T this period, Elder Scott revised and republished, in the "Evangelist," a remarkable discourse on the Holy Spirit,^a which is deserving of mention. The work of the Holy Spirit for years had been the subject of controversy between the Disciples and other religious bodies, and also among themselves, and one which from its very nature was extremely difficult to settle. It was commonly treated as a proper subject of philosophical inquiry to be decided by reasonings with regard to the faculties and powers of the human mind, rather than by the express teachings of the Scriptures. The result was that, by some, conversion was regarded as the work of the Spirit without the Word; by others, as effected exclusively by the Word. It was, indeed, the greatest religious question of the day, upon which the greatest possible confusion prevailed. The theory of one party made the Word of God a dead letter, and did not scruple to call it such, while the opposite party laid so much stress upon the Word, that they were understood as regarding the Word and Spirit identical. One party would advocate a direct contact between the mind of man and the Spirit of God, and that the impression resulting from this contact was the converting [260] and sanctifying power, while the other party would ask, Of what use or value then is the Word of God, if impressions made upon the soul without its agency are saving and sanctifying? The former view made every conversion a miracle as it was effected by a power that the sinner could neither avail himself of, nor resist, as the very desire for salvation must be begotten in the heart by the Spirit which effected it; and its this view of the case man had too agency whatever in his own conversion. The latter view regarded all the power of the Spirit as being put forth through the Word of God alone; and all changes in saint or sinner, as the result of the light, instruction, and motives contained in the Words of Scripture, and as being accordant with the human mind, heart, and will; no distinction was made between the agent and instrument, but the Word and Spirit were regarded as one and the same.

      These views being in direct conflict, both could not be true, while both might be false; but, instead of attempting to sustain either, or the hopeless task of harmonizing them, Mr. Scott resolved to review the whole ground, and see if the Scriptures did not warrant a view different from those generally entertained, and free from the objections which might be urged against them. The result of his reflections upon this important theme was an elaborate discourse on the Holy Spirit, several editions of which were widely circulated in pamphlet form.

      The discourse was eagerly read, and had to pass through a most searching criticism, but it stood the test; the objections have already been forgotten, but his argument, no one has been able to improve. The main [261] points of the discourse may be gathered from the following extracts:

"'Whom the world can not receive.'--JOHN XIV.

      "Christianity, as developed in the sacred oracles, is sustained by three divine missions--the mission of the Lord Jesus, the mission of the apostles, and the mission of the Holy Spirit; these embassies are distinct in three particulars, namely, person, termination, and design. Like the branches, flowers, and fruit of the same tree, they are, indeed, nearly and admirably related; still, however, like these, they are distinct; not one, but three missions, connected like the vine, its branches and clusters of grapes.

      "Of the person sent on these missions: It may suffice to observe that, although the Scriptures give to Jesus, the apostles, and to the Holy Spirit, the attitude of missionaries, i. e., speak of them as persons sent by the Father, they never speak of the Father himself in such style. God is said, in the New Testament, to send the Lord Jesus, the Lord Jesus to seed the apostles, and the Holy Spirit to be sent by the Father and the Son, but the Father himself is not said to be sent by any one.

      "Of the termination of these missions: Every embassy, political or religious, must and does end somewhere; hence, we have political embassies to Spain, Portugal, the Court of St. James, St. Cloud's, Petersburgh, Naples; and we have religious missions to Japan, the Cape, Hindoostan, to the Indians, and the South seas. If it be inquired then, in what other respect these three divine institutions differed from each other, I answer, they had distinct terminations. Our Lord Jesus was sent personally to the Jewish nation and his mission terminated on that people.

      "The apostles were sent to all the nations, and their mission terminated accordingly; but the Holy Spirit was [262] sent only to the church of our Lord Jesus Christ, and, so far as his gifts were concerned, his mission terminated in that institution.

      "Of the design of these missions: In every embassy there is something to be accomplished. We do not send out political and religious embassadors for nothing; but for the high purpose of negotiation; and, therefore, it will be seen, in the following discourse, that God, in sending forth His Son, the apostles, and the Holy Spirit, had a great design; also, that the ends or designs of the embassies of these functionaries were all distinct from each other.

