before their experience can be regarded as of any weight against a position so plain in terms and so plausible in fact, two things must be fully considered: First, whether they have been only occasionally or habitually--whether at long or short intervals--they have been accustomed to address their Heavenly Father in secret. And in the next place, whether fluency of speech belong to them in any instance on any subject. If fluency of speech belong not to them on other subjects, we do not suppose that habitual secret prayer will give them a fluency of speech, or an appropriateness of terms, which they do not possess, and cannot acquire on other subjects.
Without transcending the bounds of that love that hopes all things, we might say that a good number of our public prayers seem to be rather prepared for the ears of men than for the ears of God. There is so much of the studied and set phrase of ordinary and artificial composition in our addresses to the throne of the universe, that there is more apparent concern in the speaker to please the ears of his auditors, than to worship and adore the Majesty of the Universe. He seems more desirous of securing the praise of men for his attainments,, than the approbation of the Deity for his sincerity and spirituality. These remarks are not offered with any desire, or with the least intention, to promote or cherish a spirit of criticism, on the  performances of others; but to put every one on his guard against temptations to a departure from all that is valuable in prayer--from all that, is sacred in devotion--and from all that is pleasing to HIM whose approbation is more to be desired than the smiles of all the universe besides. But I must approach still nigher the subject I have in view, and make some remarks on the matter and manner of our prayers.
Whether it has been from the manuals of the church of Rome, from the common prayer book of the church of England, or from the directions for prayer in the Westminster Confession, I will not now deign to inquire; but so it is, that there appears as great a defection from scriptural usage--as great a departure from right reason in this part of the sacred worship, as in any other of the wise and gracious institutions of Heaven.
These departures from scripture and reason may be classed under certain general heads, among which the following are the chief:--1. Uniformity as respects the subject matter. By uniformity in the matter of our prayers, is meant, a certain methodical and stated expression of the same sentiments and sentences in every address to God. Some people pray in such a monotonous strain of sentences, that after you have heard them twice or thrice, you can always anticipate the next sentence; and if you are obliged to attend upon such prayers for a considerable time, they become perfect opiates to your understanding and senses, and are more to be desired for their soporiferous than for their devotional powers. Such forms of prayer, (for forms they really are) argue that the person is immutably the same in his wants, sins, desires, and thanksgivings; or that he has, by indefatigable industry, made out as many phrases as constitute one prayer of ordinary length, which is to serve him longer than the garments of the Israelites, which did not require a stitch or a patch for forty years. This is one extreme, towards which, on the same side, there are many approximations, which, though not so glaring, are nevertheless as exceptionable. Call upon some of this class to pray, and let the occasion be what it may, you must expect to hear the same sins confessed, the same depravity lamented, the same petitions offered, the same thanksgivings repeated. All the difference between their thanksgivings before or after meals, and their public prayers, is, that the former are shorter than the latter. That in the public assembly, or that by the social hearth, is a long prayer; and that before dinner or supper is a short prayer. This is the effect of bad example or of habit. For what is there in reason or in the sacred writings which could lead a person to think that when dinner or supper calls to give thanks to God for the repast provided, we should break forth into a long confession of the sins of all our lives, a declaration of all our duties, a recital of all our petitions, or even a summary of all our thanksgivings? Can we not rationally and scripturally thank or bless God for the favor before us through Jesus Christ our Lord? Again, when we are called upon to thank God in the morning for the mercies of the night, and supplicate his protection through the day, can we not confine ourselves to what is obviously the design of the exercise? And in the evening  when we are called to thank him for the favors of the day, and to implore his guardian care through the night, can we not confine ourselves to that which immediately enters into the design of our worship?
When persons pray for the sake of praying, it matters not what the subject matter of the prayer may be. And, really, there appear to be many prayers made for the sake of praying, having no other inducement to the exercise than a sense of duty. The prayers which flow from nothing else than a sense of duty, are very insipid and irksome things, and might as well be dispensed with altogether. If a person pray evening and morning, either in public or in private, for the sake of keeping matters on a good footing with conscience, his devotion is to him as irksome as the sinofferings of the avaricious Jews; and as useless to others as the counting of beads by the hour, or the hebdomadal repetition of "Pater noster" to a person who knows not the meaning of a single word.
We should, when we pray, have something in view, or some special consideration which at the time induces us to the exercise. According to this consideration or design should be our prayer. For example: If we bow the knee to pray in behalf of some afflicted person, our whole address to Heaven should have respect unto the case for which we pray, and every thing incompatible with the case should be omitted for the time. Again: If we are called upon to return thanks for some favor bestowed, that alone should occupy our attention and characterize our address to Heaven on that occasion. If two or three persons first agree to ask for some particular blessing, either for one of the company, for all of the company, or for some absent person or persons, that should be the whole and exclusive burthen of the prayer. If, then, these considerations were regarded in all our prayers, there would be no danger of falling into that unmeaning monotony of expression, and insipid uniformity of matter and manner, so irrational and unscriptural. We should, moreover, possess much more of the true spirit of prayer, and be much more benefited ourselves from our prayers, which is one happy end inseparably connected with the proper exercise of prayer.
Next to a monotonous uniformity of expression, we rank a verbose redundancy in the use of epithets and phrases which swell the period without increasing the sentiment, or exalting the devotion of the soul. Of this sort are all those pompous high-sounding addresses to the Deity, in which the speaker seems to exhaust the whole resources of his vocabulary, and puts his inventive faculties to torture to find out words wherewith to astound the audience, and display his elocution. This defect is more impious than the former; for the person who prays seeks his own glory. If he should plead in excuse that in so doing he edifies his audience, he reckons without his host. When a speaker employs more terms than are necessary to express the ideas he would communicate, he is, instead of edifying, confounding the understanding of his audience. He is wasting their attention, instead of inspiring their devotion. Plain and unaffected language, which does no  more than give scope to the feelings of the heart, is the proper language of public prayer. This is the true eloquence of devotion. When there is no effort of the understanding to be eloquent, when the heart pours forth its desires in terms appropriate, naturally flowing as a gentle stream from a living fountain, then are we cheered and refreshed in waiting upon the Lord. If a person possess but a tolerable fluency of speech, and do not strive to be eloquent, but speak in perfect accordance with his feelings; and if he feel as a christian ought when in the audience of his Creator, he cannot fail to be both pleasing and edifying to all who unite with him in worshipping his God and Father.
Rapidity of pronunciation is the third item to which we would request the attention of the devout worshipper. When we address God at any time, or in any place, either in public or private, great deliberation becomes us well. To speak to God is no light matter. No person can exaggerate the solemnity and deliberation which become us on such occasions. Well did Solomon say, "Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thy heart be hasty to utter any thing before God. For God is in heaven, and thou upon earth." But deliberation is doubly necessary in public or social prayer: for if we do not speak slowly it is impossible for others to unite with us. We ought to remember that the design of social prayer is, that others should unite with us in every petition and every thanksgiving. Hence the necessity of giving sufficient time to the company to apprehend the full force and meaning of every word and sentence. I have heard many prayers in which it was impossible for me to keep up with the speaker, or to unite with him. And while I was reflecting on the sentence just finished, he had got to the close of the next one. The subject was then lost, and even the pronunciation of a final AMEN was at random, inasmuch as our judgment could not be fully made up on the correctness of the whole. The whole prayer appeared like the sound of a mighty rushing wind.
To a rapidity of pronunciation I would add a speaking at random, as another deviation from the standard of propriety. I have often heard, or thought I heard, persons commence a sentence before they knew what they were going to ask. The style or manner, and the apparent indecision of the speaker, led us to suppose that he knew not what to ask while the words were still falling from his lips. If this ever be the case with any christian, repentance and reformation become him well. If at any time we have few petitions to make, let as cease so soon as they are offered. It is better to pause one, two, or three minutes between every petition, than to attempt one at random. We should always have a distinct and full view of what we are going to say before we pronounce a single word. This is necessary when, with due respect, we speak to men. How much more when we speak to God. Some appear insensible of the impropriety of this manner. They seem to fear nothing so much as to fail in matter. They advance in a hurry, as if they were anxious to appear fluent, and fly from one thing to another without regard to connexion, and as if without  design. It would be well for the religious community--for both teachers and taught--if every public speaker knew when he was done, and would just cease to speak when he had nothing to say. Whether from a desire to say something great, or something better, or to correct something said amiss, I presume not to say; but so it is, that many, both in their prayers and in their preachings, continue to speak a long time after they are done. Our great teacher forbade speaking at random in our prayers, and this should be regarded as an authority without any further consideration, of sufficient weight to put us on our guard against such a practice.
But when these four defects are corrected--when we are perfectly free from the charge of a monotonous uniformity of sentiment and style, a verbose redundancy of expression, a confounding rapidity of pronunciation, a thoughtless speaking at random;--still the weightier matters may be overlooked, misunderstood, and neglected; I mean the proper subject matter of prayer. I would beg leave to propose to the consideration of the devout reader some of the prayers found in the sacred scriptures, for the purpose of coming to correct conclusions on this most important subject--They will be found as follows:--
A prayer of Abraham, Gen. xviii. 23-32--of Moses, Ex. lxxii. 11-13--of David, 2 Sam. vii. 18-20--of Solomon, I Kings, viii. 23-53--of Ezra, Ez. ix. 6-15--of Nehemiah, Neh. i. 5-11--of the Levites, Neh. ix. 5-33--of Daniel, Dan. ix. 4-19--of Hezekiah, 2 Kings, 15-19, and xx. 3--of Habakkuk, Hab. iii. 2--the disciples' prayer, Mat. vi. 9-13--a prayer of the publican, Luke xviii. 13--of the Lord, John xvii.--of 120 disciples, Acts i. 24-5--of the congregation in Jerusalem, Acts iv. 24-30--of Stephen, Acts vii.--Paul's prayer for the Ephesians, Eph. iii. 14-21--for the Thessalonians, 1 Thess. v. 23--for the Hebrews, Heb. xiii. 20-21--Aaronic benediction, Num. vi. 20-26--Apostolic benediction, 2 Cor. xiii. 14.
