[Table of Contents]
[Previous] [Next]
Alexander Campbell, ed.
The Millennial Harbinger, Vol. III, No. IV (1832)


MONDAY, APRIL 2, 1832.
{ Vol. III.  
      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. BALL, Editor of the Religious Herald, Richmond, Va. being the tongue of the body of the opposition to reformation in Virginia, may be justly regarded as uttering the views and feelings of the party of which he is the organ. When he speaks he speaks the suggestions of the head and heart of that body of which he is but the tongue. When he is silent he is as much governed by the head and heart as when he speaks--what he publishes and what he withholds are equally indicative of the views and feelings of those whose publishing organ he is. Some of our brethren grievously complain of his suppressions, omissions, and one-sided views of things. But this is not just. As well might they blame the lever of the press, the type, or the ink, or Mr. Sands who beats and pulls physically in their office, as Mr. Ball who elects and reprobates, who selects and rejects, as the fingers which serve the mouth in obedience to the head and heart.

      Mr. Ball is a very faithful and clever little man--faithful to his contract and obedient to his superiors, as every good man ought to be. And why do the brethren of the reformation blame him for not publishing their replies--for only giving his readers a peep into their own side of every matter? It is ungenerous thus to censure him. What! would they have him to starve himself to death, or to go and dig, or teach a school! If the brethren would only reflect a little they would not blame the thorn for not yielding grapes, nor the thistle for not producing figs! Why blame the hand for ministering to the mouth, or the feet for supporting the body? And does not every reformer know that it is ruin to their cause to let both sides he heard? for who so astute in all the ranks of the opposition, as not to see the inexpediency of letting the people hear both sides--as not to see that the ignorance of the people of what is written or spoken against their prejudice, is the only safeguard to their standing--the only rock of their salvation from the reprobation of those on whom they lead for the honors of this life? [145] Mr. Ball is, then, not to be censured, unless a man is to be censured for keeping covenant with man--unless a man is to be repudiated because he cannot serve two masters. We hope our brethren will not henceforth complain of a gentleman whose fidelity to his engagements deserves admiration, and who, if he be culpable at all, is culpable only in having chosen such masters.


      If Mr. Ball's masters would permit him to publish our replies in full, we should give more liberal extracts from himself and his correspondents. But as our readers have already been sated with our extracts, and as our opponents are more in debt to us than they are now able or willing to pay, we cannot find room for them to repeat a hundred times the same objections and to utter the same lamentations, fears, warnings, and reproaches. There is a little novelty in what follows; therefore, we will treat our readers to a few extracts from Andrew Broaddus, from the Herald of the 3d February:--

      "Dear brethren, the signs of the times, and the aspect of things presented to my view, appear to require some monitory remarks, such as I am about to offer to your serious attention. Were I to consult mere inclination, I should be silent; for I have no disposition, I assure you (and those who know me best will bear me witness) to ride in the whirlwind of contention, or to expose myself to the blasts of censure, which are blown forth by those who seem to think we are encroaching on their rights when we oppose their views. It is not inclination, but a sense of duty, which prompts me to this communication. And possessed of this consciousness, (of which none can deprive me,) I am not much concerned about consequences. In these remarks I intend to speak plain language in a friendly spirit."--

      "We now have to view the matter on another side. The trial which has been made in the unfolding of the views alluded to, and in the free use of three odious names and titles, having failed of the desired success; a course appears now to he adopted, somewhat different in its character. The venerable old gentleman who has lately come among us, preaches and teaches, it seems, in a strain with which but few of our people find fault, unless it be on account of something which is wanting in his ministrations; that is, they do not much complain of him for what he says, but for what he does not say. He appears to possess a friendly spirit, and a conciliating disposition. And for this we are willing, I trust, to award to him all due respect.

      "Our aged missionary, coming amongst us in the professed character of a "reformer," exhibits, in certain printed documents, (which I have heard read,) the basis or grounds upon which he seems desirous that the reformation should be established. In these general principles, which do not descend to any particular points of doctrine, it did not occur to me that there was any thing materially objectionable, unless it be that they may leave room for the introduction and the indulgence of sentiments in religion which might be subversive of some vital truths of the gospel of our salvation. And this I deem sufficient to put us on our guard as the keepers of the faith committed to our trust. Shall I be blamed for this caution? Not by any candid person, even though he might differ with me in his views of this case."--

      "Our respected old friend, I have understood, is proposing these documents for the acceptance of the churches. Now allowing that they contain general principles or grounds which we all approve--why, let me ask, should it be requisite for us, in any formal manner, to give our sanction or express our approbation? Is it simply for the purpose of gaining our fellowship? If so, it would be well that our minds should be relieved of some difficulty touching [146] two or three points which we consider of too much importance to be overlooked. But it is presumed that this is not the object in proposing these general principles for our acceptance; for it seems, that by adopting these principles we are to become a reformed people. The question then returns--why is it requisite that we should now, in a formal manner, give our sanction to a set of principles which, in the main, we have long approved and avowed? Is it that some individual or individuals may be decked with the honor of having effected an extensive reformation among the Baptists?"--

      "That the general principles to which I have alluded, are, in the main, good and wholesome principles, as far as they go, I readily allow. They hold out the Scriptures as the only rule and standard of faith and practice, to be imposed on men--discarding all human inventions in religion, and considering prudential regulations as matters of expediency only. We have long avowed these principles; and can see no good reason at this time for a formal recognition of them, at the instance of any person whatever, who may think proper to call on us for that purpose. Let us press these principles on that part of the christian community which may not have adopted them, (and many there be that have not)--and in the mean time, as the real friends of reformation, (without assuming to ourselves the imposing name of "reformers") let us reform in sentiment and practice, in heart and life, as by the light of holy truth it may appear to be requisite.

      "Accept, brethren, this little offering; and may grace, mercy, and peace be with you.

      If our friend Broaddus had been organized with "a disposition to ride in the whirlwind of contention," of which he is totally destitute according to his own demonstration, we should long since have been blown by his "blasts of censure" beyond the Cape of good Hope. Happy for us that he rides not in the chariots of the mountain storm, but in the soft breathings of Spring, which move not the leaves of the beds of violets on which they fall.

      Those gentle breathings, which only moved the proscription and sacrifice of brother Henley; which in 1830 bade all the churches "take heed," and proscribed from their ears every reforming voice; which originated the Semple and Broaddus decrees; which in the Dover Association attempted the ecclesiastical slaughter of the pleaders for the Apostles; which recently admonished all the Baptists to turn away their ears from every man who says "reform;" and which lately instigated a young lawyer out of the church to fight against the representations of one of our correspondents, towards whom he was known to cherish not the best feelings; I say, these gentle breathings, which in perfect mildness fall like the balmy zephyrs of incense breathing May upon the senses of man, were they to be excited into a "whirlwind," or even the "blasts of censure," would not only prostrate the oaks of Bashan, the cedars of Lebanon, but would sweep from the earth every green thing, with the soil which sustains every herb and tree.

      This gentle breath, this ethereal mildness, now warns the churches again. It is not, however, the voice of a lamb, but that of one who "keeps the faith" of many. It is, however, a condemning voice, and, reader, did you ever know one who so gently condemns?--Condemns not for what was said, but for what was not said. The admonitions of friend Broaddus, who never rides on the whirlwind's wing [147] finding no cause for invoking King Æolus the keeper of the winds, regards not the sins of commission but of omission. Was there ever persecution so mild as this! The venerable friend" has said nothing amiss, but he has not said what this "keeper of the faith" thinks he ought to have said. And for this sin against the thoughts of friend Broaddus, he must be denounced as one who has said that which he ought not to have said. Who could please one so mild as this peaceable, gentle, and easily entreated disciple, who, like his gentle and mild and amiable predecessors, found fault with one for "eating and drinking," and with another for "not eating and drinking."

      Nor will he have his nerves implicated so as to excuse him. 'Tis the fault of his muscles. The nerves go free. Conscience makes him courageous as one of the "keepers of the faith committed to his trust."


      The Virginians in old times made an Apostle;--(I mean the Virginia Baptists;) else Semple and Benedict have slandered them. But here is one who has assumed for himself and his brethren the highest apostolical function. Paul could say nothing higher of himself than that "he had kept the faith" committed to his trust--that is, the truth of the gospel. But it seems it is yet to be kept by those in Virginia to whom it is entrusted. But which of these successors who keep the faith in trust shall the people of Virginia look up with confidence? To the Baptist, Methodist, Episcopalian, or Presbyterian Apostles? The keepers have left the faith to contend about which of them has it in keeping. I always thought that every anti-reformer had a Pope in his stomach; and surely if this most mild and gentle of all the anti-reformers, who, according to his own demonstration, is as peaceable as a dove, has the conceit of himself that he is entrusted, in common with some other six trustees, to keep the faith for all Virginia; may we not say that the Baptists are in Babylon, and that their Apostles are as discordant as any of those inhabiting the more public streets of the great city? But there remains one difficulty: if the Lord has made friend Broaddus a trustee of the faith of Virginia, why has he not honored him with more unequivocal credentials!


      The ancient gospel and order of things, so long plead by the Editor of this work and his fellow-laborers in this reformation, exert a direct and an indirect influence upon religious society. Many sinners have been converted to a more perfect knowledge of the way of the Lord, and to a more exact conformity to it. Besides, many have been induced to give up only a part of their traditions and human inventions and of these some are our warmest opposers. Of these we find a goodly number amongst the two sects called Baptists and Christians. Yet one acquainted with the strain of preaching and writing amongst these [148] leaders and preachers, must see a manifest and palpable difference between their addresses some few years ago and their present exhibitions from the pulpit and the press. This I would not call up to notice were it not that some of these are continually denouncing us as heretics, while they are, in various measures, and in diverse manners, teaching our heresies.

      The following extracts from one who has latterly been figuring on a large scale in opposition to our proceedings, will, among many other things from his pen, justify the charge of sundry of our heresies against himself. He seems far to transcend us in his claims for an episcopacy. He assumes a Bishop's office, of more extent than Paul or we are willing to allow him. He is not content with being the Bishop of one or four congregations; but now claims a diocese as large as the English Prelates. The following is from a parochial address to the ministers--yes, to the "ministers and churches" of, Virginia.

      Before Bishop Semple's demise he was only a co-ordinate in the episcopacy of Virginia; but now he is the diocesan of the whole commonwealth. Hear him, gentle reader, in the words following from the Religious Herald of February 17th:--"ADMONITION FOR MINISTERS AND CHURCHES." Whether the geographical bounds of Virginia limit his jurisdiction, is not so evident. But waving a discussion foreign to our purpose, we shall attend to a part of his admonition to the clergy of Virginia and the brethren under his admonitory jurisdiction:--

      "One capital error amongst these poor creatures is the particular object which has drawn from me this little communication. Too many of them indulge and cherish the idea that God instructs them in some direct and miraculous manner, in all necessary religious knowledge. Hence visions, voices, and impulses make up their volume of revelation; and while they look on the white people as being taught merely by the Book, they consider themselves as instructed by the inspiration of the Spirit.

      "It is easy to conceive that this fond fancy may prove as a cloud to intercept the light of divine truth; for, while they are wrapt in this notion, they will he too indifferent to the instruction which the word of God imparts, to take much pains in seeking for it. It is easy to conceive that this conceit may become a source of evil; for as they care but little about scriptural instruction, and of course know but little of it, they may follow their own revelations, not only where the Holy Scripture would not sanction, but where it would actually condemn their practice.

      "The force of divine truth, indeed, is so pervading, and so prevalent, that it is not probable any flagrant enormities could be conscientiously practised amongst us, under the influence of this imaginary inspiration; and it would be difficult to convince me that Nat Turner, with all his fanaticism, really acted conscientiously, according to his views, in the infernal work in which he was engaged. Still, however, this erroneous idea, it must be admitted, is fruitful of evil: nor can we tell whereunto, if unchecked, it might possibly grow: and for the sake of these degraded beings--for our own sake--and for the sake of true religion, the error, as far as practicable, ought to be corrected. Their prejudices are hard to be broken down, and their situation renders it tedious and difficult to impart to them religious instruction in detail but something may be done. We have, indeed, frequently taken occasion to throw out some correctives of their false views, but possibly we may not have given this object due attention. [149]

      "Extremes are often found among mankind. On the one we are assailed with the doctrine that the Holy Spirit had nothing to do with us, except as having dictated the word of truth, and infused into it a holy spirit which we may receive. Let us, however, maintain the precious truth that the Holy Spirit visits the soul of man--dwells in the humble heart; and that 'God will give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him.' On the other hand we are annoyed with the conceit that God is teaching all necessary truth by visions, voices, and impulses--without the necessity of instruction from the Holy Scriptures, the vehicle of divine knowledge. Let us, as occasion may offer, correct the false idea. Let us inculcate the necessity of looking to God for the grace of his Holy Spirit, to enable us understandingly to receive and follow his revealed will, in the word of truth, while we take that as our guide in faith and practice. Let us insist that the Holy Spirit never prompts us to any thing not sanctioned by the word of God: and let us press on all the necessity of using every means to ascertain God's will as therein revealed; particularly as revealed in the New Testament, the clearer revelation, and the special guide and directory to the christian church."

      Now, courteous reader, this is just as true of the white as it is of the black Baptists. And this was the head and front of our offending the denomination. All that we have said against their views of the Holy Spirit, not against the Holy Spirit, but against their views of the Holy Spirit, is summarily comprehended in the above remarks. We believe that there are tens of thousands of the white and free, both Calvinian and Arminian, that are just as visionary, and whose religion is founded as wholly upon dreams, voices, and impulses, as is that of the class of Bishop Broaddus' diocese, which he represents as making a volume of revelation out of these spiritual voices, dreams, and impulses. And we now say before God, angels, and men, that this was the sole cause or occasion of our hazarding our reputation and jeopardizing our influence in the commencement of our labor$ even in the 8th No. of vol. 1. C. Baptist, by calling in question the experiences detailed by blacks and whites before immersion. It was not to deny the experience of christians, properly so called; it was not to deprive the obedient disciples of Jesus Christ of the consolations of the Holy Spirit; it was not to teach a christianity without the Spirit of God, or to derogate aught from the character, office, or agency of the Spirit of Truth in the salvation of men: but to exterminate that desolating error to which this Bishop now calls the attention of "the ministers and brethren," that we began to write upon this subject. In commendation of our first nine essays upon the work of the Holy Spirit, [C. B. vol. 2.] who as Bishop Broaddus was once so encomiastic?

      The two most pernicious errors growing out of the Baptist and Methodistic exhibitions of the gospel spring from this one. I call them two errors, because of the two erroneous bearings of this Negro notion, first undoubtedly imbibed from the approved preachers among the whites. I say this Negro notion of a volume of revelation made up of spiritual dreams, visions, and impulses. Its tendency, as Bishop Broaddus says, is to produce "a cloud to intercept the light of divine truth;" and thus we find thousands of professors, white and black, almost as ignorant of God and of Christ as children resting their [150] hopes of heaven upon this revelation of dreams, visions, and impulses. These are the rock of their salvation. And the other tendency, equally pernicious, is that eventuating in despair. How many are there, who, because they cannot tell so good a revelation of dreams, voices, and impulses, are never moved to action under all the lights and influences of God's, true spirit striving with them. The fanatics of Nat Turner's school, and all the enthusiasts of every other school, together with all the despairing suicides, and doubting and fearing drivellers, those hangers on religious society, are the victims of this capital error. Glad am I to see that Bishop Broaddus has got his eyes open to this subject at length, and that he has become as heretical as ourselves; and I am sure if he had given this admonition to "the ministers and churches" some ten years ago, it would have been still more necessary than now, and likely might have prevented the fanaticism of Nat Turner and some other kindred spirits, as visionary, though not so infernally instigated as he was.