      "In fine, it will be shown, in regard to the Holy Spirit, that he was not sent to dwell in any man in order to make him a Christian, but because he had already become a Christian; or, in other terms, it will be proved that the Holy Spirit is not given to men to make them believe and obey the gospel, but rather because they have believed and obeyed the gospel.

      "The propositions of the discourse are as follows:

      "PROPOSITION 1. Jesus Christ was, personally, a missionary only to the Jews; his mission terminated on that people, and the designs of it were to proclaim the gospel, and to teach those among them who believed it.

      "PROPOSITION 2. The apostles were missionaries to the whole world; their mission terminated on mankind, and its design was to proclaim the gospel, and to teach those among men who believed it.

      "PROPOSITION 3. The Holy Spirit was a missionary to the church; His mission terminated on that institution, and the designs of it were to comfort the disciples, glorify, Jesus Christ as the true Messiah, and to convince the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment."^b

      He showed clearly from the labors of Christ, while on earth, which were in strict accordance with his [263] words, "I am not sent, but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel," that his mission began and terminated with that people. In like manner, from the commission, it was evident that the mission of the apostles was to all nations--the unconverted--and its design, their conversion by preaching the gospel; from which it follows that the mission of the Spirit was not to the world or the unconverted, as, in that case, its mission and that of the apostles would have been the same; but that its mission was as distinct from theirs, as theirs was from that of the Savior; that it was to the church, and not to the world, since Christ had said of the Spirit, "whom the world can not receive." This point he argues as follows:

      The idea of the Spirit being a missionary to the church affords a new and striking argument against that immoral and fatal maxim in popular theology, namely, that special spiritual operations are necessary to faith! In this discourse it is shown that the church was formed before any of her members received the Spirit; that after the church was formed the Spirit was sent into her on the day of Pentecost; finally, that men did not and do not receive this Spirit to make them disciples, but because they were or are disciples; in a word, it is shown, from the express words of Christ himself, that no man that does not first of all believe the gospel can receive the Holy Spirit. 'If any man thirst,' says Christ, 'let him come unto me and drink, and out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.' Now, what does this mean; that the Holy Spirit will be given to unbelievers? No. John, the Apostle, explains it as follows: 'This he spake of the Spirit which was to be given to those who believed, for the Spirit was not yet given (to believers) because that Jesus was not yet glorified.' [264]

      "Concerning the Holy Spirit, the Redeemer said, further: 'It is expedient for you that I go away; for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come; but if I go away, I will send him to you;' again, 'whom the world can not receive.' I will send him to you; to you, my disciples; now, the number of disciples must have been at this time very great, for Christ made and baptized, it is said, more than John; there were one hundred and twenty present on the day of Pentecost, and five hundred brethren beheld him at once after his resurrection, and all these were reckoned disciples without having received the Holy Spirit! But if the Holy Spirit had been necessary to make men repent and believe the gospel, then he must have come to them before Jesus left the world; and, consequently, when he went away he could not send him, from the fact that he had already come--I will send him to you. The mission of the Spirit, then, was to those whom the Redeemer designated you, the disciples--the church which he had gathered; and this institution is distinguished from the world by nothing so much as that of receiving the Spirit through faith; for, a prime reason why the world does not receive the Spirit is, that it has no faith in God. 'Whom the world can not receive, because it seeth him not.' The Spirit, then, being received by them who believe, and the world being endued with sense, and having no faith, it is impossible that he should be received by the world, or that his mission should be to unbelieving men. He came to the church; and there is no instance on record of the Holy Spirit transcending the limits of his mission, or of operating in a man before faith to produce that principle in his soul.

      "The doctrine, then, alas! the too popular doctrine, which extends the mission of the Spirit beyond the bounds of the church, and teaches the world, which the Savior says, can not receive him, to sit and wait for his internal special operations to produce faith, is monstrously absurd [265] and impious; absurd, because it makes the Holy Spirit to transgress, by overreaching the limits of his embassy, which is to the church; and impious, because it makes him give the lie to the Lord of Glory, who says, the world can not receive him. Jesus said, 'When he is come he will glorify me;' Would it glorify the Redeemer's character before either angels or men to make him a liar, as the Spirit would and must do, were he, according to the maxims of party theology, to be received by sinners for the purpose of originating in them either faith or repentance? Let ministers reflect on this; let all professors reflect on this.

