ples, have been no forgiveness under the Jewish and former dispensations of God's mercy, as no such ordinance or institution then existed; whereas we are assured the contrary is the fact. Thus in the case of David, when he had so greatly sinned in the matter of Uriah. No sooner was he brought, through the instrumentality of Nathan, humbly to confess his sin, than that servant of God assured him that it was put away. Accordingly we hear the penitent himself declare, (Psal. 32:5,) I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin." If then there is no forgiveness of sins, at least in this life, without immersion, as Mr. C. contends, in vain did the Old Testament saints make their humble confession, in vain did they so earnestly plead with God for pardon; and the record of the blotting out of their sins as a cloud and a thick cloud, is not true.

It was further observed, that the force of the argument which the Bishop attempted from the passage (Rev. 1:5) wherein Jesus Christ is described as "the first-begotten of the dead," could not be perceived. It is indeed admitted, that the original word here rendered “First-begotten" in our translation, means also First-born, and is thus translated in our version in the epistle to the Colossians, (1:15,) where our Lord is called "the First-born (or as it is conceived it would in this instance have been better rendered, the First-begotten) of every creature," or of the whole creation," because he was (eternally) begotten to be Heir and Lord of all things, or over all persons, to have the pre-eminence, and because all things were created for him as well as by him." So also he is called

the First-begotten (or the First-born) of the dead," in consequence of his being the first that rose from the dead, no more to die. Hence says the apostle: "Now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first fruits of them that slept." And hence He declares himself to be, (Rev. 1:18,) "He that liveth and was dead; and behold, I am alive forever more, Amen; and have the keys of hell and

of death." Still it was not, nor is it yet perceived how this phrase, or description of a risen Saviour, affords any support to the system of Mr C., more than the passage, (Heb. 1:6,) wherein it is said concerning the Messiah, "When he bringeth in the First-begotten (or firstborn) into the world, he saith, let all the angels of God worship him."

With regard to the human authority* cited by Mr. C.,

*The following statements of Mr. Campbell are here inserted by the Editor of this book, that the reader may see how little dependence can be placed on the declarations of a man, who at one time entirely repudiates the opinions of the anclent fathers, and at another, brings them forward with confidence-who at one time states a certain doctrine was not common among a class of men, and then, again, represents all of them as harmonious about the same thing. His statements may be presented very properly as

CAMPBELL

versus

CAMPBELL

"Many of those fathers of whom "All the apostolical fathers, as you have heard, are produced by they are called; all the pupils of the the Catholics, in proof of the doc-apostles; and all the ecclesiastical trine of purgatory, and as evidences writers of note, of the first four of the antiquity of praying to saints Christian centuries, whose writings and angels-they were all full of have come down to us; allude to, whimsies. Irenæus, Justin, Ter- and speak of, Christian immersion, tullian, Origen, Jerome, Augustine, as the regeneration and remission held and taught wild and extrava- of sins, spoken of in the New Testagant opinions. Some of these con-ment." Millennial Harbinger, extra, tended that Paul's epistle to Seneca, on remission of sins, &c. Proposiand Seneca's epistle to Paul, were tion 11, p. 42.

genuine. Some of them quoted the Shepherd of Herm as, as a part ofholy scripture. Some of them taught, &c., &c., auricular confession, and the fundamental dogmas of Popery." See Campbell's debate with M'Calla, p. 365 and 368.

Again, "that the ancients sometimes used the word regenerate for baptize, I admit; but this was far from being common or general." See the debate, p. 367.

"All the apostolical fathers, all the pupils of the apostles; and all the ecclesiastical writers of note, &c., &c., &c., allude to, and speak of Christian immersion, as the regeneration and remission of sins spoken of in the New Testament." See as above.

The testimony of the ancient fathers of the first four or five nturies of the Christian church is, generally, to be accredited when

and of which he affects to make a great display in his Extra, No. 1, while at the same time professing to place no reliance upon it, it was admitted that most evangelical churches, as well as writers, admitted there is a probability, that both in John 3:5, and Titus 3:5, there is an allusion to baptism, as the visible sign of that spiritual grace which is communicated by the Holy Spirit in the work of regeneration, which they contend can be performed or accomplished by him alone; but it was, as it still is, contended, that it was not until darkness began to overspread the church, that baptism began to be held equivalent to regeneration, and not until popish darkness and superstition had begun to brood over the Christian world, that baptism was viewed essential to salvation; and further, that in every part and portion of the world, this doctrine was more or less exploded, in proportion to the degree in which the genuine principles and light of the Reformation, together with true godliness, had prevailed. Hence it was contended, that the pretended ancient gospel of Mr. C. was nothing more than a newfangled system of popish delusion and superstition, (in one sense, ancient or old enough,) which, like its prototype, was calculated to lead men to rest in mere outward ceremonies, while destitute of that "new heart and new spirit," without which they must die forever.