      Believing that "it is eternal life to know the only true God and his Son Jesus Christ his Apostle." we set ourselves in the first volume of our labors to expose this destructive error, and to found religion where its divine author founded it--in the words just now quoted from his lips. Had it not been for this error, the long controversy about spiritual operations had never been broached.

      Our three great maxims, which we have never before laid side by side; but which have been three cardinal points in our theological compass, are these:--

      1. The testimony of God believed, constitutes christian faith.

      2. The testimony of God understood, constitutes christian knowledge.

      3. The testimony of God obeyed, constitutes christian practice.

      Corollary.--All true religion is founded upon the testimony of God, developed and authenticated by the Holy Spirit.

      But because we have protested against a new revelation of spiritual dreams, voices, and impulses, we have been slandered, denounced; and proscribed by all the dreamers, and by all those whose authority with the people rested upon the relations which they made concerning their spiritual calls, dreams, visions, and impulses; amongst whom we are now sorry, to rank Bishop Broaddus, notwithstanding his having become so heretical.

      It is true he would take a little credit to himself for traducing us into the error which he has invented for us, of what he calls "the Holy Spirit having infused into the word a holy spirit, which we may receive," and in holding this up as our extreme to balance the other extreme of "the ministers and churches" he has admonished. But this we repel as a slander. If he will induce "the ministers and churches" to form all their ideas of religion from the written word, and to rely upon no light but the testimony of God in their hearts, as he now endeavors, we will never say a word on the subject of spiritual influences. He may philosophize amongst the fathers and mothers, [151] the sons and daughters of men, about the, modus operandi, till the day of his death, without provoking a demur or a caveat from us.

      We do not, however, repent of our course, seeing that even our warmest and most dogmatical opponents are admonished by it to change their course; and while they ostensibly oppose, in fact cooperate with us in many important items.

      The following incontrovertible facts have much meaning, and disprove the theories opposed to us:--

      1. In the vegetable kingdom God creates all that has vegetable life by a power which never operates out of an established channel. Nature cannot produce an oak without an acorn, the soil, and the influences of atmospheric air, solar rays, and moisture. Thorns bear not grapes, thistles yield not figs, nor vines olive berries, says James; and so says our observation. God has not, in six thousand years, or since the first creation, exerted any power to produce any vegetable product but in an authenticated and established channel. This is the law of God's creative power. We speak not of miracles, but of the established order of things in vegetable life and being.

      2. In the animal kingdom God creates all that has animal life by a power which never operates out of an established channel. Wolves bring not forth lambs, nor lions kids. From the egg of the serpent there is not hatched a dove, nor are the feathers of the ostrich plucked from the wings of a raven. Human beings come not forth from the fowls of the air, from the fish of the sea, nor from the beasts of the field. His power to create all these operates only in immutable channels, subject to undeviating laws.

      3. In the spiritual kingdom God creates all that has spiritual life by a power which never operates out of an established channel. Men will sooner see with their fingers and hear with their hands, than man or woman have one spiritual idea without the written word. Hence where this vision is not, the people sit in darkness and dwell in the region and shadow of moral death. What does the native Hindoo, the Japanese, the Tartar, or the Colombo Indian know of the sacrifice of Jesus or the remission of sins through the blood of the Son of God. As soon as we discover a human being possessed of any spiritual idea without oral or written tradition, we will find apples without trees, lambs without dams, and infants without mothers. It is God creates us anew in Christ Jesus--it is the power of God that gives us spiritual life--and it is the power of God which gives us a kid, a dove, a fig, and an apple; but this power is subject to laws, and operates in channels which are unchangeable. And until men can explain how the bones of a child are formed in the womb, how the plumes of the peacock are developed from the egg, and how the orange emanates from the germ of a shrub, they will not be able to explain the operation of the Spirit of God which gives spiritual life to the soul dead in trespasses and sins. Our wisdom is not to speculate, and worry and devour each other because of our discordant theories of vegetable, animal, and spiritual life; but our wisdom is to sow wheat in the earth, to plant corn in the soil, to look for lambs from [152] the fold, grapes from the vine, and spiritual ideas from the revelation of God. Did not these analogies exist, our Saviour would not have borrowed his illustrations from parents and children, from quickening and being born, from the plant and the vine, from the earth and its fruits, from sowing and reaping, from bread and water, from life and death, from nature and society.

      But here is the folly of our opponents: they tell us that they cannot explain how any one is born of the Spirit, and yet condemn us for not receiving and teaching their theory! Reader, remember this.


      But we shall, from the aforesaid Religious Herald, introduce Andrew Broaddus under his title of "Christianos," with his dilemmas and his reductio ad absurdum:--

      "1. We shall now place the advocates of this sentiment in a dilemma, from which we think they can find no way to escape:--

      "It is admitted that faith must precede baptism, otherwise baptism is of no avail. Now this faith either "works by love," or it does not. If it does not work by love, then, not only is it wanting in validity, according to the Apostle's representation, but then must the subject be baptized without any love to Jesus Christ, and so must be under the apostolic anathema Here, then, is one horn of the dilemma. If this faith does work by love, then the subject loves Jesus Christ before he is baptized (which certainly he ought to do;) and love being the very essence of religion, he must have a holy spirit before he is baptized; and whence comes this holy spirit, if, as yet the Holy Spirit has not been imparted to him? Here is the other horn of the dilemma. Now, candid reader, is not the advocate for the sentiment above mentioned enclosed between these two horns?

      "2. We shall reduce the argument or sentiment to an absurdity. And here we shall use what logicians call the argumentum ad hominem, or take the advocates of the sentiment on their own ground.

      The holy spirit which believers receive is derived, it seems, merely from the word,--or from imbibing the truth. This is all the Holy Spirit that they plead for. Now can a person truly repent and unfeignedly believe in Jesus Christ, without "receiving the love of the truth" or the truth in the love of it? Surely not. Well, then, the penitent believer receives the word, by which only the Holy Spirit, or a holy spirit, can be received; and yet before baptism he has received no holy spirit with it--he has received it as "a dead letter"--aye, as a dead letter: but after baptism he receives, in the same word, the Holy Spirit. Mirabile dictu! If this be not glaring inconsistency--downright absurdity--I would fain know what is so?"

      We shall test this dilemma by applying it to its inventor's theory. We shall regard the mechanism of its horns with all logical accuracy. It is argued that the Spirit must precede faith, i. e. must enter the heart of an unbeliever and operate upon it, otherwise faith is of no avail. Now this spirit either works by the truth or it does not. If it does not work by the truth, then not only is its work wanting in holiness according to the Saviour's representation, but then must the subject believe without any truth to be believed, and so must come under the Saviour's condemnation--"He that believeth not the gospel shall he condemned." Here, then, is one horn of the dilemma. If this spirit does work by the truth, then the subject knows or has [153] received the truth before he believes, (which certainly is a very singular proposition,) and the truth (or gospel) being the very substance of faith, he must have faith before he believes. Here is the other horn of the dilemma. Now, candid friend Broaddus, are not you the advocate of such a sentiment, "enclosed between these horns." These, too, are not horns of wax, like those you have wrought for others. These horns will not be melted by a touch of the fire of truth like those fancy horns which your fervid imagination has fashioned for a terror to the inquisitive. These waxen horns are dissolved when it is understood that there is no faith working by love, but that which is leading the soul forward in obedience, or that no one can truly love the Saviour whose soul is not following him in all the obedience of the truth. The love, then, as well as the peace of mind tasted before the overt act, is always coexistent with, or subsequent to, the determination to act. The case of Simon [Extra, No. 3, p. 20.] who is reprieved on condition of a stipulated act, might have saved the labor of forming this dilemma had its creator been mindful of what he there read.

      But this dilemma, in its second horn, is as perfect a quibble as ever made a jury smile: for who can imagine a faith working by love before it works at all? The faith of friend Broaddus, by which he was justified on his theory, never worked either by love or fear until he was justified! for if he had been justified by a faith working by any principle, he would not have been justified by grace, John Calvin being judge. What sophisms do some zealous-minded disciples construct when they set about making dilemmas to entangle the unwary and to allure them from those whom they cannot meet on the book!

      But once more on this dilemma, and the absurdity, by way of make-weight, added to it. His assumption is false; for we do not affirm. "that all the holy spirit for which we plead is derived merely from the word." He is then fighting with a chimera of his own creation. We contend that our heavenly father gives his Holy Spirit to them who submit to the government of his Son. But, inasmuch as Andrew cannot explain how any man is born of the Spirit according to his favorite text, "The wind bloweth," &c. how dare he condemn any thing we have said or written on the subject!!! We say that no person can enter into the kingdom unless born of the Spirit. He says so too. But he says he cannot tell how one is born of the Spirit as he cannot tell whence the wind comes or goes.

      The consolations of the gospel of the Holy Spirit preached by Bishop Broaddus, appear to be the following:--

      Article 1. No man can believe unless the Holy Spirit work faith in his heart.

      2. The Spirit works faith only in the hearts of a very few of them who hear the gospel.

      3. In these few it works by no other system than arbitrary choice.

      4. If the unbeliever ask for the Spirit, he is not to be heard nor regarded; for without faith it is impossible to please God.

      5. If he read the Scriptures he cannot understand them, for they are spiritually discerned. [154]

      Corollary.--Every natural man is by this gospel of the Spirit comforted with the peradventure, that perhaps it may he his good fate to be one of those in whom the Spirit will work faith; and if not, he must stoically await his doom. This is our reductio ad absurdum of his theory of what he cannot explain. And with this we shall bid him adieu for the present, waiting for his solution of this quillemma.

For the Millennial Harbinger.

KING & QUEEN, January 30, 1832.      

Brother Campbell,

      THE particular design of this communication is to correct your notice of the case of suicide, published in the December number of the Harbinger. The report, as it now stands, may lead to unfavorable impressions, and ought to be, in any event, corrected. The brother of whom you received information, was doubtless unacquainted with the facts of the case, else the mistakes existing in the report would not have been made. In these days it is no easy matter to get at the truth upon subjects of common report.

      Mr.------ never presented himself for membership to any church in King William, nor withdrew from any appointed immersion. These are the mistakes of the report, (the balance being substantially correct, as alledged to me by his brother-in-law, a truly respectable disciple,) and will be corrected when I have stated that he presented himself for admission to the First Baptist Church in Richmond, and would have been there baptized, without any objection that we know of, but for the circumstance of his suddenly leaving town. His mind became affected, and seemed to dwell more particularly upon his religious exercises than usual; and he would speak of the effects of the different methods of proclaiming the gospel, and the improprieties into which he had fallen while detailing before the church a long experience; declaring, as his friend informed me, that if he had heard the ancient gospel only, he should not so have sinned, but been a happy man. These things may be considered by some as the mere figments of a maniac's fancy; be it so: but all who know him well, will probably admit that he was a young man of acute sensibility, and upon the subject of religion would be as likely as not to suffer from discordant teaching. I conversed with him not long before he went to Richmond, and from what was to be learned from himself or others., he appeared to be a firm believer in the Saviour, but apologized for his disobedience by urging his desire to obtain some extraordinary manifestation of the divine favor? Fatal teaching! It seems to me that the funeral fires of Brahma are less destructive of the great interests of immortal souls, than is the influence of this doctrine as commonly inculcated in christendom. The very best classes of society are, by its legitimate operation, made to suffer most largely. The moral man is made to wait and look, and look and wait, until he learns fairly to live without God in the world, or is thrown into [155] frenzy; while the man of high intelligence, equally disappointed, turns away from the only "rock in a weary land," and seeks a shelter under the "gourd vine" of reason! May God speed the day when all who are so far under the divine influence as to be able to say that "Jesus is the Christ," and are willing to take up their cross and follow him, shall be counted worthy of an admission into his earthly kingdom!

      We have had the pleasure in this quarter of a visit from your venerable father. Though his head be hoary, his heart seems still warm under the benign influence of the Sun of Righteousness. We trust that the Lord will do great things by him. While he makes manifest the truth to the opposer, he inculcates, by his deportment and his teaching, the necessity of prudence, meekness, temperance, patience, (as our Lord had long ago taught,) among the friends of reform. How good it is thus to be admonished and instructed! As little as I am thought by some to regard "unity among brethren," yet I must be so contrary, as to say, that its charms and its blessings are unspeakable! To see the congregations of Christ at rest upon the immutable foundation of revelation, is at once to embrace the wishes of christians in reference to the happiness of Zion on the one hand, and the grand overthrow of "the prince of the power of the air" on the other. But these objects, so devoutly to be wished, cannot be attained without a general unity of heart, head, and hand; nor this last without the sanctifying influence and control of the word of God.

      It seems to me that a temporary separation must extensively affect the Baptist congregations, but that a final happy and permanent union, constituting the nucleus of all future true enlargement, will be formed upon the basis of the New Testament. It further appears to me that the state of things does not constitute a schism of the body of Christ, since the idea of a schism must necessarily include both a separation from each other, and a departure also from God--the doing of something in violation of his revealed will concerning us. As to ourselves (christians) it seems likewise to embrace a principle of practical alienation that will clearly violate the laws of love and all good fellow-feeling. Are these things true of those who are now contending, as they avow, for "the faith once delivered to the saints?" If these ranklings of carnality are cherished by us, it is high time to turn our hand within to the work of eradication; "Physician, heal thyself," should be a daily motto with us. But are we not ready and willing to salute those who oppose us as christian brethren--believe them to be so--invite and cordially unite with them around the table of our common Lord? But have we not hard feelings towards some who oppose us, and occasionally speak harshly of them? Many of us I am sure will plead guilty here. We have all thought and spoken unadvisedly of our brethren. In a state of society, such as we now witness, it is almost impossible to avoid talking much of each other as parties and as individuals. The parties effect their designs through the instrumentality of individuals; and it is from one to the other we are constantly compelled to advert in our private circles. And here it is particularly that we contribute our quantum of that gigantic lever [156] which turns the destinies of countries, and more especially such as ours; I mean public opinion. This truly is a treasure to any people; but the people of God ought to he prudent in the exercise of a right in a wrong way; in other words, be cautious lest we speak unadvisedly while we speak even unavoidably. But there is one evil existing in this controversy, deeply to be lamented by every good man. It is by no means confined to yourself. We are generally, as well as yourself, misunderstood by all who have not troubled themselves to be correctly informed, [this is natural enough,] but a large number profess to be informed correctly, and yet misrepresent us upon every point in dispute! When this course was first taken up, believing our brethren to be good men, particularly those who took the lead in this quarter, for one, I confidently predicted that when their mistakes were denied and corrected, as good men they would cease to reiterate them. But contradiction was succeeded by explanation, and this by Scripture assertion and illustration, entirely in vain. Face to face have we denied, defended, and explained, to no purpose--the same old tale of "no divine influence"--"no living faith"--"no change of heart" (not noticing the difference between change of place, for which they seem to think we contend, and change of state,)--"the perfect sufficiency of water alone," &c. is often told, clothed not unfrequently with insinuations and innuendoes. Can I say, "Forgive them; they know not what they do?" Our civil code would not excuse such a course; and is the righteousness of God, as laid down in his word, a lower standard? Can a man be justifiable in doing wrong, who is warned, and then furnished with every necessary mean and motive for doing right? But it is an unavoidable effect upon the heart of those thus misrepresented, that we are made to deplore. Our brethren, by this perverse course, force us into a low estimate of their virtue. What! a christian repeat that report of his brother, (which that brother has denied again and again,) and that too to the injury of his fellow-christian! Under such circumstances, where is the charity that would impose upon me the necessity of believing thistles to be figs? This state and such effects are greatly to be lamented. Should we not endeavor to be more clear, if possible, in the ground occupied by us, clearing our way, as far as practicable, of all difficulties? The time in which we live is truly trying. A great prize awaits us should we fight a good battle. Of one thing I feel certain--we need the whole armor of the christian, not omitting the comforting promise, "I will not leave you orphans."