AT the request of Archippus we publish his fourth number. We thought, and still think, that his argument, so far as argument it is, is fairly presented in the pieces we have reviewed. This containing nothing new, we offer no remarks upon it. I trust our reply to Andrew Broaddus will suffice on this subject. Our opponents fail to offer any thing new on the subject. If any thing new appears we shall attend to it; but we must have done with repetitions. As his fifth number treats not upon this subject, we see no propriety in connecting it with the question at all. A word to those who write on the subject:--Arrange your arguments numerically; and let them be not only numerically, but in truth and reality, distinct. And if a new one occurs we shall try its strength upon its own merits. But having so many topics to discuss, we cannot fill our pages with new fashions of old arguments.
|ED. M. H. |
|From the Christian Messenger.|
The Baptism of John, and the Baptism of the Holy Ghost, and of Water,
as a Christian Ordinance.
THE baptism of John was preparatory to the appearance, and the reception of Jesus Christ. John preached the baptism of repentance for the remission of sin, saying unto the people that they should believe on him who should come after him--that is, on Christ Jesus. Acts xix. 4. Christ himself was to be exalted with the right hand of God, a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance and forgiveness of sins. All that John demanded from such as repaired to him to be baptized, was to declare their readiness to reform, and to frame their lives in a manner agreeably to that expectation Luke iii. 7-14. He did not require a belief in any existing individual, as Messiah, in the previous part of his ministry; for he himself did not know him. John i. 31, 33. John came baptizing with water that Jesus Christ should be made manifest to Israel, (John i 31-34.) which was done when he was baptized of John in Jordan. Matt. iii. 5, 6, and v. 13-17. What occurred at Christ's baptism confirmed the mission of John, as Christ's forerunner, and the mission of Christ also, as the Son of God.
John told the people that he baptized in water unto repentance: but that he who should come after him was mightier than he, and would baptize them with the Holy Ghost and with fire. Matt. iii. 2. John did not baptize in the name of Christ, nor by his authority. The baptism of the Holy Ghost, or the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and the miraculous gifts, ministered by Christ after he was glorified, were promised to, and were bestowed upon none but believers, and upon those who had been made to believe previously to their receiving the Holy Spirit by external revelation, consisting in what they saw and heard, exhibited in miraculous works, and revealed words. In proof of this read carefully the following passages: John vii. 38, 39. xiv. 12-18, 25, 26. xv. 26, 27. xvi. 7-15. xx. 30, 31. Read also Mark xvi. 17, 18, and Luke xxiv. 45-49. Christ, after he rose from the dead, and before he ascended into heaven, directed his disciples not to depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, "which," saith he, "you have heard of me. For John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence" Acts i. 4, 5. The meaning of these promises, and of the prophecies relative to the outpouring of the Spirit, we have fully explained in their fulfilment, for which see Acts ii. throughout; also, viii. 12. 14-17. and xi. 14-47. and xi. 15-17. When the Spirit fell on the Gentiles, as stated in the last reference, and they began to speak with tongues and glorify God, "then," said Peter, "remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost." Acts xi. 18. All the revelations made to the Apostles, and the gifts bestowed upon them and on other disciples, and the signs and wonders wrought by them, were in consequence of the baptism of the Holy Ghost, and were the fulfilment of ancient prophecies. This baptism of the Holy Ghost, and these miraculous gifts and outpouring of the Spirit, were the promise of the Father, which Jesus Christ received after he was exalted by his right hand, and which he shed forth in a visible and audible manner, to manifest and establish fully the truth of the new covenant, his own mediatorial character, reign, and glory, as the Son of God and heir of all things, and Saviour of the world; and to perfect and confirm the whole gospel system, which embraced in its divinely rich and boundless provision, Jew and Gentile in its fellowship. These miraculous operations and revelations proved that the old covenant was abolished by the death of Christ, and the new covenant established, and that the middle wall of partition, that was between the Jew and the Gentile, was broken down, and that God had put no difference between them, Christ having abolished by his death in the flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances, to make in himself of the two one new man, or church, thus making peace between them. Eph. ii. 
The Apostle calls the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost the christian's seal and earnest of a heavenly inheritance. Eph. 1. 13-14. ch. iv. 30. 2 Cor. i. 22. They were moreover a seal and confirmation of the divine appointment, merits and reception of the atonement made by Christ, and of the power and success of his intercession with the Father; of his having received all power in heaven and in earth, in consequence of his death, and of his divine claim upon us to honor him even as we honor the Father, and that in worshipping the Father or the Son, we must worship the Father in the Son, and the Son in the Father. John v. 20. x. 38. xiv. 10, 11. xvii. 21. After the Jews and Gentiles were both sealed by the same Spirit, as being one under the new covenant, the disciples were called Christians.
As the visible or sensible descent of the Holy Spirit, and the powers which were conveyed by it to the first christians, was the baptism of the Holy Ghost, and made the proper seal of the christian doctrines, so the power of imparting these extraordinary gifts, in certain due proportions to other christians--that is, to those that believed, was the seal of the apostolic office and authority, as having been of divine appointment, and conferred by Jesus Christ. This power, which sealed and confirmed their mission, and their infallibility in speaking and writing the whole counsel of God in reference to the new is covenant, and laws, ceased with the Apostles; and they of consequence have no apostolic succession. The infallible and perfect record, which they wrote by the direction of the Holy Ghost, and in the words and sentences which the Holy Ghost taught them, are in their place, and possess the divine verity and authority which the Apostles themselves possessed.
The opinions and notions that exit of the outpourings of the Spirit in our day, in revivals of religion, are unscriptural. If they were true, they would unsettle the whole gospel record. We have as much right to expect another Messiah, as we have a repetition of the outpourings and baptism of the Holy Spirit, which existed at the commencement of the gospel dispensation and through the apostolic age. The Spirit is never absent. His diversity of gifts and miraculous operations have varied. In him the sinner lives, and moves, and has his being; but his immediate natural presence and physical operations never gave religion. His religion-giving operations ever have been, and are his external revelations made in intelligible words. These are now wholly of record. He gives to the mind susceptibility for spiritual improvement, or sustains it by his immediate power; but the Christian religion, which consists in a system of truth, affection, and conduct, of which God is the great subject or supreme object, he communicates by his word. The Spirit himself is an object of faith, and his word is the instrument of it, and he is only known to exist by his word. By that word he glorifies Jesus Christ, and does not speak of himself, and converts and sanctifies sinners.
Since the miraculous gifts of the Spirit ceased, the Holy Ghost has sealed every true believer "to the day of redemption," through faith in Jesus Christ, by the infallible record, that God has given of his Son, and the divine influence imparted to the soul through it. This is known by the integrity of his faith, and the fruits of the Spirit, exhibited in his conduct and temper, corresponding with the gospel. According to this record, the seal of the Holy Ghost confirms the truth, that God justifies the Gentiles, or remits their sins, before they are baptized, through faith alone in Jesus Christ, as I proved in my second number, so that nothing shall be thought to intervene between the heart of the believer and Jesus Christ, in the justification of the ungodly, and in their obtaining the divine favor. Acts x. 44-48. xi. 15, 14-18. xv. 7, 9. Rom. i. 16, 17. iii. 29, 30. iv. 3-5. The faith that justifies and obtains primarily the divine favor, comprehends the seminal principle of every virtue, and will, if suitably improved by active obedience, and due exercise, be fruitful according to the gospel. The faith of a true believer receives Jesus Christ into his heart, in the fulness of his character and offices, for his salvation. He is by the grace of God made unto him wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption, and he receives him as such. This he does before he is baptized. This he does  before he is baptized. What more can a sinner receive for his justification, or what more can God give?
I now come to consider water baptism as an ordinance of the gospel.
From the various passages of scripture in which baptism is mentioned, and from all the allusions made to it as an ordinance of the gospel, it seems to me to have a uniform reference to the new covenant, either in respect to the death, resurrection, and glory of Jesus Christ, in his mediatorial reign and kingdom, or to the effects of his death and reign upon the state and destiny of man.
Jesus Christ was delivered for our offences, and rose again for our justification. The gospel promise in general is, that whosoever believeth in Jesus Christ shall receive remission of sin. The Jews on the day of Pentecost were commanded to repent and be baptized in the name of him (Christ) for the remission of sin. Baptism to a believer, in its primary meaning, symbolically applies the promise of remission through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and represents its accomplishment in the present and future state, as the bread and wine in the supper represent to the believing communicant, the broken body and shed blood of Jesus Christ for the remission of sin: but I do not believe that baptism any more imparts actual remission, than that the bread and wine, broken and poured out, contribute the real body and blood of Christ, broken and shed for sin.