      "That those who obey the gospel, that is, believe, repent, and are baptized, do and must, by the very nature of the New Covenant, receive the Holy Spirit, is made certain by a 'thus saith the Lord;' but that men who hear the gospel, can not believe and obey it, is wholly human, and is supported by nothing but a 'thus saith the man'--the preacher--the Episcopalian, the Presbyterian, the Methodist, the Baptist, the Quaker; for, however these parties differ in other matters, they are all alike here; in this doctrine they are one! And judge for yourself, reader, whether such among us, as are charged with the office of public instructors in the Christian religion, are not chargeable with the grossest perversity, when we refuse to announce the great things of salvation in the sound wordsof the New Testament, and cry aloud that our audience can not believe and obey the gospel, on the testimony of the Holy Scriptures, without special operations from the Holy Spirit, when Almighty God has caused it to be written in living characters on the intelligible page of his never-dying word, 'Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'^c

      "The Spirit, then, can do nothing in religion, nothing [266] in Christianity, but by the members of the body of Christ. Even the Word of God--the Scriptures--have been given by members filled with this Spirit; they spake as the Spirit gave them utterance. But mark, reader, that there is no member of the body of Christ in whom the Holy Spirit dwelleth not; for it will hold as good at the end of the world as it does now, and it holds as good now as it did on the day of Pentecost and afterward, that 'if any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of his.' If, therefore, the Spirit convinces the world of sin, or glorifies Jesus, it is all through the agency of the members of the body of Christ, whom he fills--the church. Hence, the indispensable duty of all disciples being led by the Spirit of God, with which they are sealed, and of holding forth, in the language of the New Testament, the gospel; for, where there are no Christians, or where Christians do not perform their duties, there are no conversions--as in Tartary, India, some parts of Europe, and so forth. But wherever there are Christians, Christians who hold forth the gospel in the sound words used on Pentecost by the apostles, there will always be some conversions, more or less."^d

      Certain objections arose against the views he presented, not from any defect in them, but in consequence of the erroneous views which had been entertained previously on this subject. He mentions those objections, and thus disposes of them:

      "'If the Holy Spirit does not enter the soul of the sinner, how can he convince him?' I answer, that God convinces us as we convince one another--by truth and argument. Can the Holy Spirit do nothing for a person unless he enters that person? Did he glorify Christ by entering him, or by enlightening the apostle on his character? As, then, the Spirit glorified Christ without entering him, so he can convince sinners without entering and [267] dwelling in them. Let preachers, and all who believe, hold forth the word of the Spirit to the people; let them forbear calling it a dead letter, and the Spirit will soon convince sinners of sin. But,

      "It is objected, 'If the Spirit does not go into the souls of sinners, and strive with them, how can they be said to resist the Spirit?' Will the reader allow the God of heaven to answer this objection? Then turn over to Nehemiah, ix: 30. There we are told that the people resisted the Spirit of God, speaking to them by the mouth of the prophets. The spirit resisted was in the prophet, not in the people. The spirit of the devil was in the people.

      "'We can not believe of ourselves!' ANSWER. God does not require you to believe of yourselves. Listen to the Spirit speaking to you in the mouth of the apostles and prophets, and he will afford you abundant evidence by which you can believe, and must believe, on Jesus, or be forever condemned. 'He that believeth not shall be damned.'

      "'If faith do not come by the Spirits how does it come?' The apostle says, (Romans x.) 'Faith cometh by hearing;' and who are you that dare to say it cometh any other way?

      "'Do not the Scriptures say that faith is the gift of God?' A field of wheat is the gift of God; and, as God has his own way of bestowing his gifts, both natural and religious, so if we ask how the gift of faith cometh, the answer is, It cometh by hearing the Word of God.

      "'But if faith cometh by hearing, why have not all faith?' The Lord Jesus shows that men are blinded and hardened by seeking and indulging in personal, family, political, and professional distinctions. 'How,' says he, 'can you believe in me, when you seek honor one of another, and seek not the honor which cometh from God only.'

      "'The Word a called "the Sword of the Spirit;" [268] and must not the Spirit use his own Sword?' Some swords are called 'Spanish blades,'--not because Spaniards use them, but because they make them. So the Word is called 'the Sword of the Spirit'--not because he uses it, but because he made it for the saints to use; hence, the apostle, in Ephesians, 6th chapter, bids us take the 'Sword of the Spirit' that we might defend ourselves with it against our spiritual enemies.