      Instead of a very short letter, which I designed, I find myself at the end of quite a long one. With the best wishes for your temporal and spiritual welfare, I remain yours truly,
J. DU VAL.      

For the Millennial Harbinger.

KING & QUEEN, February, 1832.      

Brother Campbell,

      THE Saviour, in that prayer which is presented to us in the 17th chapter of John's testimony, makes the following an item [157] "Consecrate them by the truth; thy word is the truth." In his first epistle to the Corinthians Paul invokes the disciples thus: "Now, brethren, I beseech you by the Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but, that you be perfectly united in the same mind and in the same judgment." Again, in the beginning of the 12th chapter of Hebrews, he says, "Let brotherly love continue." The Apostle John, who seems to have been most eminently adorned with this heavenly principle, teaches the same doctrine. "If any one say, 'Certainly I love God,' and yet hate his brother, he is a liar. For he who loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?" Now if we have love to God and love to man, we shall be willing to do every thing in our power that shall seem fairly calculated to advance the glory of the one and the welfare of the other. If this be true, there will hardly be any disagreement upon another point, to wit: that to obey God implicitly will constitute the best offering that can be made to him, while it effectually promotes the best interest of man. "And this commandment have we from him, that he who loveth God, love his brother also." And again: "By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments." From these express declarations, to which no christian can demur, we learn two most important points of christian duty: that christians ought to love one another; and in the present divided state of the christian body, strive earnestly for a recovery of their lost union. Without both of them, it seems to me impossible to honor God as we ought, or to bear each other's burdens, as members of the same body, as it becomes us to do. Not more unreasonable would it be for the head to say, 'I have no need of the feet,' than for one christian to judge and reject another without good reason. If christians should ever become instrumental in the hand of God, in the conversion of the world, (which certainly seems to be his will concerning us,) the happy period must at any rate, we think, be postponed to the day of our reconciliation, upon gospel principles, to each other. Can an, event so glorious be rationally and religiously anticipated? Of its possibility I have no doubt. God has willed it, he still wishes it, and sooner or later it must happen. As but one body, fighting under one Captain, the time must come when we shall cease to fight, bite, and devour each other, and make head alone against the common enemy. This cannot be done without reconciliation--without union. If we will not agree to endeavor on all hands to bring about such a state by amicable means, candidly reason together in charity upon our differences, trace them to their source, weigh all things fairly in the "balances of the sanctuary;" may we not expect the wrath of God to be poured upon a disobedient and divided people in a thousand ways? The history of the world presents a chequered scene of blessings and afflictions upon the human family at large; but of all the calamities ever imposed upon any portion of mankind, those inflicted upon God's ancient people far exceed. Upon [158] what principle may professors of the, christian religion, whose departures from the will of God are equally glaring in many conspicuous respects, as were those of the Jews, (circumstances being fairly considered) expect extraordinary indulgence? Is the present state of the Jews more culpable, or in more direct violation of God's known will, than the existing state of what is called the christian world? Let this question be fairly weighed, and it seems to me that but a small advantage only will be found on the side of the professors of a religion, many of the great precepts of which are utterly neglected or trampled on, above those to whom "blindness in part" has happened for a season, under God's own hand.

      Among the congregations of the Baptist denomination, to your efforts, aided by those of all descriptions who have set their hand to the work of reformation with you, the greatest resistance has been made. The fire has burned long and hot--the contest has been sharp and boisterous; and we begin now to look for something like a calm. If I could, I would proclaim an armistice; but if this must fail, I would at least come to a parley, and endeavor to reason with our brethren who have been offended at our course; peradventure we may convince them that they have not fully regarded the Holy Spirit's injunction--"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." We claim no infallibility, and may ourselves be convinced of error. We stand pledged to receive truth wherever and whenever we find it.

      It is my wish and design, with the blessing of God, to aid in bringing about a more distinct understanding of the parties in our own denomination, upon a few points, which are not duly appreciated in this controversy. I trust that they will be so presented as to merit the notice of our opposing brethren. Nothing less than an all-pervading unity of Christ's body on earth, should now actuate the friends of reform. Its scriptural practicability I shall endeavor to show before I conclude the contemplated essays. This will constitute the last link in the chain. The first will be to invite the attention of the anti-reformed to the difference between a change of state and of place.

      This subject will require but few words; every intelligent reader, to whom I particularly address myself on this subject, will, by a moment's reflection, he convinced that there is a radical and great difference betwixt the things submitted. Every one will admit that a change of state includes much more than a change of place. Every intelligent christian will also admit that while no change of place can make a sinner a christian, that a change of state can. Your slave may presume to occupy a place beyond his station in your drawing-room or bed-chamber, but this will in no wise affect the relation of master and slave. Now if I have reason for calling the attention of the class of your readers above named, to this subject, that reason is to be found in the fact, that they attributed, and do still attribute no more to your and our application of the "doctrine of remission," than is fairly to be attributed to a change of place only. [159] I feel ready to admit that if we taught as they say we teach, and make disciples according to their misconceptions of our course, nothing is more true than that what results is no more than the results of a mere change of place. I admit that men might present themselves for immersion, without faith, repentance, reformation, or love to God or man, and be immersed, and thus be apparently discipled, and after all only have changed their place, even though they should occupy the pulpit. But do our brethren not know that no barrier is sufficient to arrest such things either according to their or our view? Do they forget how soon, when an apostacy occurs, they raised the suggestion that the individual had deceived them; that the heart was not changed? Now if they will admit this, and are at the same time apprised of our course of instruction upon the same point, and that we would make exactly the same explanation of apostacy that they do, is it not entirely unfair and illiberal to impress mankind, as far as possible, with the idea that we call for nothing that necessarily implies a change of heart or state? This subject has been so fully discussed since the extra Harbinger on remission, that it would he useless to enter now into the nature of relations. These are suited to the objects embraced by them, and influenced by peculiar circumstances. The different states dependent upon peculiar relations, are very different from one another, and very differently changed, agreeably, to their peculiarities. The filial state can only be changed by death; the state of celibacy, by the law of the land; the state of slavery in the same way; and a state of condemnation as exhibited by the sons of disobedience, can only be altered by a law of heaven. Some of these involve by necessity a previous change of heart, while others require no such change. If it had been so ordered that men were to be made christians in the same way that a master liberates his slave, by a mere act of sovereignty, with or without his knowledge, it would have required no change of heart on the part of the creature; all would have been done by God, and all would have been done well; but as it is, the Sovereign has said that believing his gospel with the whole heart, repenting of our sins against him, reforming our lives, and submitting to his instituted plan of salvation and government, are essentials which must be accordingly regarded by us. These things, as the conspicuous symptoms of disease, prove our diagnostics in ascertaining that change of heart which will justify a transgressor in submitting to immersion for the remission of sins, and thereby to be fully ushered into the church militant. Much more might be said, but it is unnecessary. This subject has been taken up, because so many of our brethren have appeared to act under its influence. We call upon them to reconsider their verdict; to mete to us good measure. Upon this subject they have done us great injustice. "All things whatsoever you would that men should do to you, do you even so to them; for this is the law and the prophets."

      In the hope of a better state, yours truly,
JOHN [160]      

In reply to the attempts of Messrs. Broaddus and Ball.

SPARTA, Caroline, January 31, 1832.      

Dear Sir,

      IN the Millennial Harbinger, (No. 1, vol. 3,) I find a communication to the Editor, from my old friend Thomas M. Henley, (a liberal contributor to that work,) purporting to be an "obituary notice of Bishop Robert H. Semple."

      Feeling as I do, entirely confident that there is in this "notice" an erroneous representation of a circumstance relative to my lamented friend, your deceased father, I have considered it due to the cause of truth and the memory of the dead, that this circumstance should be examined into and the error corrected.

      In this communication Mr. Henley states that Mr. Campbell, Sen. "delivered a discourse on the reformation now going on; after hearing which brother Semple bid him God speed. That same evening they partook of the loaf together; and after making some inquiry into the reformation we are laboring to bring about among all the worshippers of Jesus Christ our Lord, at parting he gave the old gentleman his benediction."

      Such is Mr. Henley's statement to the Editor of the Harbinger; who, in his remarks, rehearses the substance of it with much complacency, filling up some little vacancies in Mr. Henley's account, to finish out the representation:--"He heard my father deliver a discourse in Fredericksburg," &c. "He also had a conversation with him at dinner, in the house of brother Leitch, Fredericksburg; with both of which he was so well pleased, as not only to unite with him in commemorating the Lord's death, but, in bidding him adieu, to give him his benediction, and to bid him God speed in the work of reformation." Such is the second edition of this statement, revised and emended.

      In calling in question the correctness of this statement, without intending to bring a charge of intentional misrepresentation of facts, I mean to say that I am persuaded it is calculated to produce a very erroneous impression. As Mr. H. (I well know) is too apt to mistake his own suspicions for ground on which to levy a charge--so it is not unlikely that his own hopes may appear sufficient ground for drawing a favorable conclusion.

      At any rate, this matter ought to be set in a proper light. So I think, and so think all to whom I have mentioned it. My object, therefore, in addressing you on this occasion, is, to suggest to you (and a suggestion will doubtless be sufficient) the propriety of examining into the fact of this circumstance, in its real bearings, and having the result published in the Religious Herald, and wherever else you may judge expedient. Mr Campbell will surely do you the justice to publish it in the Harbinger Your mother, whose piety and veracity none will question, can give you information which will go far towards neutralizing the impression this statement is calculated to produce. From her I received at the house of our excellent friend Mr. Webb, on the day after your father's funeral, such an account of his feelings, while the venerable old gentleman was in Fredericksburg, as would put it beyond the heart of man to consider the statement otherwise than as having a grievously erroneous bearing.

      That your father might find no fault with any thing advanced in the documents said to have been exhibited to him (which they call the grounds of the reformation) is very possible, as they descend to no particular points of doctrine, and that, in his usual form of adieu, he might say, "The Lord be with you," is quite probable: but for a moment to suppose that he approved of the sentiments called "Campbellism," seems to be entirely out of the question.--Did any expression to that effect escape from him in his family? [161]

      "Had it not been for this most happy incident," (says the Editor, alluding to the communion and the benediction, &c)--"had it not been for this most happy incident, his sun had set behind a cloud." This is the closing remark in the obituary notice! So, then, this dispelled the darkness that would have shrouded his dying bed. And is it thus the "reformation" is to be promoted? I certainly wish well to the cause of real reformation, but not to this way of setting it forth.

      It is matter of curiosity to compare some things which friend Henley has said of "Bishop Semple" during his life-time, with what he can now say, since he is laid in the grave. For instance, in the Harbinger before the last, p. 552, "I regret exceedingly to see Bishop Semple and the Messrs. Montagues guilty of misrepresenting their brethren," &c. And now, in the obituary notice--"You know he was a truly good man, and few men have labored more to promote the happiness and salvation of mankind." However, it is well to relent, even towards the dead.

      I have written by candle light, ready for the mail tomorrow; have been much longer than I had designed, and must close. My best regards to your mother and the family.

      With esteem and best wishes, yours,

      The publication to which Mr. Broaddus refers, I had heard of some days previous to the receipt of his letter, and had procured the number which contained it from a gentleman of this place. I read it with much surprise, mingled with some degree of satisfaction. Surprise that Mr. Henley, who, in the Harbinger of December, had spoken of my father in terms of severe and unqualified condemnation, should, in the short period of four weeks, so far subdue his feelings as to use the expletives "good." "truly good," in connexion with his name--Satisfaction, that a spirit of relentment had been "extended even towards the dead," and an atonement made to the memory of a pious father, whom I am sure never inflicted a wrong (willingly) upon the feelings or reputation of him or any other individual with whom duty called him to act.

      To the question, Did or did not my father use the language ascribed to him by Mr. Henley, "revised and amended" by Mr. Campbell? Without intending to insinuate intentional misrepresentation either to Mr Henley or Mr. Campbell, I have proof conclusive to my mind (so far as a negative can be proved) that no such language was used, nor any thing like it, designed to convey a similar import. This proof consists in express declarations made to myself and others, after the interview referred to, with Mr. Campbell; and his deportment towards Mr. Campbell confirmatory of the sincerity of those declarations. The pressure of my engagements at this time precludes me the opportunity of collating all the testimony and condensing it in such form as should render it suitable to attend a publication for the press. The statement which I give, confirmed as it is in several particulars by the letter of Mr. Warren, and, if necessary, could be confirmed by twenty others, will, I hope, prove satisfactory. On Saturday, the ---- day of December, Mr. Campbell, Senr. was introduced to my father in this town. Whether he had been invited to preach by some members of the church or not, I cannot say. The question was discussed, however, in my presence, by some disaffected towards Mr. Campbell, whether they should attend his preaching. My father contended that he ought to be invited to preach for the reasons assigned by Mr. Warren, and enjoined it upon them to attend. All did so. He accordingly preached on Sunday morning. He spoke about one hour, less than one-third of the time he sometimes devotes to the exposition of his views. His remarks, so far as I could understand them, were principally preliminaries, attended with explanatory references, introductory to the argumentative part of his discourse, After concluding, my father succeeded him in a few supplementary remarks, supplying what he conceived had been omitted. In these supplementary observations he said, in effect, "that so far as Mr. Campbell went, he found nothing objectionable; but he stopped short of all he thought [162] ought to be said;" and then attempted to supply the deficiencies.--Not having studied the subjects which divided them, I was unable to trace the distinction between their opinions, but think they differed on the operations of the Holy Spirit; on this, though, I cannot speak confidently. Mr. Campbell rejoined by saying that his discourse was not concluded, and in the evening he would touch upon those points adverted to. My father dined with Mr. Campbell, and in the afternoon took the sacrament. As to his misgivings on that occasion, I beg leave to refer to Mr. Warren's letter--in passing I would say, that Mr. Warren was an intimate and confidential friend of my father's--is a highly respectable citizen of our town, and an intelligent and pious member of the Baptist church. After the services of the afternoon were over, I went in company with my father and Mr. B. Dunaway of Lancaster county, (who was then on a visit to this town) to his residence near this place. In our ride out, and during the evening, the sermon of Mr. Campbell, his opinions, and the "reformation," was the subject of frequent comment. As to the sermon, he expressed the same opinions of it that were advanced by him from the pulpit in the morning--obviously "fearing the Greek" in the conciliatory spirit which he Mr. Campbell assumed. If one word escaped his lips approbatory of the known opinions ascribed to Mr. Campbell, or the principles of the reformation as avowed, they escaped my observation. Mr. Dunaway possibly may have recollected them if such sentiments were advanced by him. He accorded to Mr. Campbell a frank and generous manner--warm and cordial feelings, and more than once said he thought or hoped (I do not recollect the precise expression) he was a christian.