Baptism is not, in its primary meaning, a sign of the sanctifying operations of the Spirit, or an external sign of internal grace, as are alleged by some Paidobaptists, but it is a sign of justification, or of the remission of sin, as the Presbyterian Confession of Faith has stated it, chap. xxviii, "Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his engrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God through Jesus Christ to walk in newness of life. It would be a gross error in theology to confound justification, or the remission of sin, with sanctification; or to give to the latter precedence to the former. A sinner, or an ungodly man, cannot be made holy in his sins; he must therefore be first justified, or his sins be remitted, before he can be received into the divine favor, or be made spiritually holy. This is done through faith in Jesus Christ; and he must have this faith before he is baptized, or the ordinance will be misapplied and lose its meaning. Sprinkling of water is not an emblem of the Spirit, but of the doctrine of the gospel, or of the influence of God's word. Deut. xxxii. 1-3. Psal. lxxii. 6. John iv. 10, 11. Baptism represents to the believer his union and communion with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection, and immortal glory. The expressions "buried into his death," "buried with him in baptism, wherein also you are risen with him, through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead," imply this communion. It also represents his resurrection to a new life of holiness, and ought to be a powerful incentive to it, in conformity to Christ's resurrection from the dead, Rom. vi. 4. vii: 4. Colos, ii. 11-13. iii. 1-5. Baptism represents the death of our natural body, and our resurrection from the dead, to inherit eternal life, which will be our conformity to Christ, who was put to death in the flesh, and quickened by the Spirit. Under the new covenant, although the bodies of believers are under the sentence of death, denounced upon the transgression of Adam, because the redemption of Christ was not intended to prevent the execution of this original sentence upon their bodies, it converts it into a benefit by the resurrection, by which the natural body is made a spiritual body--saints are thereby entirely freed from their remaining connexion with, and conformity to the first man, in order to their being conformed to the second. 1 Cor. xv. 47, 48, 49. That baptism represents the resurrection of the saints from the dead, to inherit eternal life with Christ, and that his death and resurrection are a proof and pledge of it, is plain from 1 Cor. xv. 29. "Else what shall they do who are baptized for the dead," for their belief in the resurrection of the dead," if the dead rise not at all?" To deny the resurrection of the dead, it would  appear from this passage, sets aside the crowning design and meaning of baptism, and renders it of no consequence. And to deny that baptism is a representation and pledge of this, takes from it an essential part of its meaning. The resurrection of the righteous will be a regeneration in the most proper and perfect sense, and is that to which our regeneration, by the gospel of God's grace, and our baptism ultimately refer; "He saved us (or gave us a pledge of salvation) by the law of regeneration, and the renewal of the Holy Ghost, which he shed upon us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour, to the end we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." Titus iii. 3, 4, 7. Believers are now the sons of God, (Gal. iii. 27. 1 John iii. 1.) being born by the incorruptible seed of the word. 1 Peter i. 2-5. They are therefore waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of the body from the grave, when they shall be regenerated from death, in conformity to Christ the first begotten of the dead, and be the children of God, being the children of the resurrection, Rom. viii. 23. Rev. i. 5. Acts xxvi. 23. Luke xx. 36. And if I mistake not, the declaration of Christ to Nicodemus had particular reference to the resurrection of the dead in John iii. 7. and perhaps primarily to his own, because none of his immediate disciples, who were baptized before his death, entered into the kingdom by baptism, nor did the Gentiles. The kingdom was not set up, when the former were baptized, the blood of the new covenant had not been shed, and the King had not been crowned; and the Gentiles were in the kingdom, and the kingdom in them, before they were baptized; for the kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost, Rom. xiv. 17. which they realized before they were baptized, Acts x. 44-47. Acts xi. 15-18.
By the resurrection from the dead, which is alone incident to the new covenant, and is represented by immersion, as is also the remission of sin, believers will be in the most ample and perfect sense, "born of the Spirit," and "born from above," and will be spirit. Without this, their bodies cannot inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Cor. xv. 50. The body is sown a natural body, it will be raised a spiritual body; for as we have borne the image of the earthly Adam, we shall bear the image of the heavenly. Hence through that faith, by which the mercy of God hath begotten as to the hope of another life, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ from heaven, who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able to subdue all things unto himself. 1 Peter i. 3-5, Phil. iii. 20, 21. "We shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And every one that hath this hope in him, purifieth himself, even as he is pure." 1 John iii. 2, 3.
Having thus exhibited what seems to me to be the general meaning and design of baptism, I desire to state what I apprehend ought to be the particular views, and purpose of an individual believer, in submitting to the ordinance.
There is one baptism, as there is one body or church, and one Spirit, as we are called in one hope of one calling; one Lord, one faith, one God and Father of all, who is above all, through all, and in all. The one baptism is designed to unite all believers in one spirit and body, or fellowship in Jesus Christ, as the foundation and head of the church. The observance of every ordinance and duty in religion promotes experimental religion; that is, it increases the proof of the truth of religion in the heart of the christian, by actual trial. John vii. 17. xiv. 21, 23. Baptism, by divine appointment, when scripturally apprehended is necessary to this end. The religious state of mind of the believer, produced by baptism, cannot be obtained in any other way than by it. Without baptism being voluntarily submitted to, the heart does not feel itself bound to Jesus Christ by the obligation of personal baptismal profession and consecration, nor can it feel confidence in his protection and favor. Without baptism the believer has not had the symbolical application of God's promise of remission of sin made to his conscience, nor has he received the baptismal representation of the remission of sin into his soul, by being immersed into Jesus Christ. Without baptism he has not the answer of a good conscience towards God, by  which he is saved, or has the pledge of salvation by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities, and powers being made subject unto him. 1 Peter iii. 21, 22.--Without baptism, unless the conscience be perverted, the believer cannot be satisfied; he must be involved in uncertainty, fear, and perplexity. He feels that he has not surrendered himself to Jesus Christ, and cannot claim his smiles according to his promises; as he cannot claim his protection in a course of disobedience.
By the act of baptism, submitted to understandingly, the heart of the believer is fixed in Christ, and he commences the public life of a christian. In this solemn ordinance and act of worship the believer gives himself up to Jesus Christ, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, to be instructed, governed, and saved by him. From this solemn transaction he goes forth with his heart confirmed, and with a fixed purpose of leaving the life he lives in the flesh, and by the faith of the Son of God, who loved him and gave himself for him, and to cultivate the fruit of the Spirit in love, joy, peace, long suffering, gentleness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, and temperance. Gal. ii. 20. iii. 22, 28.
Although baptism is submitted to but once, it operates upon all succeeding life, if scripturally understood and improved. All the blessings of the new covenant are associated with it, and it connects itself by the word of God, with every future change and event, up to the last judgment and final glory. In his probationary state it keeps the christian firm and fast in his profession of faith in Jesus Christ, as it perpetually reminds him that he has been translated by the grace of God into the kingdom of his dear Son, in whom he has redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sin. Col. i. 19-14.
Christian baptism is an individual and personal duty, and is not a subject of fellowship, which implies plurality. If there be any fellowship in the ordinance, it is between the soul of the subject of it and Christ himself. It is not a church ordinance, nor is it administered by the church, or in the church, or to the church, if administered according to the gospel. The christian should ever remember that it was the ordinance of Jesus Christ with which be was baptized, and not a Baptist or Paidobaptist ordinance, and that he was baptized into the one spirit and body of Christ, and not into the spirit and body of a sect or party. He should therefore feel it to be as much his duty to exclude from his views, affections, and conduct, after being baptized, every thing of a sectarian nature, as he did, if he acted truly and scripturally, from Jesus Christ, his gospel and ordinance, when he received and submitted to them.
There is nothing in which we are more liable to err than we are in our views of baptism; and error here tends to give a wrong direction to the whole course of our religious and moral feelings and sympathies, as far as it is concerned. We err if we confer upon baptism the importance of an ultimate object, or the efficacy of the blood of Christ, when submitted to, either with or without faith. Indeed, the faith that does this is itself erroneous. We err, if in being baptized, we are baptized into a party spirit or system, or if we are not baptized into the spirit of Christ, and we err if we make our own views and opinions of baptism, whether they be right or wrong, the test of christian character, or fellowship at the Lord's table. Sincere christian men, men who love and desire to honor the Lord Jesus Christ, may err through ignorance, and in scriptural views on the subject of baptism; but God does not suspend his fellowship with them, or their salvation upon the correctness or infallibility of their opinions or judgment on the subject of baptism. There is not a Baptist upon earth that might not tremble were his salvation suspended upon this principle.
There are five different opinions, if not more, of the time when sinners are justified, or when their sins are remitted, viz.--
1. Some believe that the sins of the elect were remitted in eternity. This is what is called eternal justification.
2. Others believe that sins were remitted at the death of Christ. 
3. Others believe that sins are remitted when a person believes in Jesus Christ.
4. Others believe that sins are remitted only in the act of immersion, and that all are in their sins, notwithstanding their repentance and faith, until they are actually baptized for the remission of their sins.
5. Others believe that the faithful will not be in truth justified until the final judgment, when the sentence of acquittal will be pronounced upon them with a view to their whole probationary state. Good men thus divide in opinion, and employ scripture authority to support them. But of all the five opinions stated, the fourth one is the most exclusive, sectarian, and uncharitable; and if fostered, cannot fail to drive from the affection and fellowship of those who entertain it, all who differ from them, as being in their sins, however otherwise pious and godly! And the exclusive authority by which this strange opinion is formed, is found in the expressions used to the Pentecostal Jews, in the 2d chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, and to Saul of Tarsus, in the 22d chapter of the Acts, and which were never used to the Gentiles. The former were commanded to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sin, and the latter to arise and be baptized, and wash away his sins; but in no instance were the like expressions used to the Gentiles in the Acts of the Apostles, while direct and unequivocal proof was given by God himself that he had remitted the sins of the Gentiles before they were baptized, Acts x. xi. xv. Surely all New Testament christians will consider these things, and accommodate their views, affections, and fellowship to "the ancient order of things" as exhibited in the gospel, and not so far judaize as to transmute the Gentile into the Jewish state, in the beginning of aye gospel, so as to unchristian all Gentile believers who may differ from them in their mistaken views of baptism, in the present day. Christians have use for all the doctrines and ordinances of the gospel, that they may stand fast in the faith, and possess and manifest the temper and spirit of their common Lord, as they are interested in his common salvation. The profession of their faith and baptism separate them from the world, and associates them in visible union and fellowship with all the people of God, in Christ Jesus, and lay them under obligation to love all, with brotherly affection, who love him. The supper, properly attended to in the fellowship of the saints, renews the visible and sensible memorial of Christ's love, and the love of his people to him and to one another, and employs them in the actual manifestation of them, while it publishes his death, or shows it forth until he come. These things with the regular observance of all other christian duties, establish a habit of spiritual mindedness, and christian philanthropy, which secures us against selfishness, against a sectarian, spirit and party pride, and against the assaults of sin, and enable us to stem the force of a torrent of corruption that never ceases to flow. This habit opposes the enjoyment of religion and the hope of heaven to the spirit and customs of the world--it opposes a sense of the divine favor to the pleasure of sinful indulgencies, and enables us to prove by actual trial, or experiment, what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God.
FOR THE MILLENNIAL HARBINGER.
|King & Queen, August 9, 1831.|
IN your 5th number of the current volume of the Harbinger, the reader is favored with a few remarks upon the word matheteuo, by your very able correspondent Philalethes. His writings are fairly calculated to produce important results; and it cannot be deemed flattery to say, that he justly stands at, or very near the head of the rank of your contributors. His acute discernment, and habitual  depth of thought, cast about his productions much influence. He seems deeply imbued with a holy love of the simple oracles of truth and life, and if he is, what he appears to be, would not by any thing human mislead any inquirer after truth. It is in this light that I now venture to call back his attention, and invite yours, to his remarks upon the subject of discipling to Christ.