It was further admitted, that the passages above cited are referred to by the persons who were appointed to superintend the publication of our Confession of Faith, as authorities, in their estimation, of the nature and design of the ordinance of baptism, as held by the Presbyterian church, but that those passages form a part of the Confession itself, is denied. The object of such a Confession is not to select any portions of the word of God,

it relates to occurrences or the practices of the church in those ages; but their own opinions, and especially after the first and second centuries, were sometimes grievously erroneous. Some of these Fathers did, in the language of Mr. Campbell, espouse some of the "dogmas of Popery". in embryo; but it was left for darker ages to bring them to perfection, and for the Restorer of the "ancient gospel" to hold that regeneration and immersion are the same thing.

as worthy of belief, for every part is held to be "worthy of all acceptation;" but honestly and candidly to give a summary of such doctrines, as we conscientiously believe to be taught in that revelation from heaven, with which we are so highly favored. The assertion, therefore, of Mr. C., that I opposed my own creed, was like many more of his assertions, without foundation.

But if it were, and ever had been, admitted by all the Christian world, that in John 3:5, and Titus 3:5, there was a direct allusion to baptism, still the inquiry would arise, can this certainly be shown to be the case from the scriptures themselves? And what is still more, can it thus be shown that immersion was intended, and if so, that it is identical with being "born again," or "born of the Spirit?" The question, therefore, would still remain the same. And here, let it be carefully remarked, that the gross absurdity, as well as unscriptural character of the position, that "to be born again, and immersion, are the same thing," are so evident, especially when we consider that the former, according to the declaration of Christ himself, implies not only a being " born of water," (whatever that expression may mean,) but also "of the Spirit," that Mr. C., himself, in his narrative, endeavors to escape from it, as will be seen and more particularly noticed in the sequel.

To the most of my arguments in reply to Mr. C., and especially in refutation of his position, that both parts of the passage, (John 3:5,) must be interpreted either literally or figuratively, and that to adopt any other mode of expounding this or any other particular passage of the seriptures, would be an unwarrantable use of them.-although the subject was again and again presented distinctly for his consideration-he gave NO ANSWER. This fact made no slight impression upon the minds of an intelligent audience, and it seemed his silence could only be accounted for by another fact, that he had no answer to give. To my argument proving the falsehood of his doctrine, especially in relation to the remission of sins only through immersion, drawn from the fact, that the

Old Testament saints were certainly forgiven, if at all, without baptism; he did, nevertheless, respond, by asserting, that as under the gospel dispensation immersion was the only means of remission of sins, so under the former dispensation, sacrifices were the means whereby alone this blessing could be obtained.

And in proof that this was no hasty or unadvised declaration of the Bishop, the reader is referred to his Extra, No. 1, p. 41. "Some ask, (says his Reverence,) how can water, which penetrates not the skin, reach the conscience? But little do they think, that in so talking, they laugh at, and mock the whole divine economy, under the Old and New Testament institutions: for, I ask, did not the sacrifices, and Jewish purgations, some way reach the conscience of that people!! If they did not, it was all mere frivolity throughout." And, I ask, can it be possible that the learned Bishop of Bethany is really so ignorant of the true nature and design of "the sacrifices and Jewish purgations," appointed under the law? And, I ask, again, can it be that he had never read, with attention, the epistle to the Hebrews, and especially the 9th and 10th chapters of that unparalleled production, before writing the paragraph above quoted? Had he done so, must he not have learned, however dull of apprehension in relation to spiritual things he may be, that these sacrifices "could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience," that the utmost these "sacrifices and Jewish purgations" could, in this respect, accomplish, was to sanctify "to the purifying of the flesh," or the removal of ceremonial uncleanness; which were designed to convince and remind them of that moral pollution, that defilement, as well as guilt of conscience, from which no sinner was ever purged and prepared, either to serve or enjoy the living God, unless by "the blood of Christ, who, through the Eternal Spirit, offered himself without spot to God;" and which, under the Jewish dispensation, and until Christ had actually appeared, and thus offered himself once for all, was typified by "those sacrifices, which