      To all those who were upon terms of intimacy with my father, it is known that in the latter months of his life be was greatly averse to controversy, or the discussion of controversial subjects. The correspondence between himself and Mr. A. Campbell (into which he was inadvertently drawn) conducted as it was, with much asperity on both sides, was a source of much unhappiness to him. He was anxious to close it, and with it, the breach which it had caused, Some of his friends had become Mr. Campbell's disciples, among whom was a portion of his church at Bruington. To the members of this church it is known his devotion was great. It is a church he had planted, and around which every feeling of his heart was entwined. His early affections had been fixed upon it, and these affections bad "grown with his growth and strengthened with his strength."

      "To his soul he grappled them with hooks of steel." To see the people whom he thus loved, distracted by divisions and dissensions, and this church, once the abode of brotherly love and christian fellowship, rarely equalled, now disordered by, contrarient views and discordant sentiments, planted a thorn in his pillow that pierced him in his dying moments. Never did man strive more--never did one feel more--and never were greater sacrifices made, to restore the peace, harmony, and good feelings which had for forty years characterized this church. Finding it impossible to bring it about, save upon a relaxation of the stern mandates of justice, his overruling desire to effect his object caused him to make sacrifices to the prejudices of a people more unreasonable in their exactions than any of whom history gives an account. Of the propriety of his conduct it is not my province to speak. The end so desirable I suppose might justify the means. To the attainment of it all his efforts were directed. For the sake of peace (as Mr. Warren suggests) he did do that which his judgment could not approve. For the sake of peace he might have done more than was publicly witnessed on the day of his ministrations with Mr. Campbell. But that he ever bid him God speed in effecting a reformation, such a reformation as is professed by the advocates of reform in this section of our state--nothing save his resurrection from the dead, and testification of the fact in person, could satisfy me of its truth. Verily might it be said, if such had been the fact, that, "like the spaniel, he licked the dust froth the foot that kicked him."
RO. BAYLOR SEMPLE. [163]      

FREDERICKSBURG, February 11, 1852.      

      A letter from brother Sands to brethren Warren and Clark, containing a paragraph addressed by you to myself, has been handed me with a request that I would give a statement of "the facts relative to the interviews between our venerable and now departed father Semple and Elder T. Campbell, when the latter was in this place. I comply with this request with some reluctance; for controversy in any shape I dislike; the more so, when it is likely to be made public. However, as my brethren here deem it my duty, and as my silence might be attributed to an improper motive, I will endeavor to give as fair and candid a statement as my knowledge of the facts will permit.

      Mr. Campbell arrived at this place on Friday evening, and put up at brother Fife's, where he remained during his stay in town. Mr. Semple was introduced to him on Saturday; but, being on business, nothing passed between them more than the ordinary salutations and inquiries. On Lord's day morning, a short time before the usual hour of public worship, Mr. S. came to brother Fife's and had an interview with Mr. C. I was not present at this or any other private interview between them, and can therefore state nothing upon my own authority; but understand from brother Fife's family that the most friendly feelings were manifested on both sides. They went to the meeting-house together. I was not at the morning meeting, having gone to Falmouth to preach. I understand, however, from the brethren generally (all, indeed, whom I have heard speak on the subject) that they came into the house together: that Mr. S. as he was sometimes in the habit of doing when another minister was to preach, took a seat by the stove, and Mr. C. went into the pulpit.

      It may not be improper here to observe that I had myself given notice at our church meeting on Saturday night, that Elder Campbell would preach the next morning, having myself invited him to do so. And also that Mr. S, had been to the meeting-house previous to his having the interview with Mr. C. at brother Fife's: and learning from one of the brethren at the Sunday School, that the appointment had been made for Mr. C. made inquiry as to his credentials, standing in the Association, &c. and finding that no inquiry into these matters had been made by any of the brethren, he made some objection to Mr. C's preaching, and said he should like to see him, and was accordingly directed to brother Fife's.

      Mr. S. made no objection to his preaching after he returned to the meeting-house with Mr. C. Whether his objections were obviated by the conversation that took place between them, I pretend not to say.

      After singing and prayer, Mr. C. preached. His subject was Titus ii. 11-15. and iii. 1-9. Mr. S. went up into the pulpit before Mr. C had finished his discourse. And Mr. C. thinking by Mr. S's coming up that the usual time occupied in preaching had expired, stopped. Mr. S. then rose and made a few observations by way of supplement to what had been already said. He found no fault with any thing that had been advanced--thought they would all be profited by such preaching--that if there was any fault to be found, it was not with what HAD BEEN SAID, but with what WAS NOT SAID--that something more should have been added in relation to the work of the Holy Spirit: that the word "grace," v. 11. chap. ii. which Mr. C. thought meant simply the gospel, Mr. S. thought meant not only the gospel, but the gospel rendered efficacious by the Holy Spirit. Mr. S. then prayed with his usual fervor, that a blessing might attend what had been said agreeably to truth, and that success might crown the labors of him who had spoken to them &c. Previous to the dismissal of the congregation, Mr. C expressed his approbation of what Mr. S had added, and said he should himself have made some observations on the work of the Holy Spirit, but for the want of time, as he had reserved them for the latter part of his discourse, and that he would speak upon that subject at night. They retired from the meeting-house together, went to brother Leitch's and dined in company with brother Lipscomb of this place and Dr. Anderson of [164] Spottsylvania. They had some conversation. Mr. C. read a paper, which he said exhibited the principles of the reformation. Mr. S. expressed his approbation of these principles except in one item, viz. "that the New Testament as it now stands is sufficient for all purposes of church discipline." He thought that general principles were inculcated in the New Testament but that particular rules might be advantageously drawn from these principles. Nothing but the most friendly feeling appeared to prevail between them. They left brother Leitch's together to go to meeting in the evening, but Mr. S. calling to see a sick sister, Mr. C. went on to meeting with the other brethren who were in company.

      When I went to meeting in the evening, Mr. C. was there; and soon after Mr. S. came in. He took me aside, and observed that our friend Mr. C. was present, and wished to know what I thought of the propriety of his communing with us; that he did not properly belong to our denomination, and was it not contrary to our custom of close communion to admit such? I answered, that with us baptism was the great point which prevented our communing with other denominations; and that this objection did not exist in the present case, as there was no doubt of Mr. C's having been baptized. He replied that fellowship was a point of more importance with him than baptism; but if I had no scruples in the present case, he was satisfied, and added that he had had some conversation with Mr. C. and was much pleased with him; that he believed him to be a good and pious man, though in error.

      We went to the table together, and after a short exhortation from Mr. S. we administered the supper--he the bread, and I the wine, as was our usual custom when both were present. Mr. C. communed with us. This was the last time they were together. Whether they parted in the meeting-house or went out together I cannot say, nor do I know what conversation took place between them after the supper, or whether any.

      At night Mr. C. concluded his discourse, commencing this part of it with a further illustration of his views of the word "grace," in which he differed from the meaning given by Mr. S. in the morning. In his observations on Titus iii. 5. he thought the Apostle referred to the ordinance of baptism. At this meeting Mr. S. was not present, the state of his health not permitting him to be out at night.

      In looking over brother Sands' letter, and comparing it with what I have written, I believe I have "covered the whole ground" so far as "facts" are concerned, and have answered, I conceive, each of the inquiries therein proposed, except, perhaps, the 5th and 8th, viz.--4th. "Did Mr. S. speak in commendation of the distinguishing traits of Campbell's views, or express his regret fur having opposed them?" And 8th. "Did Mr. S. either in the pulpit or out of the pulpit, speak favorably of Campbell's views of faith, operations of the Holy Spirit, or baptismal regeneration?" These may be answered by a decided negative. He was never known by any of the brethren here to express any such commendation or any such regret.

      The above is, I believe, a fair statement of "all the facts" that occurred, touching the point in dispute. In making inquiry as to those "facts" which did not come under my own observation, I have had no party spirit to gratify, I have consulted all the brethren who I thought had any knowledge of "the facts" in question. I submit it to you with this request, that if it is published, it may be published entire.

      With sentiments of christian affection, I remain your brother in the Lord,
GEO. F. ADAMS.      

      P. S.--Since writing, I have read it to the following brethren, whose entire approbation it meets, viz.--William Warren, George Roe, James Peyton, R. B. Fife, W. T. Williams, James Williams, Abner Leitch, Lewis Wren, Robert C. Bruce, and Thomas U. Lipscomb. [165]

For the Millennial Harbinger.

ESSEX, Va. February 25, 1832.      

Brother Campbell,

      DEAR SIR--BEFORE this arrives at Bethany you will have evidence to demonstration of Mr. Broaddus' "love of peace," and fears of "riding in the whirlwind to direct the storm." He well knew if he could ship the remarks I made on the death of brother Semple in the Herald of fame, and raise the "tempestuous wind called the Euroclydon," the Captain would listen to no man until he wrecked the ship upon some unknown island. I appeal to every honest good man to say, if Mr. Broaddus' only object was to correct an error or mistake published in the Harbinger, if the Harbinger was not the only place to recommend Mr. Semple to publish the evidence of this error or mistake? Can any man believe that Mr. Broaddus had no other object in view than to rescue the consistent character of Bishop Semple? No, it is impossible, he well knew the Religious Herald delighted in proscription and inconsistency, and never would suffer us to correct the errors they have fallen into. Will Mr. Broaddus say he has neither directly nor indirectly brought about this state of things? Can any man that has any feeling for the happiness of christians, read those documents and not feel ashamed for the bigoted and intolerant state of religious society? This state of things Mr. Broaddus has contributed as much as any man in Virginia to bring about. He now appears to be alarmed at Nat Turner's views of special influences without the word. I repeat it, no man has labored more to bring about these delusions than Mr. Broaddus in this section of country. I am pleased to see that his eyes are open, and that now he is trying to atone for the injury done to truth. My earnest prayer is that he may succeed.

      What was there in my communication to you calculated to injure any man? Who that had suffered as much as I had from his prejudices, could have spoken with more respect and regard for the dead than I have done? Yet Mr. Broaddus seizes this circumstance to rouse all the angry passions of his family and friends against me. A noble work for a man that professes to "follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord!" I had, in the simplicity and sincerity of my heart, a desire to let all know Bishop Semple had died in peace with all men, without a reproach upon a long, laborious, and useful life.

      Bishop Semple and myself had been at issue. Mr. Broaddus himself had decided Bishop Semple was bound in justice to atone for his conduct towards me. This Semple refused to do publicly according to Broaddus' award. He, with Broaddus and others, in their decrees, had recommended the dividing of the body of Christ in his members, to disgrace me if I would not disgrace myself by telling a wilful lie, by saying their opinions or sentiments of revealed truth were the gospel of Jesus Christ. They failed in this. Bishop Semple had reported their success in excluding me. When I heard of it I wrote to him to force him to prove what he had said. He answered, July 14th, 1831, [166] in a respectful and affectionate manner, concluding his letter by saying, "Pray spare me, your old and aggrieved friend and brother.?" He gave up his author. When we met I produced to him the evidence of this falsehood. He then said he did not believe it. I have been credibly informed that he said to some brethren that he was pleased that the Bruington church did reject his decrees. It is well known at the last Association that he said my course towards the Association was magnanimous, and exhorted the brethren to forbearance and long suffering; reminded them of the rise and progress of the second church in Richmond as the fruit of such a spirit. In our frequent conversations he removed all unpleasantness on my part towards him. I therefore felt myself perfectly free to say what I have said.1

      But Mr. Broaddus tries to rouse the passion of a bereaved son of a beloved father, by calling his attention to the remarks I made in my extracts upon his and the Messrs. Montagues reporting I was excluded, which I wrote last June or early in July, before I heard from him; forwarded them all to you nearly by the same mail for your inspection before you attempted the publication of the first number. Mr. Broaddus certainly is as great a man and as great a child as the Baptists in Old Virginia ever had to boast of, except Jacob Gregg--of course can do childish things. Many that are personally acquainted with him will give him credit for the above in full.

      It is evident to every discerning man that he is trying to entrench himself behind the ignorance and prejudices of the Baptists, while his "wood, hay, and stubble" are now on fire. These are his bulwarks. The horrors of having his sun to set behind such a cloud of smoke arising from the combustible matter he has been gathering together for forty years, must be truly appalling to him. No wonder he should be trying to make horns to gore or enclose those who have set his works on fire!

      Mr. Broaddus thinks I could not have spoken of brother Semple as I have done without "relenting." If so, why does he try to turn it to my injury? Did ever Jesus Christ or his Apostles upbraid any man that had relented for the worst of sins? This proves the true state of his heart towards me. Mr. Broaddus' doctrine, as here exhibited, is, if a man errs he is not a good man. What follows? Mr. Broaddus himself is not a good man, unless he proves himself infallible.

      What is all this hard feeling, contention, and discord, so disgraceful to the christian religion, about? Mr. Broaddus may disguise it as he pleases, it comes to this at last--we prefer the sayings of Jesus Christ and his Apostles to the sayings of Messrs. Broaddus and Ball. This is the head and front of our offence. Your opinions of faith, of regeneration, &c. &c. have nothing to do in the faith and worship of the disciples, as a bond of union. They are left at liberty to reject or embrace them according to their views of the New Testament, and remain in peace and fellowship so long as they maintain the [167] character of disciples of Jesus Christ. We do not make their opinions a breach of our fellowship, nor wish to prohibit an expression of their opinions. I am fully persuaded if I were to go to Mr. Broaddus tomorrow morning, and inform him I believed his opinions of the previous special influence of the Holy Spirit in order to faith and immersion, and that he was right and I wrong in opposing such a sentiment--he would call me brother Henley, though there is not a syllable in the New Testament to produce such a conviction upon any man's mind. This proves that he and Mr. Ball (though they say the twelve propositions your father has presented to our brethren and the public are such as the Baptists in Virginia generally have adopted) are determined to lord it over our consciences. These propositions do in the most explicit manner prohibit any man from "attempting to inculcate any thing of human authority, of private opinions, or inventions of men, as having any place in the constitution, faith, or worship of the christian church; or any thing as matter of christian faith or duty, for which there cannot he expressly produced a thus saith the Lord, or by approved precedent;" and yet they are trying to keep the brethren from having any kind of intercourse or communion with us. If this is not reviving the anti-christian spirit I have never seen anything like it.

      Mr. Broaddus has tried for the last four years to gag and manacle me, but having failed on account of the intelligence and independence of society, he is no doubt much grieved that the pages of the Harbinger are open to me. The same cause will produce the same effect under the same circumstances. Every intelligent man can see why I am not now groaning with chains upon me in the jail of Essex county. It is not the goodness of the cause why it is not so, but the circumstances that surround me. His saying I am "too apt to mistake my suspicions to levy a charge," is, I suppose, an offset against his "persuasion that the Essex church intended to exclude me," when Dr. Somervail says they decided they intended no such thing.