When I read the remarks alluded to, and your notice of them, it occurred to me that there was something objectionable in the first, and some ambiguity in the last; something like a mere "go-by," which was not like yourself. I have but a word to say upon this part of the subject, and though it be by reversing the order of things, it shall be said first. I had entertained the impression that the views inculcated by you differ materially from those urged by Philalethes, and felt deep surprise at your notice of them. Unless I have grossly misunderstood one or both of you, this conviction must be founded upon fact. I will only add the request, that you will do me the favor of a few remarks more upon this matter. Others of your readers will likewise be gratified by such a course.
Philalethes is an utter stranger to me, and for aught I know might require an apology for my course; he shall have it: and from his character, as drawn from his writings, I feel confident that he will deem it sufficient. It is this: I have been engaged for a few years in trying to lead my fellow-creatures to subjection to the Saviour of sinners, and during the last year or more, have particularly inculcated, that without faith, repentance, reformation, and immersion, they could not become the disciples of Christ, or christians. My most earnest desire is to learn the truth, in reference to all points of religion; but more particularly as to the greater points, if I may be allowed the distinction. What, then, I ask, is the truth here? I ask sincerely--I ask of you who are competent to aid the ignorant. And that the truth may be more deeply rooted in my heart when it comes, all my errors upon this point should be rooted out; but this cannot be done, unless I expose them. I must submit them to their fate. I would not he the slave of error, nor the victim of prejudice if I could avoid it. If my views be incorrect, I am at this time suffering under the operation of both these causes.
The conclusion to which I would particularly invite attention is this: "There may be," says Philalethes, "a real scholarship without a concomitant avowal of it; nay, that a secret and real scholarship must precede a public profession of it, otherwise the public profession of it must be an act of downright hypocrisy. And here a question of importance occurs. Is a real but unavowed discipleship of no other benefit to its owner, than to put him in a condition to make a public profession without hypocrisy? Certain it is, that before immersion, or any other avowal of his christian attainments, a person may have read, understood, and believed every declaration which God has made, may have apprehended clearly and strongly the tendency of these declarations to affect not only his temporal, but his eternal happiness also, and may have had his mind thus greatly enlightened and  powerfully impressed; his affections much excited and drawn to God and his actions duly rectified by them: in short, may have all the elements of a christian--knowledge, faith, love, and obedience produced in him: and must we consider all this as null and void till there be a public annunciation of its inward and invisible existence?" He says, "Truly I cannot believe it." But can Philalethes not believe things equally hard of another sort? Can he not believe that an Englishman may read, understand, and believe the declaration of American independence, and the excellent constitution based thereon, apprehend "clearly and strongly the tendency" of this declaration and constitution to promote the best rights and interests of all good subjects of the government--nay, have his mind greatly "enlightened and powerfully impressed, his affections much excited and drawn" towards this country; in short, have all the essentials or "elements" of which an Englishman should or could be possessed in order to become an American citizen, and yet live and die on the British island? Surely he can believe this without difficulty. Nor will he contend that such an individual is a real American. But he may object that I have not run a fair parallel, having left out both "rectified actions" and "obedience." Now how a man can be possessed of "actions duly rectified by them," [the truth's of God's word,] and "obedience produced in him," without either having confessed or put on Christ, is to me a serious difficulty. The reformation of a sinner, without obedience to God, must surely be some other than that contemplated by the New Testament. But again: the elements of which a christian may be made do not always necessarily constitute a christian; in fact, the word itself conveys an idea of something unfinished. So we would say of all arts and sciences--of men and things. Whenever we speak of the elements of any thing, we convey the idea of imperfection, confusion, &c. a taking to pieces that which is (analysis) or putting together so as to constitute that which is not, as by synthesis. Permit me to suppose another difficulty: An individual hears for the first time that the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ;--his attention is arrested--he inquires into the particulars of the plan--is informed that in Adam all became subject to the dominion and consequences of sin;--he believes it--that in Christ is fulness of redemption, which is clearly and scripturally set forth;--he is held up not only as a sacrifice for sin, but as a Prophet, Priest, and King;--he believes all these things--he is taught that repentance towards God must be exercised--reformation of manners immediately exhibited--all of which he believes and determines within himself to regard accordingly;--and lastly, that he must be found willing to confess the Lord with his mouth and be immersed for the remission of his sins;--to which he as heartily objects as he had cordially received the foregoing items. Now I would ask, would not such a man be fairly considered a real disciple as far as he goes? And, on the other hand, is he not as real an opposer to the cross of Christ as he well can be? And what would the matter be bettered should he say, Yea, Lord, even to all that was taught and enjoined, and yet go his way and not do accordingly. 
It seems to me that the nature of the christian institution presents an insuperable difficulty before this view. It never seems to contemplate mere mental disciples as christians. And in this particular it differs widely from our ordinary loose application of the term disciple. Men are called disciples of Gill, Fuller, Wesley, &c. pretty much, I think, after the sense in which P. views the matter, and they can be only so; they are, in a word, complete. But there is no good reason for discipling men to Christ after the same fashion; and the foundation of the difference is this: Fuller and others have had no authority to impose rules and regulations or terms of discipleship upon mankind; no institution within which great blessings and privileges were or are to be enjoyed, and without a regard to which, awful pains and penalties are made dependent and positively to be suffered; while Christ has in wisdom appointed the best of plans, and that a conditional one, and in his power exacted a rigid submission to it by all to whom it is made known, if they would obtain its benefits. While, then, the disciples of Fuller may be only mentally so, and yet really so, without even uttering his name in an audible voice, or submitting to any advice he may have even given as to deportment, we feel unable at present to say as much for those who may wish to indulge unauthorized claims upon the christian institution. And this position it seems to me may not only be sustained by the nature of the christian institution as a whole, but by its particular application to practice, according to its own declarations. But as I designed to elicit truth in the shortest and easiest way, I will enter into nothing elaborate, and proceed to hold out to notice the views inculcated by myself, as before promised, that they may be corrected if erroneous. My objections to the common use of the word disciple are based upon the distinction above laid down, and will be presented with very simple illustrations.
I wish it to be borne in mind that I have not the most remote idea of entering into a mere criticism upon the original word; to such a task I am incompetent; but would look at this subject through the medium of our present translations, and make use of it accordingly.
I understand the gospel to be submitted to mankind as a rule of faith and life to intelligent and accountable beings. As an agent, man is allowed the right to judge of it; if he likes it, he embraces it, and vice versa. And discipleship turns altogether upon the fact of embracing it or not, and not upon the insulated liking or approving the plan only. I remarked a little while ago, that I would give suitable illustrations of my view. Suppose Professor C------ should announce through suitable verbal heralds, or through a printed communication, his determination to commence on a certain day, at a certain place, under particular and peculiar rules and terms, a valuable course of useful instruction to gentlemen and ladies of particular classes or descriptions. A, an individual into whose hands the proposal falls, finds it particularly interesting, and has no doubt that a due improvement of the opportunity thus afforded him will be valuable. He considers again and again the plan--thinks of himself, his circumstances--the teacher--the institution, laws, &c. and determines  to become a disciple. His friend B meets and salutes him as the disciple of Professor C------. But replies A, "My friend, you are mistaken: I am not the disciple of Professor C------. " B. "Not the disciple of C------? Have you not determined upon entering his seminary?" "I have." "Have you not given him your name and your pledge in the form of admittance fee?" "I have, and am resolved to gain all that I can at his hands." "And not a disciple? How paradoxical! Please explain." "Cheerfully: Professor C------ has an institution which is not yet in operation; I am pleased with the plan, believe in his competency, and in the probable utility of his course I feel confident: but as yet I have not thrown myself upon his hands, nor placed myself under his control, which I can only do by repairing on, or after a certain day to a particular place, nor even then become a disciple until I receive his instruction and commence learning in detail. Though I believe from his general proposal, that he will teach every branch of polite and useful learning, and have thereby been informed of the outlines, all this does not constitute me a learner of the things proposed; nay, though I might hereafter obtain through others much of the instruction which he will then impart, I could not be recognized as one of his disciples in any sense, nor expect a diploma at his hands."
I must ask pardon for my intrusion, while I barely add one more hint. We all know that there is in the world what is called the Masonic Institution. Now upon the hypothesis of Philalethes, every member was a real Mason before he entered a lodge: but no Mason can agree to such a position. Take away the formalities or externals of the Christian Institution, and we will not hesitate to predict the speedy destruction of all the internal realities of the great structure: they must stand or fall together. The great importance of this subject, which cannot readily be expressed, has impelled me to wander much more widely than I at first designed. I may have misunderstood the writer of the remarks, Philalethes, but must still hope to hear from one or both of you again.
As a friend of a pure speech and inquirer after truth;
|I remain yours,|
THE Religious Tracts which are everywhere inundating society, some of them, no doubt, worth a reading, but many of them unworthy of a christian community, have stimulated the Atheists to similar adventures for proselyting. A specimen of these Tracts we lay before our readers, as a monument of the ignorance of those who oppose revelation--as a specimen of the ignorance and malignity of Atheism in the year 1831.
A young disciple, into whose hands we put it as a test of his biblical knowledge, furnished us with the following grave exposition of its recklessness of truth and impudence of assertion. The only objection we have to the expose is, that the text is unworthy of the sermon; but as it is the production of a stripling in the faith, we thought it  might be useful to a certain class of readers, and, perhaps, to some one of those little philosophers who stare with admiration at the man as a prodigy of wisdom and science, who, without a blush, can give utterance to his ignorance of the whole matter at which he snarls.
THOSE who hire themselves out to explain this holy book uniformly assert that the Bible is an unerring rule of faith and manners; and the Westminster Divines, in their Confession of Faith, have declared that "God, by his singular care and providence, has kept them pure in all ages of the world;" which purity consists in being dark as Erebus, confused as Chaos, and opposite as the poles. A modern apologist, who has said as much as he possibly can in favor of the inspiration, has resigned the singular care and providence to the mercy of its detractors; while the Bible critics of all ages give us abundant proofs of the alterations it must have undergone, both from pious fraud and holy ignorance. We shall at present drop these objections, as they are but gnats for believers to swallow, and proceed to observe a few of those divine contradictions which render this book so peculiarly edifying to the godly.