      "'Is it nowhere said in Scripture that the Spirit must convince us of sin?' Yes; but we have already seen how he does this, namely, by the Word of God, preached--not by going into the souls of sinners.

      "'Is not a "manifestation of the Spirit given to every man to profit withal?"' Yes, to every man not out but in the church. This is in the 7th verse of the 12th chapter, 2d Corinthians--one which is, perhaps, more abused by some ignorant people than any other supposed to relate to this subject. The apostle is, in that chapter, discoursing of church affairs; and to give an air of universality to a saying which has a special reference to men in the church is most injudicious. According to some people's mode of quoting this Scripture, there is no advantage in being a disciple of Christ; for, in their judgment, the Holy Spirit is given to Jew, Turk, and even idolaters!

      "This is the true state of the case; some of the disciples in the church at Corinth were becoming vain of the high spiritual gifts which they had received on obeying the gospel. The apostle lets them understand that these gifts were given not to bring personal honor to the man that received them, but for the good of the whole church; and by the best translators the verse is rendered thus: 'A portion of the Spirit is given to every man (disciple) for the profit of the whole' (church).

      "'Did not the Lord open Lydia's head?' Yes; and the Lord opens every heart that is opened at all. But the question here is, How does he open the heart? Does it [269] say that the Lord opened Lydia's heart by the influence of the Holy Spirit? No. Then don't you say so, lest God reprove you for adding to his word, and you be found a liar. Lydia had met, with certain other women, on a Sabbath, to worship God in the place where prayer was wont to be made; and, as all present were Jews, the apostle, no doubt, went to work with them as he did with other Jews; that is, 'he reasoned with them out of the Scriptures.' This was the very way which the Spirit demonstrated to all Jews that Jesus was Christ; and this is the way by which the hearts of the Jews were opened to attend to the things spoken by the apostles."^e

      The "Word alone" party were ready to admit that the gospel was the great instrumentality in the conversion of the world, the power of God unto salvation to every one that believed it, as it accorded with the course pursued by the apostles, who, as is evident from the account of their labors in the book of Acts, preached the gospel wherever they went, and promised the Spirit to those who became obedient; and they saw, moreover, that the gospel which they preached was never called the Spirit: and the "Spirit alone" party were astounded at the discovery that Christ had said that the world could not receive the Spirit, and that conversions never were known to precede a knowledge of the Word, but invariably followed the preaching. Mr. Scott had thrown away all theories and speculations in regard to the matter, and fallen back upon the Scriptures; and, hence, those who reverenced the Word of God had little difficulty in accepting what now, in the light of that Word, was so clear. Elder B. U. Watkins says of this discourse: "It threw light on an obscure subject, and acted like [270] oil upon the troubled waters. His positions were well taken, and though they had to pass through an ordeal of criticism, as the manner then was, few thinkers of to-day will call them in question. But obvious and self-evident as they now appear, they were then dug out of the rubbish of ages with great labor and careful investigation."

      Dr. Richardson says in regard to it: "It was the first time it had been publicly brought forward in so particular a manner, and the clear scriptural evidence presented in the discourse was generally received as decisive of the questions involved."^f Alexander Campbell had prior to this time presented his views on this vexed, yet deeply-important subject, in his " Dialogue on the Holy Spirit," which was published in the first edition of his work called, "Christianity Restored;"^g this was omitted in subsequent editions of the work, and he gave the following earnest commendation of the views of his friend. "Brother Walter Scott," said he, "who, in the fall of 1827, arranged the several items of faith, repentance, baptism, remission of sins, the Holy Spirit, and eternal life, restored them in this order to the church under the title of the ancient gospel, and successfully preached it for the conversion of the world, has written a discourse on the fifth point, viz., the Holy Spirit, which presents the subject in such an attitude as can not fail to make all who read it understand the views entertained by us, and, as we think, taught by the apostles in their writings. We can recommend to all the Disciples this discourse as most worthy of a place in their families; because it perspicuously, forcibly, and with a brevity favorable to an easy apprehension of its meaning, presents the [271] subject to the mind of the reader. Our opponents, too, who are continually misrepresenting, and many of them, no doubt, misconceiving, our views on this subject, if they would be advised by us, we would request to furnish themselves with a copy, that they may be better informed on this topic; and, if they should still be conscientiously opposed, that they may oppose what we teach, and not a phantom of their own creation."^h

      The Rev. Samuel W. Lynd, who was regarded as one of the foremost Baptist ministers in the West, for ability and learning, resided at this time in Cincinnati, between whom and Mr. Scott a controversy took place, in consequence of a pamphlet on the subject of baptism, published by the former.ⁱ While agreeing perfectly with regard to the mode, they were far asunder with regard to the design of the ordinance. Mr. Scott reviewed the pamphlet in the "Evangelist," making the views of Mr. Lynd the subject of a good natured, but searching, criticism, from which we make a few extracts.