      But now let me ask, what have these witnesses, with all their wishes, proved? Every thing I said, except bidding your father God speed. Could not this be done without these witnesses hearing it, and Bishop Semple's embracing "Campbellism?"

      These men are telling the people they wish well to a real reformation, and will not reform themselves, but cast out those who attempt to reform. Is not this the spirit of Diotrephes, that forbids them that would receive the brethren, and cast them out of the church?

      I am willing to do any thing consistent with my duty to Jesus Christ to reconcile Mr. Broaddus to me; but nothing short of my becoming his servant will do it.

      I do exceedingly regret that Mr. Broaddus has laid me under the imperious necessity of again addressing you and the public through the pages of the Harbinger. Mr. Broaddus can, if he will, put at end to this controversy, and bring about what he professes he sincerely desires. We ask no apology, no explanation, no sacrifice of principle or practice. We only ask for a free exercise of our rights among the [168] children of God while we maintain a christian character. This he refuses.

      Your affectionate brother in the Lord,
THOS. M. HENLEY.      

RICHMOND, Tuesday, February 27, 1832.      

Mr. Alexander Campbell,

      MY DEAR SON--BEFORE this comes to hand you will have received my last of the 18th instant, and will also have received the Religious Herald of this place up to the date hereof, by which, from the 3d to the 24th inclusive, you will have seen the combined result of attack upon you and me by the anti-reforming interest of this part of the state. Upon you, for your obituary notice of the death of brother Semple: upon me, for my friendly visit, and exhibition of documents, of which, I suppose, you will have, received the numbers I ordered to be forwarded to you. You will also perceive upon the whole of the promises, that after all their clamor, they might as well have held their peace; for their pompous declamation has amounted to just nothing. Nay, they have evidently confirmed what they meant to invalidate.

      With respect to the envied documents, which I submitted for the avowed purpose of correcting mistakes, &c. brother Broaddus, after all his admonitions to the churches, acknowledges and inculcates them. See the close of his admonition to the Baptist churches in the Religious Herald of the 3d instant. "We have long avowed these principles," (says he,) and adds, "Let us press these principles on that part of the christian community which may not have adopted them, (and many there be that have not.") In so far, then, he kindly takes the work off our hands. As for his allegation against me, for "proposing these documents to the acceptance of the churches," it is perfectly gratuitous, as the publication itself evidently demonstrates: besides, there is not a person or church in existence that can say that I ever presented these documents for any purpose but that avowed in the publication itself. But supposing I had presented these documents for the reception of all the Baptist churches in Virginia, what need for this lengthy admonition, seeing the Baptist churches have long avowed them. Here it is, lest "some individual or individuals may be decked with the honor of having effected an extensive reformation among the Baptists." "I therefore, for one, (says he,) must enter my protest against the measure" Hence we see it was the jealousy of honor that impelled our friend first to surmise, and then to caution.

      But this is not all that brother Broaddus has conceded in favor of the reformation: in his admonition for ministers, in the Religious Herald of the 17th inst. he says, "We are annoyed with the conceit that God is teaching all necessary truth by visions, voices, and impulses, styling the Holy Spirit the vehicle of divine knowledge; consequently, excluding every other." But still farther, brother Ball, the Baptist oracle of this state, carries the alone sufficiency of The Holy Scripture to its ne plus ultra; see his plea for the superior utility of [169] camp meetings in his paper of the 10th instant; wherein he ascribes the superior success of protracted meetings in making converts, to the "mind's being kept fixed upon the truth till it is constrained to yield to its all-subduing influence." Thus the sheer moral influence of the word, unaccompanied with any spirit but the breath of the speaker, is supposed competent to constrain the mind to yield to its all-subduing influence. Indeed it is the only tolerable answer he could have given to the supposed case; for it would have shocked credulity itself to have preferred protracted meetings in behalf of the Spirit, as affording him a more favorable opportunity to perform the converting operation. There remained, therefore, no other divine cause to impute it to, but the word. Sic stat sententia. What a pity, by the bye, that brother Ball had not lived in the apostolic age, when the means of converting the world were a settling! How easy would it have been to have recorded brother Ball's preferential reasons for protracted meetings; in consequence of which how many more millions of souls might have been saved. By what spirit has brother Ball made the discovery? for it was unknown to, or neglected by the Spirit that guided the Apostles?

      But to come nearer home, you will perceive by the documents before me, that every nerve has been strained to invalidate my relation of the friendly interview that took place between myself and brother Semple. And that, upon the whole, they might as well have let it alone. Brother George F. Adams' letter goes to substantiate my report in every thing material, but what took place at our parting, and that was in a few words, inter nos, to the amount of what brother Henley stated in his letter to you. I had scarce reached Richmond on my arrival from Essex, with R. Y. Henley, when it was in circulation that my report of the friendly reception I met with from brother Semple was not true, but the reverse. Upon hearing this brother Bootwright wrote to brother R. B. Fife and brother Leitch of Fredericksburg to know the truth of the matter, upon which be received the following letter, viz.--
"Fredericksburg, January, 1832.      

      "Brother Bootwright--Your favor of the 16th instant has just been handed me by brother Leitch, in which you request us to state whether in the interviews between brother Semple and brother Campbell any thing like hostility existed. Far from it; every thing that passed in my presence, was of the most friendly nature, Brother Campbell stayed at my house whilst he remained in this place, except when invited out to dine, or spend the evening, and had but two interviews with brother Semple, one of which took place at my house on the Sabbath morning on which brother Campbell preached. I was present and heard every thing that passed. On this occasion little passed between them, it being within a few minutes of the time at which preaching commenced when brother Semple called. They both went to the meeting house. Brother Semple took a seat by the stove, and remained there till he thought brother Campbell had nearly got through with his discourse; he then went into the pulpit, and after brother [170] Campbell thought he had detained the people long enough, reserved the remainder of his discourse till night. Brother Semple remarked that he had no fault to find with what had been said, but thought that more might have been said (respecting the work of the Holy Spirit) and concluded, commending it as the gospel; and prayed most fervently that the blessing of God might accompany the truth that had been delivered; and also for brother Campbell, that God might spare his life many years, and go with him wherever he went, and bless him abundantly in his labors. After preaching they both went to brother Leitch's, where they dined together; [having company at my house I could not be present.] In the evening the Lord's supper was administered. Brother Semple and brother Adams officiated, and brother Campbell was invited to commune with us. Indeed, throughout the service brother Semple seemed to be filled with the love of God. I saw nothing throughout the service that had the slightest appearance of hostility, in matter or manner, in brother Semple to brother Campbell. Brother Adams states that in a conversation he had with brother Semple, that he (brother S.) expressed himself well pleased with brother Campbell.

      "Please excuse any mistakes in composition, as this was done in haste in my school. Yours in the Lord,
"R. B. FIFE."      

      "I concur with the above statement made by brother Fife, in regard to what took place in the meeting-house. Brother Semple and brother Campbell dined with me on Sabbath day, and I saw nothing like unkind feelings existing between brother Semple and brother Campbell, but friendship and brotherly affection. Something was said on church government, and I think all present differed with brother Semple--he thinking something more than the New Testament necessary for the government of the church.

      "Affectionately yours,

      Elder John Kerr, of the First Baptist Church in this city, has, after three weeks hard labor, been successful to thrust out 67 of his flock for the indefinite charge of C-------ism. This ejectment was not achieved till, I believe, the fifth or sixth meeting, which took place on the night of the 24th instant, at which time they gave in their names and quietly withdrew under the sanction of a request to that purpose, which had been carried by vote on the 14th. The part thus voted out contains many of the most influential characters in said church. They commenced a subscription for building a place of worship the next day, and in the course of two days had upon it, I think, about two thousand dollars.

      "Mr. CAMPBELL will surely do you the justice to publish it in the Harbinger," says Mr. Broaddus to Mr. Semple. And hence I infer that the documents above adduced will surely be published in [171] the Religious Herald, unless Mr. Broaddus thinks that my sense of justice is much more acute than either Mr. Ball's or his own. But from the whole phiz of Mr. Broaddus' letter to Mr. Semple, it would appear he intended it for a quibble to an answer in accordance with his wishes, and this is to be considered only as a hint to Mr. Semple to demand a place in the Harbinger. A few days will evince whether a sense of justice or the tact of a diplomatist instigated this remark.

      A word or two on Mr. Semple's letter, to the pattern ordered by Mr. Broaddus, who did not intend, I trow, that his letter should see the light of day. But Mr. Semple, in his unsuspicious honesty, (for he is no Regular Baptist Minister, published Mr. B's letter. Mr. Semple, though a lawyer, and versed in "collating all the testimony," it must be acknowledged to his credit, is not so well practised in the arts of dissimulation as to make a plausible argument to suit the calls of his friend and to save the reputation of his father, "whom," he says, [who] "I am sure never inflicted a wrong upon the feelings" of Mr. Henley. But some captious reasoner may ask, What wounds does he inflict upon the reputation of a father, in his wishful compliance with the solicitations of a friend! It was with much point, one exclaimed, "Save me from my friends--I can manage my enemies." He testifies that his father's deportment to Mr. C. was confirmatory; that he used no such language as that imputed to him by Mr. Henley. Yet "with great misgivings, his father took the sacrament with Mr. C; and more than once said "he thought or hoped that Mr. C. was a christian!" And finding it impossible to restore harmony in the Bruington church, except "by the relaxation of the stern mandates of justice," (the King and Queen Decrees, one may suppose,) "he made sacrifices to the prejudices of the most unreasonable people in the world." And yet it is problematical, he says, whether the end justified the means: for, "for the sake of peace he did that which his judgment could not approve" And by way of finishing his testimony he adds that "his father might have done more than was publicly witnessed on the day of his ministrations with Mr. Campbell." This, however, it may be viewed, as affecting the reputation of the deceased, fully sets aside all cavils about the benediction, all other matters being admitted and proved by their own testimony. But he thinks his father was too proud to wish well to the reformation plead by Thomas Campbell; because, then, "like the spaniel, he would have licked the dust from the foot that kicked him." I have such a regard for the memory of the deceased as to think that his son is in this instance mistaken, or that he has been carried too far in his wishes to gratify his friend Broaddus.

      All our facts are admitted in Mr. Adam's letter, except the parting "God speed;" and this is more than compensated by the testimony of Mr. Adams and all the names in his postscript, for they all testify that Mr. Semple prayed in public, with his usual fervor, that "success might attend the labors of him [T. Campbell] that had spoken to them." Thus every fact is well attested by eleven witnesses attached to the close of Mr. Broaddus' documents. The only dispute which can exist [172] is about the interpretation of them. We never presumed to say that Mr. Semple did more than renounce the decrees of King and Queen Conference, and that thus the christian triumphed over the sectary. We now leave it to all men to say, whether the text is not authentic, and the comment orthodox; and whether we, or Mr. Semple's professed friends and relatives, do most honor to his memory!

      SINCE the above was written the following documents have come to hand. We add to them a few remarks, which, strange as it may appear to the reader, were actually in type in our office before the last letters came to hand.--EDITOR.

FREDRICKSBURG, March 9, 1832,      

Dear brother Campbell,

      YOURS of the 1st inst. came to hand yesterday. I now proceed to comply with your request, and as our good old brother Semple used to say, "Let it go for what it is worth"--good; yes, and I wish I could say as much for all whom I may have occasion to name in this letter. Although I have had occasion to differ from him in opinion about some things, I have ever thought him one among the best men I ever knew; for generally, when differing in opinion, he not only evinced the spirit of a christian, but a perfect gentleman. Touching the benediction when he parted with your father; I can say nothing, as I was in a different part of the meeting-house, either attending to singing or putting up the apparatus which was used for the celebration of the supper, and was nor, as it appears some others were, watching the movements of brother S. and seeking an opportunity to invite him to stay at night, to expose any error that might be advanced by your father, because, in the first place, I do not think that any sober-minded man had any cause from what he had seen or heard, to fear any error; and in the second place, because I believe the most of the congregation are capable of distinguishing between truth and falsehood. I, indeed, myself would have been very glad if he could have attended at night; for sure I am he never would have put the construction upon the discourse delivered at night, that has been put upon it by others. It does appear to me that there is the same ground to object to Paul and Peter upon what they call regeneration, as there is to object to any thing your father said. But as brother Adams has written a letter to the editor of the Religious Herald, giving a full detail of the facts, which I presume you have seen, I deem it unnecessary to repeat them.

      It may be proper for me to notice the letters in the Religious Herald of the 17th February, touching this matter. And first, it is passing strange to me that anyone should pretend to doubt the benediction of brother Semple upon your father at parting, when he had publicly prayed for him that the Lord would bless him and be with him in his journey, and bless his labors, &c. as fervently, and apparently with as much good feeling, as I recollect to have ever heard him pray for [173] any one. When Mr. Semple showed to me the letter of brother Warren2 before it was sent to the editor of the Herald, I told him there were misrepresentations in it. I then went to brother Warren and named them to him. He admitted that brother Semple did not say as a sermon it was defective, but thought he implied it. I told him he certainly was mistaken in what he called an expose or denial by your father at night of what he had acknowledged in the morning--that what your father called the appendix added by brother Semple, which he said he approved so far as he understood him; and the word grace, concerning which there was some difference of opinion as to its full meaning, was altogether different from the appendix; that what was advanced by brother Campbell and criticised upon by brother Semple, could not be called an appendix.

      As to the letter of brother Peyton, it no doubt contains his opinion respecting yourself and your father; but if it contains his opinion respecting brother Semple, it proves two things at least--First, that he is a man susceptible of being led astray by prejudice, and liable to change; for not long since it is a notorious fact that he was accustomed to speak in the slightest terms of him, calling him "an Arminian," "unsound at the core," and such like expressions; and when the supper was to be administered, if he was present he either left the house or sat off on one side, and never, as I recollect, evinced his friendship either to the departed brother or to the church here, by partaking with us. Now in reading his letter, one would think he was in full fellowship with the church here; for in speaking upon the occurrences that took place here, he makes use of the word "us," as if he was one of us indeed. He is not a member here, nor ever was; and it is believed that he is now aiding in sowing the seed of discord in this place.

      I now proceed to notice Elder John Clark's letter; and as Paul said, "I wist not, brethren, that he was the High Priest." I wish it was not known that an Elder had such a spirit as this his letter proves he has; but he himself being the judge, he ought to be excluded, at least from the Association; for he says he is "an unworthy member." But how he reconciles this with his feeling able to admonish and advise the Association, I cannot tell. I cannot think he has ever read the Harbinger. If he have, certainly he is blinded by prejudice; for he says in his letter to brother Sands, a chain of evidences prove that Elder R. B. Semple did not degenerate into Campbellism previous to [174] his death, as said the last Harbinger, vol. 3. Now he cannot show any such language in the Harbinger. He has been a Baptist I believe about three years, and was ordained after the good old custom last Fall. I will not pretend to say what manner of spirit was bestowed upon him by the imposition of hands, or whether any; the letter shows what sort of spirit he has now. His conduct ever since he has been a Baptist proves that he is under strong prejudice; for he joined the White Oak Church, although living in Fredericksburg. Whether prejudiced against the people here I leave for others to judge. He has never acted as if he had fellowship with the church here. I am told he takes the liberty to call people Campbellites, and then shun them as if indeed he thought there was as much danger of his being defiled by them as there would be in handling pitch. One of our brethren, who has lately came into the kingdom, told me he was conversing with him, and on quoting a passage of scripture to him, he replied, "That is Campbellism." "Campbellism!" said the brother, "What is Campbellism? I have never seen any thing from Mr. Campbell upon doctrine in my life." This brother, it seems, was led by that expression to inquire what was meant by "Campbellism." He thought if that were "Campbellism," there could not be much difference between "Campbellism" and the Bible.