The 11th chapter off Genesis makes Abram one hundred and thirty-five years of age when he left the country of Haran; the 12th chapter says he was only seventy-five. The Lord threatens to visit, the iniquities of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation, Exod. xx. 50 xxxiv. 7. Num. xiv. 18. Deut. v. 9. This he flatly denies, Deut. xxiv. 16. 2 Chron. xxv. 4, and the whole 13th chapter of Ezekiel, is taken up in demonstrating the injustice of it. In Exodus xxxiii. 11, the Lord speaks to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend; in the 20th verse he could not see his face, for no man could see it and live.
Num. xxvii. 13. Deut. xxxii. 49. the Lord ordered Moses to go up on Mount Abarim, and die there; Deut. xxxiv. 1, says it was on the top of Pisgah. As Moses died at two different places, it must also have been at different times. Aaron also died at Mosera, Deut. x. 6, and at Mount Hor, seven stations from the former place, Nunn. xxxiii. 30, 38; two strong proofs of a resurrection, most unfortunately overlooked by commentators. If we believe Joshua x, 36, it was him, and all Israel with him, that took Hebron and Debir; but if we are to credit chapter xv. 14. Jud. i. 10, these places were not taken for a long time after that.
In 2d Sam. xxiv. 1, the Lord moved David to number Israel and Judah, and the numbers were--the men of Israel eight hundred thousand, and of Judah five hundred thousand, for which he had the choice of seven years' famine, three months' war, or three days' pestilence; and the price he paid for Araunah's threshing floor is stated at fifty shekels of silver. 1 Chron. xxi. 1, says it was Satan who provoked David; the numbers here are the men of Israel one million one hundred thousand; those of Judah four hundred and seventy thousand; the time of the famine is dwindled away to three years, but the price of the threshing floor is advanced to six hundred shekels of gold.
1 Kings iv. 26, says, Solomon had forty thousand stalls for horses; 2 Chron. ix. 25, allows no more than four thousand. 1 Kings v. 11, says Solomon gave to Hiram twenty thousand measures of wheat, and twenty measures of oil. 2 Chron. ii. 10, makes twenty thousand measures of wheat twenty thousand of barley, twenty thousand baths of wine, and twenty thousand of oil. In 1st Kings vii. 14, the artificer, whom the king of Tyre sent to Solomon, was the son of a woman of the tribe of Naphthali; 2d Chron. ii. 14, says she was of the tribe of Dan. 1st Kings vii. 15, makes the two pillars of the porch eighteen cubits; 2 Chron. iii. 15, makes them thirty-five. 1st Kings vii. 26, makes the brazen sea to contain two thousand baths; 2 Chron. iv. 5, says three thousand. 1st Kings xv. 2, says Abijah's mother was Maachah, the daughter of  Abishalom; the 10th verse of this chapter says she was the mother of Asa; 2d Chron. xi, 20, says Abijah's mother was Maachah, the daughter of Absalom; but chapter xiii. 2, says it was Michaiah, the daughter of Uriel of Gibeah, that was Abijah's mother.
1st Kings xv. 16. 32, says, "There was war between Baasha and Asa all their days." Now as Baasha began to reign in the third year of Asa, this war must have been during the ten years the land had quiet, 2d Chron. xiv. 1. But how are we surprised to find, that after the period of this ten years' quiet, it was not with Baasha, but with Zerah, the Ethiopian, who had a host of one million three hundred chariots, whom he attacked with five hundred and eighty thousand men, that he had war, verse 9. How immensely superior in point of numbers are revealed armies to those which the greatest powers could ever actually bring into the field. "And there was no more war until the five and thirtieth year of the reign of Asa," chap. xv. 19, when Baasha must have been dead nine years, according to 1st Kings xvi. 8. Nor was it until the six and thirtieth year that Baasha began to build Ramah (ten years after he was dead,) which was surely no war, and we have no accounts of any other. When a revealed story is both contradictory and confused, it is a proof that inspiration has reached the acme.
2d Kings i. 17, says that Jehoram, the son of Ahab, began to reign in the second year of Jehoram, the son of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah; the third chapter says it was in the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat; chapter viii. 16, is at variance with both these. Whoever will take the trouble to compare the chronologies of the kings of Judah and Israel, will find a sad mass of confusion to clear up, and a great disagreement in the end, which no one can set right. 2d Kings viii. 26, says Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he began to reign; 2d Chron. xiii. 2, says forty-two; but his father Jehoram being only thirty-two years old when he began to reign, and having reigned only eight years, the son, at this rate, must be two years older than the father. Still further, all the sons of Jehoram were carried away by the Philistines and Arabians, 2d Chron. xxi. 17, save only Jehoahaz, the youngest. Chapter xiii. 1, says that "the inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah, his youngest son, king in his stead; for the band of men that came with the Arabians had slain all the eldest." It appears, however, from 2d Kings x. 12, that Jehu, king of Israel, put himself to the trouble of "slaying" them over again; regardless of their being carried away and slain before, and likewise their sons, although they had none. Ahaziah himself was also twice killed, once in Samaria, where he was slain and buried, 2 Chron. xxii. 8, 9; also at Megiddo, and buried at Jerusalem, 2 Kings ix, 27. Commentators have an easy way of reconciling matters. Jehoahaz and Ahaziah are the same person, and as for people being killed twice or thrice over in different places, it is quite common in revealed story--a mere bagatelle, which none but infidels would carp at.
2 Chron. xxi. 12, Elijah sent a writing to Jehoram, the son of Jehoshaphat, King of Judah; but according to 2 Kings ii. and iii. Elijah was taken up into heaven more than seven years before that; at least before the eighteenth of Jehoshaphat. When inspired writers tell us stories of this nature, we cannot hesitate a moment in giving them all due credit. To crown all the other contradictions, the Lord denies having any hand in the Mosaic institution of sacrifices, Jer. vii. 22. "For I spake not to your fathers nor commanded them, in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices." Moses says the very reverse. The very laws which Moses had from the mouth of the Lord are contradictory one of another; Lev, xviii. 16, and xx. 21, forbids the cohabiting with, or marrying a brother's wife; Deut. xxv. 5, commands it. Lev xix. 34 enjoins equal justice to strangers as natives. Chap. Xxv. 45, allows the enslaving of strangers and their children. But we should never have done if we were if we were to notice every contradiction that occurs in holy writ; we shall only observe, that it is writing in this manner that constitutes the divine harmony of scripture, so much insisted on by the priesthood.
Liberal Tracts, No. 2. 
To answer all these alleged contradictions, would be a tedious and useless effort. We shall take some 8 or 10 of the first as a sample, and show with what ease such imputations can be repelled. Ten thousand such objections might he proposed by any sceptic who knows as little as the author of this tract, and the only point which they prove is the consummate ignorance of sacred literature of their fabricator.
Contradiction 1st. "The 11th chap. of Gen. makes Abram 135 years of age when he left the country of Haran; the 12th chap. says he was only 75."
The 11th chap. says nothing about the going out of Abram, at all, and our author's inference is most illogical indeed. His premises are, verse 26, "And Terah lived 70 years, and begat Abram;" consequently Terah was not 71 years older than Abram. But Terah's death (which was not till he was 205 years old) is mentioned before the going out of Abram from Haran; therefore our author makes the sacred historian say that Terah died before Abram went out of Haran. The scriptures do not say so; the sacred historian has merely followed out one thread of his narrative to the end, and has then gone back and resumed another--but no contradiction. If it be, there is not a historian, ancient or modern, that does not contradict himself every fifty pages. For example: Plutarch, in his Lives of the celebrated men of Greece and Rome, begins page 3122 with the life of Sylla, a cotemporary of Julius Cesar; relates adventures and conversations in which they were engaged together, and closes page 335 with the death and funeral of Sylla--again, page 495, he begins the life of Cesar; but is this saying that Cesar was not born until a long time after Sylla was dead? He also speaks of Sylla as alive, and performing mighty deeds; but must we suppose the resuscitation of Sylla, to save Plutarch from the imputation of lying? Surely not. But this is so plain the most slow to learn must apprehend it.
Contradiction 2d. "The Lord threatens to vomit the iniquities of the fathers upon the children, to the third and fourth generation, Ex. xx. 5; this he flatly denies, Deut. xxiv. 16."
Had this author but finished his quotation of Ex. xx. 5, he would have saved himself and me some trouble; for lo! it reads thus: "For I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children, to the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;" and mark what follows--"but showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments." Here the Lord does not visit the iniquities of the fathers upon those children that love him and keep his commandments, but upon the children that hate him; nor yet upon these, only as the sins of the fathers become those of the children by doing or approving the same. Hence our Lord said to the Jews, "The blood of all the righteous persons slain, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Barachiah, who perished between the ALTAR and the  sanctuary shall be required of this generation:" and why? not because they were the children of those who slew them, but because, says he, "you are witnesses for yourselves that you allow the deeds of your fathers."
Contradiction 3d. "In Ex. xxxiii. 11, the Lord speaks to Moses, face to face, as a man speaks to a friend; in the 20th verse, he could not see his face, for no man could see his face and live."
And so it seems that two beings cannot converse face to face unless they look each other in the face. Two men could not converse face to face in the dark, nor could two blind men converse, face to face, at all! Is it so? And what is the idea of conversing "face to face"? Is it not to enter into familiar oral conversation? Let us hear the connection of this matter--verse 9, we begin: "And it came to pass as Moses entered into the tabernacle the cloudy pillar descended and stood at the door of the tabernacle, and the Lord talked with Moses; and all the people saw the cloudy pillar stand at the door of the tabernacle, and all the people rose up and worshipped, every man in his tent door: and the Lord spake to Moses, face to face, as a man speaketh unto a friend." There was, then, a cloudy pillar between the Lord and Moses while they conversed face to face.
Contradiction 4th. "Numbers xxvii. 13, Deut. xxxii. 49, the Lord ordered Moses to go up on Mount Abarim, and die there; Deut. xxxiv. 1, says it was on the top of Pisgah. As Moses died at two different places, it must also have been at different times."