      "Mr. Lynd delivers himself on the import and intent of baptism as follows:

      "This ordinance is in no part of the divine Word associated with the forgiveness of sins, unless it be supposed to be thus associated in one single passage where Peter, on the day of Pentecost, addressing inquirers, says: 'Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.' This passage has been urged. To this three observations may be offered. We shall let the reader upon Mr. Lynd's three observations immediately. In the meantime, he will please take notice to Mr. Lynd's phraseology, [272] 'one single passage.' Does the Rev. gentleman imagine that it detracts either from the signification or authority of God's sayings, that they are found only once in the Holy Scriptures? Was death associated with the eating of the forbidden fruit in more passages of the Old Testament than one? No; it was said only once--'In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.' I should like to hear Mr. Lynd make three observations upon the above passage; no doubt, he could, with infinite sagacity, prove that death was 'in no part of the divine Word associated with transgression, unless it be supposed to be associated in this one single passage,' spoken by God in Paradise! 'In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.' There are many important matters which are found in only one single passage. It was said only once, 'Let all the angels of God worship him.' On Mr. Lynd's profound philosophy we might have another rebellion in heaven; and the angels say it was commanded us only in one single passage to obey Messiah! Presbyterians say it is found only in one single passage in the New Testament, 'He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;' and on that account they think, like Mr. Lynd, that the passage is worthy of three observations.

      "The first observation is, this Scripture can not mean what it says. Second, what does it mean? Third, we don't know what it means; or, in the words of Mr. Lynd, its meaning is doubtful; that is, it has no meaning! But here comes the triple comment--the three observations of Mr. Lynd.

      1. "'The passage is capable of transposition. Repent, every one of you, for the remission of sins and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. This precisely corresponds with other places, where remission of sins is immediately connected with repentance, and not with baptism.

      2. "'But should this transposition be opposed, the passage is capable of a different rendering. Instead of saying [273] for the remission of sins, we might read it--the relinquishments, or putting away, of sin, and this translation would agree precisely with the fact; for by baptism we profess to put away sin, and to live a new life; and, more than this, it would accord with the primitive and ordinary meaning of the word.

      3. "'The language of Peter is, to say the least, doubtful, as it stands in our translation; and, therefore, ought not to be made the proof of a foundation principle in religion. If repentance and remission of sins are associated in other places (and this is the fact), the most that Peter's words could be employed for, would be to stand as collateral testimony to this fact.'

      1. "'Capable of transposition:' to be sure, it is perfectly capable of transposition; but the matter on the title page of Mr. Lynd's pamphlet is also capable, or, at least, susceptible of transposition. Let us try transposition in the writings of Mr. Lynd, whose name, on the title page, occurs immediately after the Savior's, and then, instead of 'Baptism a divine institution, and worthy the serious regard of all who reverence the authority of Jesus Christ,' we have 'Baptism a divine institution, and worthy the serious regard of all who reverence the authority of Samuel W. Lynd.' The apostle says to the Romans: 'Now, I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid them. For they that are such, serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own bellies.' What a happy vehicle of error some folks could find in Mr. Lynd's trick of transposition to carry them out of the meaning of the above passage. How well it would become some folks to say, the passage is a single one, and capable of transposition, thus: 'For they that are such, serve not their own bellies, but the Lord Jesus Christ!' But what a silly tinker of the Holy Word of God our author makes; he would, by transposition, connect remission of sins with repentance; [274] but in no wise with baptism. Now is the man who only repents more deserving of forgiveness than the man who both repents and is baptized? The gospel of Christ assures us that remission of sins is not absolutely connected with either faith, repentance, or baptism alone, but that the whole of them is expected of him who is a candidate for pardon by the blood of the Lamb--the precious blood of the Lamb.