      As my sheet is full, and it is late, I must close. I have written by candle light, you will therefore please excuse any error or omission.

      I subscribe myself yours in the fellowship of the gospel.

FREDERICKSBURG, March 10, 1831.      

Dear brother Campbell,

      I HAVE seen your letter to brother Leitch, of the 1st instant, requesting information in relation to the visit made us by your father, and more particularly in reference to brother Semple's benediction to him. I am sorry that it is not in my power to afford direct testimony on this point. I was not near enough when they parted to hear what passed; but this much I do know, that so soon as your father returned to my house (which he did that night) he mentioned that brother Semple at parting gave him his benediction. So soon as the letters of brethren Warren, Peyton, and Clarke, of the 17th of February, made their appearance, I wrote to brother Sands a notice of those letters, requesting that my letter might be published in the Herald, or returned to me. The letter was put into the Post-Office by brother Leitch, I think, on the 29th of last month, and must have reached them on the next day. I waited until last evening, hoping, as they did not publish it in the Herald of the 2d, that they would certainly return it or publish it in the paper of the 9th. This has also come to hand, and no return of letter or notice of it is taken. In consequence of this treatment I immediately wrote to brother Bootwright, requesting him to call on brother Sands for my letter in order that it might be sent on to you. Whether they will comply with my request time will determine. I hope to hear from brother Bootwright next [175] Monday.3 If the letter is forthcoming it shall be immediately forwarded; and hope, if it is worth a place in the Harbinger, you will give it one. In the mean time I remain yours in the Lord,
R. B. FIFE.      

Editor's Remarks on the whole matter.

      IF the mountains in labor ever brought forth a mouse, we have it now in the cage of our friends Broaddus and Ball. These great men, when they think they have got any little thing which they can turn to their interest with the people, will not long hesitate about the means. Was ever such a trifle made so much of by any one who writes admonitions for ministers and churches? The Editor of the Harbinger yielded to the wishes of a persecuted brother to breathe forth his condolence with the friends and relatives of one of his old friends who was called hence, and willing to wipe off all reproach from his memory, instanced his conduct to my father as a proof that the christian had triumphed over the man in his actual renunciation of the King and Queen Decrees. It was never intended to represent Mr. Semple as having wholly come over to our views, but only that he had relaxed the severity of his own decrees, and had actually communed with one whom the aforesaid decrees virtually proscribed from his fellowship. But these misguided friends are determined that Bishop Semple shall die under the obloquy of those decrees, that they may live in credit with the people. I rejoice that they have failed to fix upon his memory this disgrace. The letter of R. B. Semple, Esq. and that of Mr. Adams, the Pastor of the church in Fredericksburg, prove all that we wish, every thing, save the parting words which they did not hear. The truth of the obituary notice is not, then, in one single item discredited. It is, indeed, fully confirmed by all the witnesses called forth by Andrew Broaddus, the instigator and leader of this ordeal. It is well for him that he is rich in popularity, and abundant in the resources of praise. Capitalists can suffer losses which would bankrupt such humble adventurers as his devoted brother Henley. Posterity, should they ever read the history of our [176] times, will surely smile at the wisdom of anti-reformers and the policy evinced in the documents above alluded to. Indeed should the actors in this interlude only live a few years to get at a point more favorable to correct vision, we doubt not but they will reprobate their own measures, and lament the passion which in an evil hour beclouded their reason.

      There are two inferences which all the reflecting will draw from these premises; and for the sake of these inferences we are willing to occupy so much space in giving the preceding documents:--

      The first is, that the opposition to reform greatly rely upon the opinions of men reputed great among the common people for the support of their views and practices. Our Virginia opponents have not occupied so many pages to show that Paul or Peter was on their side on any point, great or small, as they have in this instance to secure the name of one departed leader. For our own part, in this whole affair we were pleased at first to learn, and now to have it so well confirmed, that Mr. Semple conscientiously rescinded his own decrees, and prayed for a blessing upon those who preach such a reformation as was last plead in his hearing. But as for the weight of his name, or any other contemporary names, in aid of the cause we plead, or in proof of its authority, we never counted any thing, else we would have approached these men in a different manner. Sister Phoebe's vote on the question, What is truth? weighs with us against His Grace the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.

      The second inference which all impartial men will draw from this developement, is, that if our opponents thought they could gain any thing from discussion, they would eagerly seize every opportunity Their filling so many columns of their Herald with these details, proves that if they felt as confident in being able to achieve something from biblical discussion as they did in this instance, we should have whole columns of biblical criticism and investigation. They now give a reason for their caution.

      A word to Mr. Ball and Mr. Broaddus.--We have now republished three of your letters in our pages. Will you now republish in your columns T. M. Henley's letter, the extracts from the letter of Thomas Campbell, and the editorial remarks? Do as much justice to your readers as we heretics do to ours. We demand this not only because you profess to be christians, but to be republicans.
A. CAMPBELL.      


      THE following letter is worthy of the special attention of all men who either plead for reformation or oppose it. The force and point of the suggestions are irresistible to all who have, or are desirous to have, a good conscience towards Cod. I have been resolving anal re-resolving for some months to devote some pages to exhortation on the subject of keeping the commandments in the churches; but the [177] misrepresentations, and cavils, and questions, touching christian immersion and the conversion of sinners, have hitherto prevented us. Our opponents say, 'What is the reformation for which you contend? and deign us no opportunity to reply, but proceed to denounce and condemn.

      Our essays on the ancient order of things were begun seven years ago the 7th of last month, under the conviction that nothing permanently valuable, worthy of the name of reformation in the church--nothing permanently and extensively useful in the conversion of the world, can be achieved unless the citizens in the kingdom of Messiah do their duty first as individuals in all personal purity and excellency, and as congregations in all social co-operations in keeping all the ordinances and traditions of the Apostles. The union of present professors, called the union of christians, is not worth an effort, if united they were to proceed as the Baptists and Christians, and Methodists and Presbyterians, now proceed. If there was no division among them, but all united in the order now prevalent in any one of these sects, I would, were it my last breath, say, 'Reform,' or 'Come out of her, you people, that fear God and wish to stand with Jesus in the new and heavenly Jerusalem.' I fear in the noise and commotion about baptism and other first principles, about conversion and regeneration, the commandments and ordinances of the Lord and Saviour will be neglected. I thank the brother who writes the following for calling up this subject again to our consideration.

KING WILLIAM, Va. March, 1832.      

Dear brother Campbell,

      ALTHOUGH I think the subject of baptism has of late occupied an undue portion of attention on the part of those who profess to be reformers, and that it is desirable to let the subject rest now, unless some new ground should be taken; yet I cannot but think it may be of service to publish the following extract from the forty-fourth tract of the Baptist General Tract Society, entitled, "A Scripture Manual, or a Plain Representation of the Ordinance of Baptism, designed for the use of all who would answer a good conscience toward God; and give a reason of their faith and practice with meekness and fear--By Samuel Wilson--Published by the Baptist General Tract Society."

      Page 11.--The writer says, "Here I observed how Peter understood his commission; he began with preaching or teaching, waiting for the success of his labor. Nor did I find a word of baptism till they were pricked in their hearts; then, indeed, and not before, he says, "Repent and be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus," which I understand after this manner:--If you are, indeed, grieved and ashamed of your conduct towards this Jesus, whom you have crucified; if you are convinced by the Spirit of God he is the Messiah, the great Redeemer, and King of his church, and have a confidential dependence on him for salvation; then you are to be baptized in [178] his name, and may hope for a comfortable evidence in your baptism of the remission of your sins, and that you shall receive the gift of the holy Ghost." And for their encouragement he adds, "For the promise is to you and your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord your God shall call."

      This at least furnishes us with a good argumentum ad hominem. You that teach baptism for the remission of sins, do you charge us with the same doctrine, and complain of us for teaching it!! I hope you will give this a place in the Harbinger, and ask the supporters of the "Baptist General Tract Society" what they mean by it. Are not Messrs. Brantly, Clopton, cum multis aliis, who oppose this doctrine under the title of the "Brooke doctrine," the patrons and advocates of this Tract Society? Surely this ought to suggest to them the propriety of revising their tracts, and expunging every thing like "Campbellism;" or else they should cease to call this the "Brooke doctrine." They should recollect if they will not admit that this doctrine is as old as the apostolic days, it is at least 82 years old, Samuel Wilson, the author of the tract, having died in 1750. It was moreover adopted as a tract as early as the year 1827, about the time that you commenced your publications on this subject.

      I have not yet had the pleasure of seeing your father, but I am informed the Baptists generally yield their assent to the principles which he lays as the foundation of the contemplated reformation. Bishop A. Broaddus, after expressing his approbation of them, has published an admonition to the churches of Virginia, guarding them against your father. I have not seen this publication; but from a conversation which I had with him, I think he apprehends your father has some ulterior design. Now I do suppose he has a farther design; and that is, to urge them to carry out their principles in practice. With the extract before us, which I have made from their 44th tract, may we not say to them, If this is your doctrine, surely you act inconsistently in not practising upon it, or rather in not insisting upon it in your addresses to sinners; for as long as they continue to refuse "the blood of the new covenant which is shed for the remission of sins" to unimmersed persons, we are authorized to say they do practise upon this doctrine. The fact is, this is with them a "tangled broach," and until they can get it out of the tangle, it is well for them to back out of the controversy on baptism, as it seems Messrs. Ball and Sands wish to do.

      But as I said at first, I do think we have (at least in this part of the country) paid an undue portion of attention to the subject of baptism. I think it has engrossed attention to the exclusion of other important matters upon which reformation is much needed. It is reformation in the churches, in the now existing disciples, that is the grand desideratum Until this is effected, we are not properly prepared to make converts to christianity. The churches, with the Scriptures, should, I apprehend, occupy the place of the Apostles. The Apostles were commissioned to go forth and make converts, baptizing them, and teaching there to observe all things that were commanded. Unless [179] the churches practise the things commanded to be observed by the Apostles, the converts made by them are not made to christianity as taught by the Apostles. The individual who enters our churches at present, does it without having in prospect to be called on to exercise any great degree of self-denial. The test to which his love to Christ and his people is put, is a very easy one--one through whose ordeal almost any man, whose character is tolerably moral, might pass. I fear there is not a majority of our professors who could bear to be called upon to meet with their brethren in the Lord, if, to effect this, they should have to deny themselves the privilege of going where they would meet with a large crowd, convened to attend upon the ministrations of a popular orator. This part of the reformation, I think, has been neglected among us. Some of our leading reformers have been engaged in going from place to place, making converts, and leaving them to go on, upon the old system--that is, the monthly meeting system--and travelling from place to place after the preachers. This is a point upon which reformation is much needed. While weekly meetings of disciples is calculated to fan and keep lively the love of christians for their Master and one another, it would operate as the best safeguard against the introduction of false disciples, a much better one, I apprehend, than that of requiring an experience as the condition of admission. I should hail it as an auspicious day to christianity, could I see the disciples with delight, each Lord's day, hasten to meet with each other. Then might they say, "We know we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren." But how can that man avail himself of this testimony who has not love enough for his poor brethren to be willing to meet with them, unless when the people in the neighborhood generally convene; who, possessed of the means of travelling to a meeting at a distance, will rather travel from place to place after the preachers, thus treating himself to the pleasure which variety of scene and society affords, than submit to the irksomeness of seeing the same faces every Sunday. "If a man love not his brother, whom he has seen, how can he love the Lord, whom he has not seen?" The fact is, there are many members of churches in this part of the country, who, if acquainted at all, have but a passing acquaintance. My dear brother, I think this subject, together with the weekly breaking of the loaf, ought to be more insisted upon by the reformers, and I should he pleased to see it urged upon the churches more in the Harbinger, than it has of late. It is in vain for us to assume the imposing name of reformers, unless we indeed reform.

      You see the notice of the, death of our good old brother Semple is making much noise in the Religious Herald. I hope the information upon which you and brother Henley wrote will yet he fund entitled to credit. Now if any person is disposed to think that Bishop Semple before his death became what he and others call "a Campbellite," I, for one, will say, I believe no such thing. I do not think he had become satisfied with your views of baptism or the Holy Spirit. But what of that? Does this show that he had not abated much in that [180] spirit of hostility which the resolutions of the King and Queen Conference breathe? Was it reasonable to expect that Bishop Semple, after taking the lead in that Conference, should have communed with your father, and have gone as far as it is acknowledged he did go, unless some material change in his views and feelings had taken place? I have been under the impression, since the last Dover Association, that he was disposed to retract in some degree. He opposed the violent measures against brother Henley, and recommended conciliatory measures publicly in the Association. In a debate as to the best manner in which questions should he decided in a church, he declared himself decidedly in favor of abiding by the decision of the majority--said it had happened to him occasionally to be in the minority when he was confident he was right, but he had always found by experience it was best to yield to the majority. And I could not but revert in my mind to the recent case in the Bruington church, in which he found himself in the minority.

      In the fellowship of our common Lord, yours,

To the Editor of the Millennial Harbinger.

Bedford County, Tenn. January 7, 1832.      

Brother Campbell,

      I TAKE this method of informing you that I have been a reader of your writings for several years, though for three or four years after you commenced writing the Christian Baptist I was so prejudiced against you, through the misrepresentations of some men in whom I placed great confidence, that I would not read your writings; but after having the name "Campbellite" given me by those same men, I concluded to read your works for my own satisfaction, and to my astonishment found that you were removing much of the sackcloth with which God's two witnesses had been clothed 1260 years; and although I am now above 50 years old, and have labored for 30 in endeavoring to understand God's message to man, I think I have learned more of its meaning within the last four years than I ever did before. I say this for your encouragement, as I know that you have many, very many, opponents who endeavor to overthrow your labors, as I did before I understood the cause you plead. I know of very few (if any) who fully coincide with your views; but the minds of many in this country seem to be alive, in some good degree, to search the Scriptures to see if these things be so. I think I understand you, and if I do I wish to ask you some questions and state some difficulties in order to obtain satisfaction if it can he given. And first, I read in Matthew's testimony, xix. 26, Peter stated and said that, "we have left all and followed thee. What shall we have, therefore?'' The answer appears not only to say what they should have, but when it should be given. "You shall," says Jesus, "sit upon twelve thrones, judging [181] the twelve tribes of Israel." As to the time when they should sit upon these thrones, it was to be when the Son of Man sat in the throne of his glory, at which time he received the promise of the Holy Spirit, and on the day of Pentecost shed it on his Apostles; and this I understand emphatically to be regeneration or baptism of the Holy Spirit--they were endued with power according to promise. Now the new covenant is in force, which is the Jerusalem from above, the mother of all Jews and Gentiles born of water and the Spirit; for faith in the blood of Christ, water and Spirit, must agree in every disciple of Jesus Christ; for these three agree in him.