So says this "liberal" author. What a pity it is he had not searched the scriptures for something besides contradictions; he would then have read them in their connection, not in insulated scraps: but sectarian teachers have taught this method of reading the scriptures. Numbers xxxiii. 48, 49, explains the matter: "And they [the children of Israel] removed from Almondiblathaim and pitched in the mountains of Abarim, before Nebo; and they departed from the mountains of Abarim and pitched in the plains of Moab, by Jordan, near Jericho." Thus we find that Abarim was the general name of a cluster of mountains, Nebo the name of a single mountain, and Pisgah its peak, summit, or height.
Contradiction 5th. "Aaron also died at Mosera, Deut. x. 6, and at mount Hor, seven stations from the former place, Num. xxxiii. 30-38; two strong proofs of a resurrection most unfortunately overlooked by commentators."
Mosera was a village, as we learn by recurring to the ancient maps; and whoever knows any thing of ancient geography knows that countries were not divided into states, counties, and townships, as in these United States; but cities, towns, and villages of any note, gave name to a lame district of country around them. Hence, the last battle between Alexander, the Macedonian, and Darius, the Persian, is called the battle of Arbela, although the battle was fought more than twelve miles from that village. Besides, the books of Exodus and Numbers are minute details, but the book of Deuteronomy is a recapitulation of the law, and a general summary of the whole history of  the Israelites, giving all the prominent events. And how often is it practised by historians, after giving the minutiæ, to give a summary? How often do we, in conversation, after having been once explicit upon a matter, afterwards speak of it less definitively? For example: If I should on my return to the lake, speak of a friend who had died at Bethany during my stay there, I might afterwards, in speaking of the event to the same persons, say, my friend died in Virginia; and where would be the contradiction? Let the reader judge.
Contradiction 6th. "If we believe Joshua x. 36, it was him, [he3] and all Israel with him, that took Hebron and Debir; but if we are to credit chap. xv. 14, Jud. i. 10, these places were not taken for a long time after that."
Xenophon, as quoted by M. Rollin, has given us a contradiction of the same kind. Vol. 2, p. 112, he has given us an account of the taking of Babylon, by Cyrus the Great; but, (to use the language just quoted) if we are to "credit" page 303, it was not taken "for a long time after that," and then not by Cyrus, but by one of his successors, Darius, the son of Hystaspes. I shall leave the author of the tract to examine these connections, and explicate for himself.
Contradiction 7th. "2 Sam. xxiv. I, the Lord moved David to number the children of Israel--1 Chron. xxi. 1, says it was Satan that provoked David."
It is also related by historians that Xerxes threw fetters into the sea, to confine it while he should chastise it with whips; and it is said that Solomon built the temple at Jerusalem--but this they did by agents. The Governor of the Universe performs things by agents, too; and Satan was as willing an agent of the Lord as the angel Gabriel, when the message was to punish or vex that favored people, the Hebrews.
Again: He refers to the immense armies mentioned in scripture, and says--"How immensely superior in point of numbers are revealed armies to those which the greatest powers could ever actually bring into the field!" It is said by Xenophon that Semiramis, the foundress of Babylon, headed three millions of men against one of the kings of India; and it is said, by some, that Xerxes headed the same number against the Greeks. Does our author find any revealed armies greater than these? He may say, some authors rate the last mentioned army at one million: True, they do; but the single city of Thebes once produced a hundred thousand fighting men, and Babylon three times that number. And the single city of Rome once contained six millions of inhabitants; but what of that? Cambyses, the son of Cyrus, led a million of warriors against an Indian king, and when all were ready to perish with famine, he ordered the soldiers to cast lots, and every tenth man be slain, to serve as food for his companions; and thus almost the whole army perished. Had this been related by the Jewish historians, it doubtless would have been considered as one of their "long bow" stories, for which our author  seems to think them so remarkable; but, as it is recorded by a Pagan, he can well believe it.
But in the conclusion, our author says--"To crown all the other contradictions, the Lord denies having any hand in the Mosaic institution of sacrifices, Jer. vii. 22; 'For I spake not to your fathers, nor commanded them, in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices.'"
Had our author met here with what he conceived to be a contradiction, and proposed it in the form of a difficulty, we might well have borne with him, although even then he would have been culpable for his ignorance; but what shall we say when he so confidently and presumptuously affirms? We trust we shall not be to blame if we simply repeat what a certain wise man once said--"He that judgeth a matter before he heareth [or understandeth] it, is a fool." 'Tis true the Lord did not speak to the children of Israel concerning the matter of burnt offerings and sacrifices "in the day he brought them out of the land of Egypt;" but is this saying they were not of divine appointment? Nay, verily; they had been instituted long before, even contemporaneous with the sin of our first parents. This principle existed throughout the whole of the divine economy toward fallen man, that, "without the shedding of blood there was no remission." The burnt offerings and sacrifices were not added to the law of Moses, but the law of Moses was added to them.
And now, in the conclusion, let me address a few words to the author of this tract. What is there, my friend, in the pure morality of the scriptures, which should so call forth your spleen? what in the blissful hope of immortality that should elicit your hate? Be assured, my friend, "there will be a resurrection, both of the just and of the unjust;" and unless you repent, and believe the gospel, you will in that day "awake to shame and everlasting contempt." You have yet to confess (with all the infidel fraternity) that Jesus of Nazareth is the SON of God, much as you may now hate him; "for he shall be revealed from heaven, in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God and obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." Then will Celsus and Voltaire, with all the host of unbelievers, "call upon the rocks and mountains to fall upon them and hide them from the face of Him that sitteth upon the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb." Then, in the anguish of your souls, will you shriek--"Jesus is the Messiah! yes, Jesus is the Son of God!" for so hath Jehovah sworn, saying, "As I live, every knee shall bow to him, and every tongue shall confess." "He hath given him a name, above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and upon the earth, and under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father." "Behold he cometh in clouds, and every eye shall see him; they also that pierced him, and all kindreds of the earth, small wail because of him; even so, amen."
|MATTHEW LEVI. |
THE NEW VERSION SUSTAINED BY THE BISHOP'S BIBLE.
I HAVE seen copies of the version read by our ancestors some two hundred and thirty years ago, but have not an English Bible of those dates. The following extracts, forwarded by brother Reid, will be acceptable to many of our readers, and will demonstrate how unfounded are the imputations of our opponents, who represent the new version as made to favor a system. This old Bible is more favorable, in some respects, to our views, than the new version. The annotations, also, are more in accordance with the text than most of the recent commentaries. The quotations forwarded to us are, we presume, a fair sample of the whole. Reader, did not our ancestors read a plainer version than that now commonly read by authority?
|WASHINGTON, 5th Oct. 1831.|
AS I returned from court to day, I stopped at Mayslick, and found in possession of our brothers Asa and James Runyon, a Bible printed 216 years ago, by the King's Printer; and having a desire to look into a volume so old, I spent some hours in reading and taking the following copy from it, intending when chance should throw me among those who revile the new translation so much, to show them the similarity between it and the so much boasted one of King James, and that the error lies not so much in the original one of King James as in the copies since printed, or attempts at copies. From the few passages I have examined, the idea of forgiveness of sins in baptism was not new at that period, judging from the notes especially. And it seems to me that if those who abuse the new translation for the word "Reform," could only read this ancient Bible, and pay proper attention to Peter's words, "Amend your lives, and be baptized, every one of you, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." If, I say, they could read it and be convinced, as I am, that it was printed before your great great grand father was born, they would cease to charge you with altering the word of God to suit your own purposes. They would not say you had put the word reform where repent ought to be, upon seeing a volume so old using the word amend.
|Imprinted at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the
King's Most Excellent Maiesty.
CUMPRIUILEGIO REGLÆ MAIESTATIS, Anno 1615.
"The Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to John.
"In the beginning was that word, and that word was with God, and that word was God. This same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made. In it was life, and that life was the light of men. And that light shineth in the darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not."--[End of 5th verse, 1st chap.]
"The Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Matthew.
Chap. iii. beginning verse 6.--"And they were baptized of him in  Jordan, confessing their sins. Now when he saw many of the Pharisees, and of the Sadducees, come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers! who hath forewarned you to flee from the anger to come? Bring forth, therefore, fruit worthy of amendment of life. And think not to say with yourselves, We have Abraham to our father; for I say unto you that God is able even of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. And now also is the axe put to the root of the trees; therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire. Indeed, I baptize you with water to amendment of life; but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he will baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire."
"The Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Mark.
"The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Sonne of God: As it is written in the Prophets, Behold I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee--the voice of him that cryeth in the wilderness, Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight! John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of amendment of life for remission of sins."
"The Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Luke.
Chap. iii. verse 3. "And he came into all the coasts about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins."
"The Acts of the Holy Apostles, written by Luke, the Evangelist.
Chap. ii. verse36. "Therefore, let all the house of Israel know, for a surety, that God hath made him both Lord and Christ; this Jesus, I say, whom ye have crucified. Now when they heard it, they were pricked in their hearts, and said unto Peter and the other Apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Amend your lives, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."
Chap. iii. beginning at verse 14--"But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murtherer to be given you, and killed the Lord of life, whom God hath raised from the dead, whereof we are witnesses; and his name hath made this man sound, whom you see and know--through faith in his name, and the faith which is by him, hath given to him this perfect health of his whole body, in the presence of you all. And now, brethren, I know that through ignorance ye did, it, as did also your governors; but those things which God before had showed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath thus fulfilled."
19th verse--"Amend your lives, therefore, and turn that your sinns may be put away, when the time of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. And he shall send Jesus Christ which before was preached unto you, whom the heaven must contain until the time that all things be restored which God hath spoken by the mouth of his holy prophets, since the world began."
Romans vi. 3, (and note)--"There are three parts of this sanctification, to wit: the death of the old man or sin, his burial, and the  resurrection of the new man ascending into us from the virtue of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, of which benefit our baptism is the sign and pledge." No author named; but the note, being at the bottom of the page, is entitled to respect, for antiquity's sake--it shows the opinion entertained then, 1615.