      2. "'To the relinquishment of sin.' Let us attend to Mr. Lynd's second effort to get rid of the plain sayings of God. 'Instead of saying for the remission of sins, we might read it--to the relinquishment or putting away of sins.' Might read it! For mercy's sake, Mr. Lynd, let us read it as it stands; for if it be bad theology as it came out of Peter's mouth, it is ten times worse, as it comes out of yours. Your theology is this; you would have men forgiven their sins when they repent, but not relinquish their sins until they are baptized; thus, repentance is for the forgiveness of sins, and baptism the relinquishment of them. So in making a Christian, Mr. Lynd would have the person pardoned before he relinquished or put away sins.

      "Now, Rev. Sir, I am not ashamed to say that the gospel which I have learned from the New Testament, teaches the very reverse of your theology--it teaches men, first, to put away sin by repentance, and then to be baptized for remission; you have just put the cart before the horse in this matter of relinquishment; you have, by transposition, put the one where the other should be--pardon for reformation, and reformation for pardon.

      3. "'The language of Peter is, to say the least, doubtful,' etc. Well, now, Sir, have you made Peter's language less doubtful by what you have said? Can I understand, by all the use which you have made of transposition and definition, whether I am pardoned when reformed, or reformed when baptized? No, sir; an angel could not tell what you would have the passage really mean, though a fool might see that [275] you would have it mean any thing but what it says: 'Be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins.'"^j

      This called forth a reply^k more spirited than courteous, which elicited a rejoinder,^l keen and clear, as follows:

      "In relation to your criticism, on the 38th verse of the 2d chapter of the Acts, it is deemed sufficient to have remonstrated, as I have already done, that the transposition, which it inculcates, is discountenanced alike by syntax and by the canons of a just scriptural criticism. Grammatical transposition is, in the case, of no value; critical transposition is absurd; for a rule is employed primarily to change the sense which should be employed primarily to ascertain the true reading. Had you said that the amendment you proposed was sustained by all, or many, or even a few, of the most ancient MSS, or, that the fathers, or some commentator, paraphrast, divine, or translator, had given your sense to the passage, we could have borne with you, and would have inquired into the truth of what you offered, but to give it us in the form of a mere ipse dixit,^m as you have done, is insufferable. I aver that there is neither politeness nor modesty in such a procedure. Do you, Sir, perceive how the case stands with yourself in relation to the whole religious world now? The Greeks, Romans, and Episcopalians, 'baptize for the remission of sins,' and their common creed is--'I believe in one baptism for the remission of sins.' Yet you, in opposition to all their faith and wisdom, aver, that 'this ordinance is in no part of the divine Word associated with the forgiveness of sins,' save one, and in this one you have attempted to show that the connection is not real, but only apparent; and that, while it reads, 'Be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins,' it ought to be understood, [276] 'Repent, every one of you, for the remission of sins!' The Presbyterians, also, and even the Baptists, recognize the connection of baptism and remission as being scriptural, and the former declare it to be both the 'sign and seal of the remission of sins.' Have the Greeks, Romans, and Protestants, then, built their whole faith in this matter on a point--on a single passage? Yes, says Mr. Lynd, baptism and remission can be supposed to be thus associated only 'in one single passage?' Pardon me, dear sir, but I am forcibly struck with the likeness which your present course bears to that of him who plays at 'Blind Man's Buff.' You do not see what you are about; you are not aware how much is involved in your criticism. It is not now Mr. Lynd against Walter Scott, and those who, like him, baptize for the remission of sins, but it is Mr. Lynd against the whole religious world--the Greek, Roman, and Protestant world.