      But I must approach the difficulty. Paul tells Titus that he was an Apostle of Jesus Christ according to the faith of God's elect. What does he mean? Was Titus an Apostle according to the faith of God's elect? Paul calls him his son after the common faith. Is there no difference between the common faith and the faith of God's elect? John says, "We" (Apostles) "have seen with our eyes, heard with our ears, and our hands have handled of the word of life." Their faith was predicated upon what they saw and heard; but does Paul associate himself with them? I say, Yes; for he says first of all, "He" (Jesus) "was seen of me and heard also." I now ask, if Titus or any other person has this faith of God's elect? We believe on testimony through their word.

      Jesus said to Thomas, "Because thou hast seen me thou hast believed." What more? "Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed?" Those who believe without seeing have the common faith! Jesus once said unto his Apostles, "In my Father's house are many mansions." What house is this? His church? His kingdom? If so, Jesus hath prepared a place and given it to them. What place has Jesus prepared? Paul answers this question when he says first Apostles, and secondarily Prophets, &c. This being the case, they are Christ's ambassadors to the exclusion of all others. This whole affair appears to have been before Paul's mind in writing to Titus, when he says, "But when the goodness and philanthropy of God our Saviour shone forth, he saved us," &c. "according to his mercy, by the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Spirit which he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Saviour." Now the grand question is, "When did he pour out his Spirit richly on the Apostles? It does appear to me that it must have been on the day of Pentecost! for mark well, he says nothing about its being poured in us, but on us. I cannot help thinking but baptism pertains to, is of, and belongs to the new institution there called "the regeneration." For an example, a leprous man when healed according to the law of Moses, had to wash his body in water in order to his entering the congregation of the Lord. This leprous man was then saved from pollution by the washing of the law of Moses. In like manner a sinner whose heart is purified by faith, is saved by the washing of regeneration or the baptism belonging to the new institution. Now if this new institution be spirit, it would be passing strange if the persons who believe and obey the gospel should not be born of the [182] Spirit. Is it possible that a child could be born and not partake of the nature of father nor mother? I have long thought that the Saviour's discourse with Nicodemus was misunderstood. I once asked a brother if Jesus could not in truth have said to the eleven disciples the hour before he ascended what he said to Nicodemus? He thought not. Let us try: I say to you my disciples, you have all been born of the water; but unless you are born again you cannot see my kingdom. You must be born of the Spirit: in order to this I must be lifted up on high; I must receive the promise of the Spirit from my Father and pour it out upon you. You ask, How can these things be? Well, I will tell you: the Spirit will come like the rushing of a mighty wind; you will hear the sound thereof; it will fill the whole house where you are. You will then believe on me; you will then believe that God hath made me both Lord and Christ; you will then be born again--born of the Spirit; for the Holy Spirit cannot be given till I am glorified; you will then be cisterns, and the living word, which is spirit, will flow from you. But this same John who has recorded this discourse, has said, "As many as received him" (Jesus) "to them gave he power to become the sons of God, who were born of God," &c. We ought to remember that these are not the words of Jesus, but of John, written years after Jesus was glorified. Now if the ministration of the law gendered to bondage, and did not make sons, how could any man be born of the Spirit before the new covenant or ministration of Spirit or regeneration was in full operation, which all agree was not till Pentecost. To me it appears when Jesus told them to tarry at Jerusalem until they were endued with power from on high, it was just what John means when he says, 'He' (Jesus) gave them power to become the sons of God by a spiritual birth;' for surely if being baptized with water is to he born of water, to be baptized with the Holy Spirit is to be born of the Holy Spirit. Jesus had told them before that the Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat, and what they say unto you do; surely he would not have said this after the renovation when they were to fill the place of judges and give law to Israel. He, moreover, told them the very night he was betrayed, "Henceforth I call you not servants, but friends;" but he does not yet call them sons. Brother Scott has said many excellent things about preparing a body or a house for God in order to its being filled with the spirit of Christ; but I think he is mistaken when he says Christ baptized Peter; for we are told Jesus baptized not, and we know some of the Apostles were John's disciples before they became the disciples of Jesus, and I have no idea that they were ever rebaptized with water. We know John did make ready a people prepared for the Lord, and that John the porter opened the door and let the good Shepherd into his own sheepfold, and his sheep heard his voice and followed him. So we see that John's baptism was the washing preparatory to the regeneration.

      Yours in the hope of an endless immortality,
W. H.      

Reply to W. H.

Dear Brother,

      THE extracts made from an old Bible, and forwarded by brother Reid of Washington, Ky. called forth a Bible in our own county of Brooke, still more ancient. It now lies before me, is well executed, and in pretty good keeping, although "Imprinted at London in 1607, by Robert Baker, Printer to the King's most excellent Maiestie." On reading your quotations from Titus i. 1 and 4, I was curious to open it, and find it reads as follows:--"Paul, a servant of God, and an Apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the knowledge of the trueth which is according to godlinesse." v. 4. "To Titus, my naturall sonne according to the common faith," &c. In the margin there is a note to verse 1 in the following words: "According to the faith of God's elect," i. e. "to preach the faith to increase their knowledge, to teach them to live godly, that at length they may obtein eternall life." Macknight renders kata "in order to," instead of "according to," because it is sometimes so rendered, and because in the same verse it must be so rendered before, godliness "in order to godliness." The faith of God's elect, then, is the christian faith, and that faith is called common, verse 4, because though Titus was a Greek, he had the same faith as the Jews; for the common faith is the faith common to Jews and Greeks.

      That the Regeneration, Matt. xix. 27. refers to a period of time, as the phrase the Revolution does with us, is abundantly evident. But whether that period of time was the Pentecost, or is to be the commencement of the Millennium, or the day of final judgment, has been a question. But we know of no reputable author or critic who doubts of its allusion to some memorable era or time. We have long since given our reasons for deciding in favor of the day of Pentecost.

      Dr. Adam Clarke, who is learned in Pagan literature, and who fails not, often when occasion does not call for it, to make a very pompous display of it, says it is highly improper to punctuate this verse so as to make regeneration refer to "following him" rather than to "the time" when Jesus shall sit on the "throne of his majesty." In this he has the countenance of the most eminent critics. And as for judging the twelve tribes, it means no more than presiding over them; as "Dan shall judge his people" meant no more than that he shall preside over them. Thus the Apostles were to preside over the people of God, as they commenced to do on the day of Pentecost. Clement, a very early writer, in his epistle to the Corinthians uses the word paliggnesia, (regeneration,) as expressive of the restoration of the world by the deluge. The new birth, or renovation of society or of an individual, are the only acceptations of this word in all the departments of sacred literature. It refers to the Pentecost as an era, or the commencement of the reign of Jesus and the exaltation of the Apostles by the gifts of the Spirit as you have stated.

      But it does not appear that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is that which is called the regeneration. It was rather the cause of that renovation than the regeneration itself Indeed, the baptism of the Holy Spirit was that which placed the Apostles on the thrones which Messiah promised them; and this well accords with your remarks on the address to Nicodemus, being equally applicable to the Apostles as it was to Nicodemus, until the very day of Pentecost, which has long been an opinion of mine.

      That "the Jerusalem which is above," representing the covenant of Spirit, is the mother of us all who are born of water and the Spirit, is certainly true; and hence we are the children of the promise--born of the free woman, and heirs of the inheritance denoted by that bestowed on Isaac the child of faith. Thus the Son of God has made us sons, free men, and heirs. I rejoice to see the independence of mind which the liberty we have in Christ Jesus so richly bestows, evinced by you, dear brother, in daring to think for yourself. We have only to bear in mind that our views, so far as they are the result of our own investigation, are private property, and not to be submitted as tests of christian character, nor to he preached as means of conversion; but to be submitted to [184] the brethren, and to pass for what they are worth in the present currency of opinions, without demanding any thing more than a fair value for them. No human arrangement can make them a legal tender in the kingdom of Jesus Christ. Nothing but the unalloyed gold, according to sanctuary weight and quality, issued from the mint of heaven, or the faith once delivered to the saints, can be proposed as universally current, or accepted in full of discipleship, in the kingdom of Jesus, under the presidency of the holy Apostles. So many letters on hand forbid long replies. Brother Scott will no doubt tender his reasons for his opinion concerning the allusion in your letter to his sermon on the Holy Spirit. He is now engaged in publishing "the Evangelist" in Cincinnati. Judging from the three numbers which I have read, for good and useful matter, and for general ability, it need not fear a comparison with any paper now edited in the United States which we have seen.

      In the hope of immortality, I remain your brother,

[For the Millennial Harbinger]      


      PETER'S address on Pentecost 1st repels the slanderous accusation of being "filled with wine." 2. Applies to the phenomena; the prophecy of Joel 2d and 28th--33--3. speaks of Jesus the Nazarene as sustained in his claim to the Messiah by the attestation of Jehovah (wondrous miracles!) and asserts and proves that in his death (the grand stumbling block to the Jews) and resurrection, the prophecy of their own scriptures was fulfilled. Ps. 16th and 8--11--4. carefully shows that the Psalmist did not and could not mean himself; but that he spoke in the person of his Lord, who was to be his son according to the flesh.----Rk.----Losing sight of this mixed constitution of Messiah's person, made scripture unintelligible to the Jews, and of course they failed of all the advantages they might have attained by a timely understanding of the oracles. 5. Insists on Christ's resurrection, of which the Apostles were living witnesses, and of which the persons then present had sensible proof in the miraculous effects of the shedding forth of the Holy Spirit.----R.----"David is not ascended into heaven" means the whole David; for part, the body, was in the sepulchre--"Sit thou at my right hand," (Psalm cx. and i.) not applicable to David--true of the Messiah, Jesus! Now what is the sum? "That Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified at the murderous instigation of the Jews, by [sinners] the Roman soldiers, had been attested by the miracles he performed, the fulfilment of prophecy, and his resurrection, to be the Messiah, the King of Israel, exalted on the throne of the Universe, and the Lord of glory." If this be true, they were convicted murderers! [and of their Messiah too!] This conscious guilt and vileness "pierced them to the heart"--saw their danger too! and naturally inquired, "What shall we do?" Is any thing to be done to make amends for what has been done? Is there any remedy, or escape, or reconciliation possible? Yes; reform, practically repent, conform in feeling and conduct to the facts just stated concerning Jesus; receive him as the Messiah, and confess his lordship; and put yourselves under his government and protection by being immersed into his name; you have sinned in rejecting and resisting [185] him whom God anointed to redeem Israel; but you are forgiven, when, from the heart, you believe on him as your King; and the PLEDGE of this forgiveness you receive in the immersion now commanded. Moreover, it is the "promise" of the Lord that they who obey the proclamation of his mercy shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Some might be staggered and hesitate for a moment, and he therefore exhorted them to compliance in terms which implied that submission to the call would be "salvation." They who complied were "saved" by the "washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Spirit."

      It is now time to ask, what had these persons experienced? Their belief, and consequent feelings and affections towards Jesus had changed from hatred to love and confidence; they were prepared to run all risks and go all lengths to secure his friendship and favor. They now loved the Lord Jesus Christ. What was their condition or state? Their sins were forgiven for Christ's sake, of which they were assured by being buried together with their Lord. What! buried? Yes, they had become dead to Moses--now married to another law-giver--dead to sin, and alive to righteousness--dead to the letter, and alive by the spirit--dead to all old things, and alive to the new kingdom, its glory, progress, and universal extension. Therefore, they were buried, and, as new creatures, admitted into God's house or family, which is the congregation of the saved. They were now separated unto God--that is, SAINTS; having been called into the hope and liberty of the gospel by the Apostle's word. O how simple and plain! level to the apprehension of a child, and most efficacious to give peace, joy, and assurance to the obedient disciple! Well, what is next to be done? Walk with the church, in steadfast continuance in the Apostles' doctrine, fellowship, breaking of bread, and in prayers. Now come difficulties:--1. What was the nature or cause of the "fear" which fell upon every soul? 2. Why is it that the believers now have no "spiritual gifts," or ability to do "mighty signs and wonders?" 3. Why is it that the subjects of the present "restoration of the ancient order" still live in separate dwellings, and feel as other men on the subject of private property? 4. In what way could or should christians now pretend to imitate the conduct of those saints who were "every day" in the temple? Had they no secular employment or business? 5. Is the phrase "breaking of bread" of the same import in both places? And why not? And is not the fact that the primitive disciples attended to the breaking the loaf every day--daily; nay, associated "the institution" with some one of their common meals every day, doing all to the glory of God? The holy sacrament was celebrated every day in one or other of the christian's houses, so that the Eucharist may be called the "daily bread" of the first christians. [Vide Eusebius Demon. Evang. lib. 1.]

      Be kind enough to remark on the above statement, and resolve me these doubts. If the darkness be past, and the trite light be now shining, verily, the eyes of many are held that they should not see clearly. Waiting your reply, I remain yours in the best bonds,
INTEGER VITAE. [186]      

A Solution of the Difficulties presented by Integer Vitae.

      Difficulty 1. "Great fear and trembling came upon every soul in Jerusalem," as sundry old manuscripts and versions read it. Acts v. 5. After the punishment inflicted on Ananias and Sapphira, "great fear came upon all that heard these things;" and verse 11th, "Great fear came upon all the church and upon as many as heard these things;" and verse 23d, "Of the rest durst no man join himself to them, but the people magnified them."

      After all the wonderful displays of divine power, from Pentecost to the punishment of these two disciples, Ananias and Sapphira, it is not at all surprising that a solemn awe and terror should seize every mind in Jerusalem, and all who heard of these stupendous displays. Enemies were terrified in the midst of their plots and schemes to suppress them. Like the soldiers who went to apprehend Jesus, whose voice prostrated them to the ground, impelled by their own passions or by those in authority, there was a secret and internal awe which startled at the rustling of a leaf. But amongst the disciples there was a profound religious awe and veneration which chastened their joy. Fear and joy, trembling and mirth are not incompatible. "They served the Lord with fear and rejoiced with trembling." Ps ii. 11.

      Difficulty 2. Because believers have no need of them. Tongues have ceased, prophecies have failed, and the gifts of knowledge have vanished away: for the revelation is complete; that which is perfect has supplanted that which was in part. And now abide faith, hope, love, these three. If they will not now hear Jesus and the Apostles, they would not be persuaded though one rose from the dead.

      Difficulty 3. Because there is no order for a creative community. No congregation, not even that in Jerusalem, co-operated in the creation of a common stock. There was a community in consuming, not in creating the bounties necessary to life. And, moreover, it was accidental, growing out of circumstances, as was their meeting daily for a time in the temple, that the saints in Jerusalem eat at a common table, or feasted from house to house. But in all the congregations distant from the temple and the metropolis, it is obvious there was no community in either consuming or creating the necessaries of life. Such a community is incompatible with the admonitions to hospitality, providing for one's own house, the care for strangers, widows, and the poor brethren. Besides, no divine institution ever sets aside the first divine institution, marriage; nor the duties, relations, and obligations arising from the family compact. Private property is necessary to liberality, sympathy, alms-giving, hospitality, and many other christian duties. The family community has its foundation in nature and revelation, and depends equally upon the reason and fitness of things, and the authority of God.