Col. ii. 12, 13--(Note, again) "One end of baptism is the death and burial of the old man, and that by the mighty power of God only, whose virtue we lay hold on by faith in the death and resurrection of Christ.
"Another end of baptism is, that we which were dead in sin might obtain free remission of sins, and eternal life, through faith in Christ who died for us."
1 Cor. 16 to 20--"Concerning the gathering for the saints, as I have ordained in the churches of Gallacia, so do ye also, every first day of the week let every one of you put aside by himself and lay up, as God hath prospered him, that then there be no gathering when I come."
Titus iii. 3 & 6 inclusive--"For we ourselves also were in times past unwise, disobedient, deceived, serving the lusts and divers pleasures, living in maliciousness and envy, hateful and hating one another; but when that bountifulness and that love of God our Saviour toward man apeared, not by the works of righteousness which we had done, but according to his mercy he saved us by the washing of the new birth and the renewing of the Holy Ghost, which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour."
1 Peter iii. 21--"Whereof the baptism that now is answering that figure, (which is not a putting away of the filth of the flesh, but a confident demanding which a good conscience maketh to God,) saveth us also by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
Heb. xi. 1--"Now faith is the ground of things which are hoped for, and the evidence of things which are not seen."
Gal. iii. 2--"This only would I learn of you, received ye the Spirit by the works of the law? or by the hearing of faith preached? 5. He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it through the works of the law? or by the hearing of faith preached?
John iii. last verse--"He that believeth in the son hath everlasting life; and he that obeyeth not the son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him."
Taken from the ancient book, published as stated in 1615, by the King's Printer, London, found in possession of Asa R. Runyon, and James M. Runyon, of Mayslick Oct. 5th, 1831.
We examined and compared the above quotations with the original, as Walker Reid copied the same.
|J. M. RUNYON,
ASA R. RUNYON.
HUMPHREY MARSHALL, Esq.
Mr. MARSHALL has forwarded nearly nine pages of closely written manuscript on the subject of contradictions and falsehoods in the narratives of the Evangelists. His claims for the insertion of this document appear to be founded on the several letters I have addressed him on the subject of his treatise on the debate with Mr. Owen. The rationality and validity of this claim we cannot discern.
Without consulting me or the public, he wrote and published his animadversions on the debate. Without consulting him I have written and published a series of letters in reply to the prominent matters in his pamphlet. This gave him no ground to expect that I would become the publisher of every thing he might hereafter write upon the subject. But as I had, I think, detected and exposed the fallacies of his theory of contradictions, I gratuitously tendered to him an opportunity in these pages of making an effort to sustain any one contradiction. He made his selection, presented his contradiction, and we have examined it. But he is not willing that this matter should end here, and demands the publication not only of a defence of his contradiction, but introduces a number of new alleged falsehoods and contradictions, mingled with much low and vulgar abuse. A just regard to common decency, and to the pledge we have given the public, forbids the publication of this last performance. As it comes not within the purview of the tender we made Mr. Marshal of our pages, and as he can have recourse to the same medium through which he made his original attack, he will excuse us for declining to insert his late communication, We have already paid considerable attention to himself and others who are more disposed to kick against the spurs than to accept eternal life, who are slow to learn the lesson taught by Voltaire, Hume, Volney, Paine, and others, who wasted their energies, ruined their reputation, made greater cowards of themselves by sharpening the sting of death, and illustrated how impotent all genius, wit, talent, and tact to weaken or impair the evidences of a religion, which, like the pure gold, shine most bright when most severely tried. Should he, however, or any other inventor or discoverer of contradictions furnish any thing worthy of notice, while we control a press we hope to be found faithful at our post.
MESSRS. RIDER AND BOOTH.
THESE gentlemen, who were led away with the delusions of Smith's book of Mormon, have publicly renounced the delusion, and returned to the societies from which they had seceded. The latter gentleman has published in a Paynesville Telegraph of last month: his renunciation of Mormonism. He had travelled one thousand miles in quest of the site for the New Jerusalem, in company with Smith and his Prophets. While on this tour his eyes were opened and in his letter to a Methodist brother, of September 12, he avers, that the conviction became to him irresistible that the plotters of this  mercenary and wicked scheme design "the establishment of a society in Missouri, over which the contrivers of this delusive system are to possess unlimited and despotic sway."
REAL AND RELATIVE CHANGE.
AN objection will be made to a saying in the "Extra Defended," age 8, viz. "There is no change more real than a relative change." Real change, it is presumed, is a change in the thing; and relative change is a change in the relation of the thing. For example, an apple while green upon the tree, and when mellow in the hand, has been changed both relatively and really. A change has taken place in the apple as well as in the position or relation of the apple. All this conceded, and what follows? Why, that the above saying cannot he sustained, unless some other meaning be attached to the terms real and relative. Real, as defined by Walker and others, is "not fictitious, not imaginary, true, genuine." In this acceptation of the word, the above saying is obviously correct. But in the "Extra Examined" the term was used constructively to mean that which is inward and moral contrasted with that which is outward and natural, or not moral. This was the position which we oppugned. A relative change may be either inward or outward, moral or natural, and this is true of a real change; and, therefore, as used by the author of the "Extra Examined," there is no change more real than a relative change.
But in strict philosophic propriety, a real change denotes a change in the thing in relation to itself; while a relative change denotes a change of the thing in reference to other things. For example, a change of the words in a book is a real change, because the relation of the words to each other in the book is changed, and thereby the meaning of the book; but the placing of this book in a new shelf is only a change in relation to other books. So of the elements in animals and vegetables. Any change in these is a change of the animal or vegetable; but yet in the most real change of which we can form an idea, there is nothing but a change of relation. And let me add, if we must contrast these words, the most real changes in the universe are the effects of relative changes. The birth and death of a child are both relative changes, but what changes are more real than those which follow from these relative changes! And justification. or pardon, it is admitted, is but a relative change; but what real changes are consequent upon it?
DIALOGUE ON THE HOLY SPIRIT--Part 5.
Austin.--SINCE our last interview I have read Mr. Broaddus remarks upon divine influence in the salvation of men, appended to his "Extra Examined;" and if you will attend to the whole of it now, I will select such passages of it as appear most plausible. 
Timothy.--I am too unwell at this time closely to examine any subject; but as we have met agreeably to appointment, I will hear your remarks upon any part of it.
A. I will, then, read you his "postscript," which I think is a very specious refutation of an argument which occurs on the 484th page of vol. 1 of your periodical.
T. I will attentively hear it.
A. It will be found on the 55th and 56th pages of the "Extra Examined," and thus reads:--
"An argument occurs, p. 484, vol. 1 of the Harbinger, the strength of which I wish to bring to the test; because the author seems to brandish it in triumph, as conceiving it to be irresistible.
It is intended to expose the idea of what Mr. C. calls "physical operations;" and thus it stands--
"Satan has an honor bestowed upon him by the mystic spiritualizers, to which he is not entitled. They represent him as wiser and more puissant than the Almighty. They say he could subvert and ruin the race of men by his word, without any physical operation on the body or soul of man; but God cannot restore or save man by his word, without the use of other weapons than Satan employed against him. Satan's bow and arrow, his sling and stone, say they, call for the artillery, all the munitions of Heaven, physical and moral."
For the application of the term "physical" to those operations on the soul which produce moral effects, I have (as before observed) no partiality. It is for the fact of spiritual operations that I contend; and considering all such operations--all, except the moral influence of the word, as included by Mr. C. under the term "physical;" I proceed to try the validity of this argument. Its whole force is, I think, fairly presented in the following proposition:
Satan used only his word for the ruin of man, without any other operation or influence; and God has occasion for nothing more than his word, for the recovery of man. To represent the case otherwise, and maintain that other measures must be resorted to for man's recovery, is to represent Satan as being wiser and more powerful than the Almighty. On this argument I remark--
1. That it begs the question, by taking for granted what is not allowed, namely, that there was no other influence made use of in the original temptation than the word of Satan. What spiritual influence might have been addressed to the soul, in that case, we do not know; but this we know, that if Satan tempts not but by his word, he does not tempt us now at all. But if we even allow that there was no other influence in the case alluded to than that of Satan's word, then I remark--
2. That the argument founded on this position is fallacious. Were it said that Satan was able to effect the ruin of man, and God was unable to effect his restoration, then might there be some palpable force in the deduction that Satan is represented "as wiser and more puissant than the Almighty." But because it was found requisite to use "other weapons than Satan employed"--measures of another and a more powerful sort, this consequence does not follow. White linen is easily soiled by foul fingers: but it requires soap and water to cleanse it from the stain. If still it be insisted on that the word of Satan produced the ruin of man, and the word of the Almighty ought to be considered sufficient for his restoration, then I remark--
3. That the argument here used by Mr. C. in support of his favorite view may be adopted by a Socinian, or even a Deist, and with equal propriety he brought to bear on the great point at issue between such a character and the Christian. Let us see.
Deist. I maintain that you Christians "bestow an honor on Satan" (if indeed there be such a being) "to which he is not entitled."
Christian. How? 
Deist. You "represent him as wiser and more puissant than the Almighty."
Christian. You are surely mistaken! How do you make it appear?
Deist. You say "he could subvert and ruin the race of men by his word," without any other operation; "but that God cannot restore or save man by his word, without the use of other weapons than Satan employed against him."
Christian. Please explain yourself.
Deist. Why you put all Heaven in requisition for the recovery of man, whose ruin was originally effected merely by the word of Satan. Angels must carry messages to the world;--prophets must be inspired from above;--the Son of God himself must become incarnate and die on the cross;--the word of God must be published abroad; the Spirit of God must hold intercourse with men;--and then, after all, this formidable Satan must be bound with a mighty chain, before your glorious millennial state can bless the world. Sir, you make "Satan's bow and arrow, his sling and stone, to call for the artillery, all the munitions of Heaven, physical and moral!"
Christian. Ah, Sir! I wish you would rightly consider the evil of sin--the holiness of God--and the depraved and ruined state of man; and withal, how much easier it is to destroy than to restore: you would then see cause, instead of caviling, to adore the grace which is displayed in this mighty expenditure for the recovery of the wretched delinquent.