      "'In our translation:' You say 'Peter's word's are doubtful as they stand in our translation.' Then, I say, they must be doubtful as they stand in the Greek translation, for they stand in both translations alike. But you evidently imply that they are not doubtful in the Greek; therefore, I say they are not doubtful in the English, for they are the same, both in Greek and English. Seeing, then, they are alike, they are either both right or both wrong. If they are both wrong, then they must be put right by substituting an artificial order for a natural one; and then it follows that an artificial arrangement of the words in a sentence is better fitted for communicating to us the sense of it than a natural order, which is absurd. Are they, then, both right? I answer, they are both right, because they are both natural, and both alike in sense and syntax. We have the words in English, and we have them in Greek, as they came from the pen of their author, Luke, the Evangelist. Mr. Lynd, they tell an anecdote of a collier, who was a Catholic; the priest wished to ensnare him, [277] and reported him as a heretic accordingly: How, says the priest, do you believe? I believe as Mother Church believes, answered the wary collier. And how do you and Mother Church believe? We both believe alike, responds the triumphant collier. So of the verses in question. If it is asked how the English reads? The answer is, it reads as the Greek reads. But how does the Greek read? It reads as the English does. And how do both the Greek and English read? Answer. They both read alike.ⁿ

      "We promised that, after having attended to what Mr. Lynd submitted on the subjects of transposition and definition, to take notice of his numerous questions; we shall now redeem our promise, and set down his questions in order numerically, accompanied with such answers as we imagine they deserve.

      "Question. Mr. Lynd says the passage is capable of transposition, and asks, 'have you shown that it is not?'

      "A. I have now shown that, grammatically, logically, and critically, it is absolutely incapable of transposition; and that, if you move it at all, you do it arbitrarily, presumptuously, in violation of the Greek and English texts, and without support, I believe, from any scholar or Christian that has ever existed from this day backward to the day of Pentecost, when it was spoken.

      "Q. If remission is not absolutely connected with either Faith, Repentance, or Baptism alone,--let these questions be answered. Is remission absolutely connected with the observance of the whole?

      "A. Please listen to Peter: Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins. This is connecting it absolutely with the observance of the whole. But, anxious to make out two ways, you ask.

      "Q. If the whole are not obeyed, can a person be forgiven who is disobedient to any one of the three?

      "A. You will acknowledge that, without faith it is [278] impossible to please God, and, consequently, that the person who is devoid of this first principle of all revealed religion can not be forgiven; you will admit, also, that the man who believes and does not repent must perish; Christ has asserted this even of his professed disciples. The question, then, is, whether a person who believes and repents can be forgiven if disobedient when Christ commands him to be baptized for forgiveness. To this we reply, that obedience to Christ is essential and indispensable in the Christian religion; for, at his second appearance he will not pardon, but destroy those 'who obey not the gospel.' We repeat, therefore, the good old way--the true, the holy, and the just old way--is, that faith, repentance, and baptism are necessary to actual pardon.

      "Q. Have persons who have exercised repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ, and have not been baptized, ever received the forgiveness of their sins?

      "A. What is that to thee, or to me? We know that he who believes, repents, and is baptized, has forgiveness of his past sins; and this is enough for us both as Christians and servants of the Messiah. Do you beware of 'resisting the Holy Spirit' speaking to you, by Peter and the other apostles.

      "Q. Have persons baptized but who neither repent nor believe, received the remission of their sins?

      "A. You have nothing to do with such a question. Mind what the Son of God has said and the apostles have taught and practiced; forgiveness is consequent on faith, repentance, and baptism; but you ask,

      "Q. Are these 'merely expected of him who is a candidate for pardon?'

      "A. This is a silly, impertinent question; these things are not only expected, but demanded, of every candidate for pardon.

      "Q. Can pardon be bestowed without repentance and faith? [279]

      "A. It is nothing to you or me whether it can or no, seeing that, with them, it is bestowed on all who are baptized.

      "Q. Can pardon be bestowed without baptism; and is it ever done under the present dispensation?

      "A. These last questions are substantially the same, and scarcely deserving of any answer. What have we to do with what can be or may be? The blessed Father can do, and may do, and has all right to do, whatever he pleases; but we are only sure that he will do what he has said; he may or may not do what we imagine, think, or expect, but the holiness of his character and nature makes it impossible for him but do what he has said. It is impossible for God to lie. The person who believes, repents, and is baptized must be forgiven. God has ordered things thus, and with any thing else we have nothing to do. Truth, you say, is the same in February that it was in January; remember that it is also the same now it was on the day of Pentecost. Yea, I say unto you, Mr. Lynd, remember."^o

      In the above, Mr. Scott, with the utmost candor and firmness, sets forth the views of his opponent as clearly as he does his own arguments; there is no garbling, no suppression, but an earnest desire to reach the truth is evident throughout, and the result was, that upon the main points at issue Mr. Lynd attempted no reply. [280]

[LEWS 260-280]