      The Jews were long accustomed to such communities about the times of their Pentecosts and great festivals, as appears from their own history. On some great occasions, as in the reign of Hezekiah, they doubled the time of their observances, and, instead of seven days, counted fourteen days. The rich made great presents, or free-will offerings on such occasions. On the single occasion just alluded to, the King presented to the congregation one thousand bullocks and seven thousand sheep; and the Princes gave to the congregation one thousand bullocks and ten thousand sheep. and "there was great joy in Jerusalem." The children of Israel about this time brought such an abundance of corn, wine, oil, and honey, that "the heaps'' were so great as to call for a general council to dispose of them. No wonder, then, that a people whose religion infused the greatest liberality by the most perfect system, should prolong their stay in Jerusalem and superabound in the fellowship after the blessings of this most illustrious Pentecost, under the heavenly genius of a spiritual economy. But he mistakes, in my humble opinion, the genius of the christian religion, who would make a community, destructive of private property, an essential part of the ancient order of things. [187]

      The 4th difficulty is removed in the preceding remarks. They are to meet together, as did all the churches, every first day of the week, in order to their communion in all the ordinances of the Lord's house--reading, teaching, exhorting, singing, praying, showing forth the Lord's death, attending to the discipline of the congregation, and to the fellowship for the poor, and for those who labor in the word and teaching.

      Difficulty 5. "Breaking of bread," in our judgment, is not of the same signification in verse 42 and verse 46 It is "breaking the loaf" in connexion with the worship and practice of the congregation in verse 42. It is there associated with apostolic institutions belonging to the whole christian community; but in verse 46 it is simply "breaking bread," without such association, and connected with social parties from house to house, and trophe, common food. In this breaking of bread they took their food: while in the breaking of the loaf they continued in the Apostles' teaching, praying, and praising. So in Acts xx 7. The brethren assembled on the first day of the week for "breaking the loaf;" and verse 10, after Paul had raised up Eutychus in the night, and had broken bread, i. e. taken a refreshment, he continued his discourse till the morning, and departed on his journey.

      As to the daily communion in breaking the loaf, it is unprecedented in the New Testament; and whether it was in Eusebius' time a superstitious observance or not, certain it is that we have no hint of the sort in the New Testament. We are not, however, prepared to censure them who meet during the week for this purpose; but, in the mean time, would rejoice to see all the disciples meeting cordially and joyfully every weekly return of the day of the resurrection of the Saviour to celebrate his death, and to keep all his social institutions. Weekly assemblies certainly were appointed by the Apostles; but other than weekly consociations are rather free-will assemblies than divinely authorized convocations of the disciples. Space forbids a longer reply. In the mean time, should these hints prove satisfactory to the querist, they are, with all respect, though without much regard to arrangement, hastily tendered.

QUERY ON FASTING--[From Georgia.]

      "Should christians at any time attend to religious fasting?"

      ON this subject the Scriptures are plain, and, we think, very satisfactory. The Saviour taught his disciples in his sermon on the mount how they should demean themselves in their private fastings. Farther on in his history, in answer to some questions concerning the apparent neglect of fasts among his disciples, he informed them that although it would then be inconsistent for his disciples to fast under the present circumstances, according to the current views of fasting among the Jews, yet a time should come, after his departure from them, when fasts would be every way seasonable, consistent, and commendable.

      We discover that fasting was frequent amongst the primitive disciples. As the brethren in Antioch ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, "Separate me Barnabas and Saul," &c. and when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands upon them, they commended them to the Lord. The church was fasting at the time this order was given. In the 14th chapter of the Acts, it reads, in the old English Bibles, 225 years ago, "And when they had ordained them elders by election in every church, and prayed and fasted, they commended them to the Lord in whom they believed." Even fasting in is full import, is spoken of by Paul, not only in reference to churches and individuals, but in reference to the connubial relation. 1 Cor vii 5. "That you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer." Thus fasting is alluded to in reference to the privacy of the closet, to the family relation, and to the whole congregation. So that not only did pious Jews, like Anna, "serve God with fastings and prayers," but so did the primitive christians.

      It was not positively enacted in the five hooks of Moses to the Jews; nor is it in the form of a positive command enjoined in the New Testament. Nor, [188] indeed, could it so be, in reference to that delicate propriety which characterizes all the divine institutions; but it is so commended and enjoined by the examples of Jesus and christians, and so approbated by God, as to leave no doubt that it contributes much to the sanctification of christians to deny even their natural and necessary appetites occasionally, that they may glorify God with their bodies and spirits which are God's, be more spiritually-minded, and be more consecrated to the Lord. Concerning the utility and necessity of fasting, more hereafter.


      THIS gentleman boasted some ago that he was "a Presbyterian by descent" as well as by profession. How far back he can trace his Presbyterian blood I am not able to say--whether he is of the "order of Wandsworth" or of the "order of 1648," I know not. I would presume, however, from the general character of the "Christian Herald," that he is of the genuine blood of 1648, which is the true and best Presbyterian blood. What affection this order had for blood will appear from the following ordinance:--

      "All persons who shall willingly maintain, publish, or defend, by preaching or writing, that the Father is not God; that the Son is not God; that the Holy Ghost is not God; or that these three are not one eternal God, &c. shall, upon complaint or proof by oath of two witnesses, before two justices of the peace, be committed to prison without bail or mainprize till the next jail delivery; and in case the indictment shall then he found, and the party upon his trial shall not abjure the said error, he shall suffer the pains of death, as in case of felony, without benefit of clergy."

      This decree was passed in May, 1648, by the true and best Presbyterian blood in Great Britain. The heresies which grew up in the Presbyterian church since that time, only 184 years, have drunk up most of this best Presbyterian blood; but now and then there is one like the aforesaid Mr. Jennings, who boasts of being a genuine Presbyterian by descent, or by flesh, blood, and bones.

      I should not have complimented this fleshly Presbyterian Editor by noticing his illustrious ancestry, had he not taken great pains to obtain it. He has been telling his readers how heretical I have been, and many other good things concerning my fates; as for example, how his uncle Obadiah discomfited me at Nashville, and how somebody else terrified me into silence. He now ranks me amongst the deceivers which were to precede the Millennium, &c. &c. Being a son of the flesh, a Presbyterian by birth, and an Editor upon the same footing, (for he claims patronage as well as orthodoxy on the ground of descent) he is most denouncing against those who are for faith before baptism, and who put the spirit before the flesh. Coming into the church according to the flesh by virtue of both father and mother, it is not passing strange that he should denounce us, as well as claim subscribers from the same fleshly principle. Hagar's son was only half blood, and yet Paul said, "he that was born after the flesh persecuted him [189] that was born after the Spirit." What mercy, then, can we expect from a full-blooded Presbyterian according to the flesh!

      I am happy to say that I have the honor of an acquaintance with many Presbyterians, who are not so pure in the blood as Mr. Jennings of Pittsburg, who are much more in accordance with the spirit of this age; and, although from a Presbyterian ancestry, neither so fleshly nor so bloody as he of the order of 1648.

      As this gentleman has enough to do to keep things straight in his own Presbyterian family, I hope he will not so repeatedly call for a notice from us: if he do, we shall have to tell him some truths which, I fear, will not be so acceptable as this compliment to his lineage and pretensions.


      WHAT evil tendency has the teaching that the blood of Jesus is the only sacrifice which can take away sin; that faith in the person and mission of Jesus, or in other words, faith in his sacrifice, is necessary to bring us to the blood of Jesus; and that immersion into this faith is necessary to our actually receiving the assurance, or the pledge, or, if any one prefers, the enjoyment of the remission of our sins. Will this doctrine depreciate the value of the blood of Jesus, of faith in that blood, or of christian immersion? Does not this view fix a just estimate upon the blood, the faith, and the water!

      The hue and cry of damnable heresy is as unmerited in this case as it ever was in any case. We do not think any man is sincere in raising it, unless he is in the grossest ignorance of the whole matter. Our maxim is, "What God has joined together let no man put asunder." The divine nature of Jesus, the unparalleled dignity of his person as the only begotten Son of God, must be believed before his blood can be appreciated. His sacrifice must he regarded in its true value before faith in it can purify the heart, and immersion into his name must be regarded in connexion with his person, mission, death, burial, and resurrection, before it can bring us into the enjoyment of its benefits. What condemnable tendency has thus holding up to view the blood of Jests, faith, and immersion, and urging mankind not to separate the things which God in his infinite wisdom and goodness has so intimately united! Will it lend mankind to disparage any one, or to regard any one of these as alone sufficient, and thus make all the others void? If blood alone will suffice, then faith and immersion are clouds without rain, empty and unmeaning. If faith alone will suffice, then blood and water are superfluous. If water alone is alone sufficient, then faith and blood are mere ceremonies.

      We challenge the world to show any mischievous tendency, any condemnable hearing that the gospel which we preach can have upon the minds or morals, the persons or characters of mankind. Its tendency is, indeed, to induce all who have faith in the testimony of God immediately to be immersed. If this be more injurious than [190] procrastination, then its tendency is condemnable. If the fixing of a just value upon immersion be more injurious than regarding it as a mere ceremony, then is the bearing of this doctrine to be denounced. If the resolving of the virtue of any christian institution into the blood of Jesus, and faith in that blood, be pernicious, then is the tendency of our preaching to be reprobated, if the making the value of the blood of Jesus to depend upon the divine excellency of his person, as the true and only Son of God, as having all the fulness of the Deity abiding substantially in him, be mischievous, then is the tendency of baptism for the remission of sins, through faith in the person, glory, majesty, and worth of the Divine Saviour, Emanuel, of destructive consequences to all who with this faith are buried in water and raised with Jesus for their adoption and translation into the kingdom of the Messiah. But I shall for the present leave it to our opponents to show the good tendency of their gospel, while we challenge them to show the pernicious tendency of the ancient gospel.

[Communicated for the Millennial Harbinger.]

LEXINGTON, KY. February, 1832.      

Brother Campbell,

      YOU are informed before this of the four days' meeting held here during the Christmas holy days, in the Christian meeting-house, by brethren B. W. Stone, J. T. Johnson, J. Smith, ------ Rogers, T. Smith, J. Creath, Sen. and others, for the purpose of effecting a union between the societies of Christians and disciples in this place. The subject having been agitated, they were called upon to dispose of it in some way. The brethren of both societies, believing the subject of union of christians a lawful and noble enterprize, embarked in it.

      After several friendly interviews by committees, it was finally agreed, on the 12th inst. by the brethren of both societies (nearly all being present) that they would unite upon the New Testament, and take that alone for their guide in matters of faith and practice. This agreement was solemnized by a pledge of shaking of hands, while we sang an appropriate song. The 26th inst. was agreed upon for the final consummation of the union, when we were publicly to come forward and have our names enrolled together as one new society. On the 19th we met for worship at the Christian brethren's meeting-house, at which time we attended to the breaking of the loaf, (Thomas Smith, their preacher, being absent notwithstanding.) But this is to inform you of our unfortunate blow up.

      Being informed by the Christian brethren during the last week, that some of them, and all the sisters, were not prepared to go into the union, in consequence of a difference between some of the brethren on the subject of choosing an Elder after we should get together, which was expressed in a private conversation. In consequence of which the brethren were consulted, and a meeting held to dissolve the pledge; which was accordingly done on the 25th, as the Christian brethren expressed a wish not to unite under present existing circumstances.

      So we find ourselves on the same ground as we were, which we will endeavor, by the help of the Lord, to maintain--and not embark in a perilous voyage in a frail vessel again. We have, however, probed to the very bottom of the matter, and ascertained what the true difference between us is, and console ourselves by a fond recollection of having done our duty. [191] it is the Clergy--the hireling system--the called and sent--the rulers--that keep us apart. No, we cannot unite under present existing circumstances. The present existing circumstance is this: there is not a member in either society at present whom we could appoint Elder, according to divine direction; and some of the Christian friends wished to know if they could not hire one from a sister church, with her consent, to administer the ordinances? For they believe that no person but a preacher has a right to administer the ordinances--such as the breaking of the loaf, &c. and become very much alarmed at the idea of us common folks receiving the name of kings and priests to the Lord; or, as it is in the common version, according to Griesbach's standard Greek text, by Nathan Hall, "a kingdom of priests to God." Yes, sir, it is this hireling system, this divine call and mission; which forbade our union; because our union forbids this state of things. This clerical authority, this thing of Elder here, and there, and yonder, at the same time, is what caused our blow up.

      We are said to be reformers. It is true we have been endeavoring to reform, and are yet reforming; but one of two things is certain--in fleeing from mystic Babylon we have run past Jerusalem, or our Christian friends have not got out of the suburbs of the old city yet.
  Yours in the Lord, &c.
H. C. C.      

      No room for comment on the above at this time.




----> AN attempt to fix the reproach of "a wicked attempt" upon the reputation of some leading reformers, will, we hope, in the estimation of our readers, justify us in interrupting our regular series of essays to give publicity to the facts and documents relative to the obituary notice of Robert B. Semple. A desire to detract from the christian character of persons of the highest reputation for moral excellence, is too often apparent in them who fail to sustain the charge of heterodoxy in the arena of fair discussion.

----> I HAVE not seen a word from the Universalists since my last notice of their proceedings in reference to the proposed discussion. What is the meaning of this, gentlemen?

----> A QUERY, and an answer prepared for it, on the application of the name Apostles to Silas and Timothy, have been crowded out of this number, with a letter from the correspondent who furnished it. These will appear in our next.

----> SIXTY-EIGHT persons have been compelled to withdraw from the First Baptist Church in Richmond, because they wished to submit to the government of the twelve Apostles rather than to the opinions of a clerical council.


PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY A. CAMPBELL--Price $2 per annum. [192]

      1 It appears Mr. Broaddus would have been better pleased if I had flattered bishop Semple during his life, and reproached him after his death. If not, why does he call his son's attention to this part of my communication? [167]
      2 As Messrs. Warren and Peyton have their names affixed to the letter of Mr. Adams, and as their own letters prove nothing more than is proved in that communication, except their own prejudices, we did not think it reasonable to crowd our pages with these extraneous repetitions of the same tales, having in them not a single fact pertinent to the case, not certified by them in the communications from Messrs. Broaddus, Semple, and Adams. Brother Leitch has, however, alluded to them in such a way that, had his letter been received before the matter for the number was laid off, we would, uninteresting and impertinent as they are, have published them. If, however, Messrs. Broaddus and Ball will have all the documents from our side published in the Herald, we will yet publish, without note or comment, their epistles.--Ed. [174]
      3 This fact, one of many similar facts, speaks volumes to all who dare to think for themselves, Why is this suppression, this withholding of the truth, the whole truth, if gentlemen are honest and sincere in their pretensions and efforts to lead the public mind to just conclusions? Had we been guilty of such an act, how would our opponents have blazed it abroad, and denounced us as is now attempted, contrary to all truth, honor, and fair dealing, in the words following, from the Index of the 10th March:--
      "DR SEMPLE.--The Campbellites in Virginia have endeavored to injure the character and standing of this excellent and venerable man, since his decease, by saying that he left the world a friend to reform, alias Campbellism. The slander, however, is fully refuted in the two last numbers of the Richmond Herald. That must be a wicked and desperate cause which resorts to such measures for its support."
      This is the CHRISTIAN Index!!!--Reader, ought not the writer of this Index, or the Baptist Repository, from which it is taken, to transfer to his side of the account this imputation against the friends of reform?--Ed. M. H. [176]


[The Millennial Harbinger, 3 (April, 1832): 145-192.]

[Table of Contents]
[Previous] [Next]
Alexander Campbell, ed.
The Millennial Harbinger, Vol. III, No. IV (1832)

Back to Alexander Campbell Page
Back to Restoration Movement Texts Page