The reader will judge whether in this little dialogue there is not a fair application of Mr. C's argument;--and here I leave it."
T. It is a palpable mistake of the whole matter to which he alludes. To discover it you have only to observe--
That in effecting the apostacy of our progenitors, the word of Satan was the immediate instrument which he used. But this word was only the consummation of his plan. He premeditated the scheme. He assumed the form of a serpent. he placed himself within hearing of the woman, and made himself acquainted with her whole constitution, mental, moral, and physical, and sought out arguments suitable to her nature and circumstances. But in effecting her apostacy he simply employed his word. Now whether your author, friend Austin; has fairly met this view of the question, or whether he has substituted a version of his own, is left to your sober decision.
A. It seems as if he understood you as asserting that Satan's word, because the only immediate instrument, was the only means which he employed in the whole project; whereas you represent it as but the instrument of apostacy, as the word of God is the immediate instrument of salvation. So I understand you; and you disapproved the system which represents the word of God as not the consummation of God's wisdom and power in effecting our restoration, because it gave to Satan more honor than to God, who made his word the consummation of his wisdom and power in the seduction of man.
T. This is the fair construction of the whole matter, as stated in vol. 1, page 484. Instead of which, your author makes a new version, and in his dialogue defeats the phantom he supposed me to create, but in reality a creature of his own creation.
A. I see a beauty in this similitude which I saw not before. The adversary only made his arguments to the woman the termination of his project, the accomplishment of his scheme; so the gospel is the termination of the great scheme of redemption and the accomplishment  of it in the work of conversion. This saves your illustration from the exceptions found in the mouth of your friend Andrew's Deist, and turns the argument still more forcibly against his assumption that both Satan is the subversion, and God in the restoration of man, used some physical or inexplicable power antecedently to his word, or concurrently with it.
T. But, my good friend, indisposition forbids my prosecution of this subject. Will you defer the farther examination of it till another interview?
A. Agreed. Then let us bring it to a close.
CALUMNIES CIRCULATED IN IRELAND
TO RETARD THE PROGRESS OF REFORMATION IN THAT COUNTRY.
Extracts from a correspondent, dated May 6, 1831.
"Mr. Alexander Carson, of Tubermore, is using all the influence he is possessed of to prevent the circulation of your works. He every where affirms that you are an Arian; so that when I and some of my friends recommend the perusal of your writings to the people at large, or to the disciples in particular, we hear nothing but the cry of Arianism," "Socinianism," &c. When we deny that you maintain the principles of any man, and bring forward your writings as proof, the reply generally is, "Oh! Mr. Carson says he is an Arian, and he would not assert a falsehood. There is no necessity for us to examine the writings of a man whom Mr. Carson pronounces unsound in the faith." And as an instance of the injury Mr. Carson is doing you in this country, let me say, that a justly esteemed brother, who has labored zealously and extensively in the cause of God in this country for the past 25 years, is so prejudiced against you through Mr. Carson's representations, that he will not read a page of your works, though repeatedly requested to do so; and I am sorry to add that he too is using his influence against you by giving circulation to Mr. Carson's assertions."
"A Mr. William Edmunds, of New York, in a letter to one of my brothers, says, 'I am sorry to learn that Campbell's works have obtained among you, as I conceive him to be the greatest enemy ever Jesus Christ had in the world."
MONTHLY RECEIPTS for the MILLENNIAL HARBINGER.
D F Newton, Fife's, Va. paid vol 2 for S Pettit and T Spurlock. J Jackson, Jetersvill, Va. vol 2 for W C Jackson, and vols 1 and 2 for himself. F V Sutton, White Chimneys, Va. vol 2 for C Coleman and J Bowers, and 1 dollar on vol 1 for J Woolfolk. S G Earle, Earle's Store, S. C. vol 2 for S Hymen and S Clannahan. J Ficklin, Lexington, Ky. vol 2 for S Bryan, H Coons, T S Graves, A Gibony, J D Hager, W Vanpelt, J Bristoe, R Hunt, and J Rogers. G Archer, Decatur, Ohio, vol 2 for B Sutton, G Edwards, A McMacken, J McConles, W Pickrall, and himself. G Davenport, Somerton, Ohio, vols 1 and 2. P Price, Middletown, Ohio, vol 2. N Snedeker; Uniontown,  Ohio, vol 2. R Howard, Florence, Ohio, vol 2. T J Douthet, Mulloy's, Ten. vols 1 and 2 for W Nimmo, and vol 1 for D Corkran, J Rife, himself, and 50 cents for T Williams. W Ficklin, Elizaville, Ky. vol 2 for J Evans. W Threlkild, E Threlkild, and A Saxton. G W Nuckolls, Shelbyville, Ky. vol 1 for R Glass. M Redding, and J Cox; vol 2 for J Richardson, and vols 1 and 2 for M Hopewood, and P Mason. J M Clapp, Waterbury, Cont. vols 1 and 2. J B Hayward, Carlisle, Ind. vols I and 2. H Ferris, New Canaan, Cont. vols 1 and 2, and 1 dollar for vol 3. C Bullard, Christiansburg, Va. vol 1 for Mr Ragin and A Snow, and vols 1 and 2 for himself. W A Seranton, Rochester, N. Y. vol 2 for M Wilcox and A Frost, and 1 dollar for C G Hill. S Sala, Centreville, Ohio, vol 2. J B New, Vernon, Ind. vol 2 for S King, D Young, T Jameson, and G Holcomb, and 1 dollar for J Clark and himself. G McCleery, Sharon, Pa. vol 2 for A McCleery. W Ralston, Bethany, Va. vol. 1. A G Wintersmith, Elizabethtown, Ky. vol 2 for J Hodgen and himself. W Poston, Winchester, Ky. vol 2 for D W Parrish, W Hazlerigg, and himself. E A Smith, Danville, Ry. vol 1 for W H Richardson and L A Thomas, and vol 2 for A Smith, J Helm, Sen. and J Schofield, and vols 1 and 2 for J J Polk and L Bacon. T Bullock, Rees' Cross Roads, Ky. paid through E A Smith, vol 2 for J B Jesse, J W Craig, J Woolfolk, T Woolfolk, T Hewitt, H Fisher, W George, and Governor Johnston, vol 1 for C Graves, and vols 1 and 2 for D Divine. J Mooney, West Liberty, Va. vol 2. J E Matthews, Barton's, Ala. vol 2 for S K Byrn. W E White, White's Store, S. C. vol. 2 for J Thompson. A Moore, Cynthiana, Ky. vol 2 for J M January and Mrs F Henderson, and 1 dollar for himself. E C Foote, Bethany, Va. paid 10 dollars for six subscribers. T J Latham, Pantego, N. C. vol 2 for M J Clarke. L J Fleming, Paris, Ky. vol 2 for A Kay and Mrs. N Walker, and 1 dollar for A Smith. W Button, Covington, Ind. vol 1 for E Bolling. W Bruce, Bruceville, Ind. vol 2 for G W Lindsay, Bruce & Polke, S D Piety, and vols 1 and 2 for B Fields. M A Stemmons, Stanford, Ky. vols 1 and 2 for Mrs D Bright, and vol 2 for E Romine and J Helm, Jun. J Deardorff, Waynesburg, Pa. vols 1 and 2 for J Price, and vol 2 for D Price, H P Fouts, C Good, and himself. W R Cole, Wilmington, Ohio, vols 2 and 3 for D Radcliff. M Norvill, Nashville, Ten. vol 1 for Nancy Owen, Nancy Childress, W Hume, W A Eichbaum, H Petway, W J Turbeville; Mrs Temple, Mrs Hall, J P Sledge; T N Loring, J Price, H Ewing, T T Harrison, J D March, J B Craighead, and J Peak, and vol 2 for J Harding, R Huston, C G Wren, H Ewing, W J Turbeville, J D March, Mrs Temple, Mrs Childress, T T Harrison, Mrs Claiborne, J Price, J Beatty, and Mrs Hall, vols 2 and 3. G Robison, Pittsburg, Pa. vols 1 and 2 for G Darsie. W McClarin, Pittsburg, Pa. vol 2 for R Sutor and himself. B Pyatt, Pittsburg, Pa. vol 2. J Greer, Pittsburg, Pa. vol 3. S Trevor, Pittsburg, Pa. vols 1 and 2 for Miss Trevor, and vol 2 for himself. J H Garrard, Manchester. Ky. vol 2. W P Young, Brown's, Ten. vol 1 for P Bruce, and vol 2 for E S Tappan, and 1 dollar for S Turner. W S Croxton, Tappahannoch, Va. vols 1 and 2 for A Barnes, vol 1 for F Tebbs, and vol 2 for R Dunn and H Young. W Bootwright, Richmond, Va. vol 1 for S Frazer, At Woodson, T Woodson, W Gathwright, A Jones, J Brown; B Elliott, and vol 2 for L N Elliott, J Bosher, H B Wood, W Calfield, it L Staples, J G Davis, G W Atkinson, Mrs M Willett, A Jones, J H Walthall, J R Ratcliff, S Frazer, Y T Rust, M Woodson, T Woodson, W Gathwright, A Jones, J Brown, B Elliott, L Waller, W Booth, R L Coleman, and E T Elliott. R Holley, Halberts, Ala. vol 2 for G M Richards. O Thomas, Roberts' Store, Ky. vol 2 for L Thomas, and W Crawford, and 1 dollar on vol 3 for himself. N Barker, Rushville, Ind. vols 2 and 3. W H Erwin. Baton Rouge, Lou, vols 1 and 2 for P Thomas; vol 1 for J Forbes and A Spencer, and vol 1 for C G King, G Klinepeter, W Noble, and himself. T S Alderson, Columbia, Ten. vol 2 for C Mack, J N Brown, and A Cathey. W Churchill, Randolph, O. vol 3 for S Colton. O Owens, Cincinnati, O. vol 1 for G Tate, and vol 2 for B Lawson, 
[The Millennial Harbinger, 2 (November, 1831): 481-528.]
[Table of Contents]
Alexander Campbell, ed.|
The Millennial Harbinger, Vol. II, No. XI (1831)
Back to Alexander Campbell Page|
Back to Restoration Movement Texts Page