apprehended at an earlier period than myself; and as it was the first cause of rousing me to think upon the subject, I claim your indulgence and that of your readers, if indulgence it may be called, to read over again the following extracts:

"Such, then, being the actual state of mankind, considered as the object of divine benevolence, we see the indispensable necessity of the means which infinite wisdom and goodness devised to effect a change for the better among such guilty creatures; namely, the proclamation of a general and everlasting amnesty, a full and free pardon of all offences, to all, without respect of per sons; and this upon such terms as brought it equally near to, equally within the reach of all; which was effectually done by the preaching of the gospel; [see Acts xiii. 16-19. and x. 34-43. and ii. 14-35. with many other scriptures.] In the passages above referred to, we have a sufficient and satisfactory specimen of the truly primitive and apostolic gospel, as preached both to Jews and Gentiles, by the two great Apostles Peter and Paul; in each of which we have, most explicitly, the same gracious proclamation of pardon to every one that received their testimony concerning Jesus. "Repent," said Peter to the convinced and convicted Jews, (Acts ii. 38.) "and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." And again, (Acts x. 43.) To him gave all the Prophets witness that through his name, whosoever be lieveth in him shall receive remission of sins." To the same effect, Paul, in his sermon at Antioch, in the audience both of Jews and Gentiles, (Acts xiii. 38, 39.) "Be it known unto you, therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins, and by him all that believe are justified from all things. God, by the gospel, thus avowing his love to mankind, in giving his only begotten Son for the life of the world; and through him, and for his sake, a full and free remission of all sins; and all this in a perfect consistency with his infinite abhorrence of sin, in the greatest possible demonstration of his displeasure against it; in the death of his Son, (which he has laid as the only and adequate foundation for the exercise of sinpardoning mercy,) has at once secured the glory of his character, and afforded effectual relief and consolation to the perishing guilty by a full and free pardon of all sin. "And you, being dead in your sins, and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses" Col. ii. 13. Such being the gospel testimony concerning the love of for the

وو

God, the atonement of Christ, and the import of ba for the remission f

sins; all, therefore, that believed it, and were baptized

of

their sins, were as fully persuaded of their pardon and acceptance with God, through the atonement of Christ, and for his sake, as they were of any other article of the gospel testimony. It was this, indeed, that gave virtue and value to every other item of that testimony, in the estimation of the convinced sinner; as it was this alone that could free his guilty burthened conscience from the guilt of sin, and afford him any just ground of confidence towards God. Without this justification, which he received by faith in the divine testimony, could he have had peace with God through the Lord Jesus Christ, or have rejoiced in hope of his glory, as the Apostle testifies concerning the justified by faith Rom. v. 1, 2. Surely, no, or how could he have been reconciled to God by the death of his Son, had he not believed, according to the testimony, that he hac redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of the divine grace, thus most graciously manifested? Or why could he have received baptism, the import of which to the believer was the remission of his sins, had he not believed the divine attestation to him in that ordinance, concerning the pardoning of his sins upon his believing and being baptized? Every one, then, from the very commencement of christianity, who felt convinced of the truth of the gospel testimony, and was baptized, was as fully persuaded of the remission of his sins, as he was of the truth of the testimony itself. Indeed, how could it be otherwise, seeing the testimony held forth this as the primary and immediate privilege of every one that believed it?

"For to him gave all the Prophets witness, that, through his name, whoscever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." Likewise, Ananias to Saul of Tarsus, after he was convinced of the truth concerning Jesus of Nazareth, saying, "Why, tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins," &c. &c. But the fulness of evidence with which the scriptures attest this blissful truth, will abundantly appear to all that search them for obtaining a fuil discovery of it. In the mean time, from what has been produced we may see with what great propriety the pure and primitive preaching of the gospel was called the ministry of reconciliation, and how admirably adapted it was to that gracious purpose.--Hence, also, we may see a just and adequate reason of the great joy, consolation, and happiness that universally accompanied the primitive preaching and belief of the gospel amongst all sorts of people; as also, of the very singular and eminent fruits of universal benevolence, of zeal, of brotherly kindness, of liberality, of fortitude, of patience, of resignation, of mutual forbearance and forgiveness-in a word, of universal self-denying obedience in conformity to Christ; contentedly, nay, even joy fully suffering the loss of all things for his sake: so that the Apostle John could boldly and confidently challenge the world, saying, "Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus Christ is the Son of God?"

"Such was the virtue of the primitive faith, and such faith the just and genuine effect of the apostolic gospel; for it could produce no other correspondent faith, if it produced any at all. In fine, from the premises before us, that is, from the whole apostolic exhibition of the gospel, and its recorded effects upon all who professed to believe it; many of whom, it is certain, did not truly understand the gospel, and therefore could not truly believe it. Nevertheless, from the whole of the premises it is evident that the professing world is far gone, yea, very far indeed, from original ground; for such was the import of the gospel testimony, as we have seen, that all who professed to believe it, whether they were intelligent persons or not, understood at least so much by it that it gave assurance of pardon and acceptance with God to every one that received it-that is, to every baptized believer; consequently, every one that was baptized, making the same profession, he both thought himself, and was esteemed by his professing brethren, a justified and accepted person. Hence we do not find a single instance on the sacred record of a doubting or disconsolate christian, nor a single hint dropped for the direction or encouragement of such; but, on the contrary, much said to detect and level presumptuous confidence. How different this from the present state of the professing world, the discreet and judicious reader need not be informed.— Now, surely, if similar causes uniformly produce similar effects, the same preaching would as uniformly produce the same faith that it did in the beginning in all them that believed it, and even in all them that thought they believed it; "namely, of the person's justification and acceptance with God; and, of course, the same faith would produce the same peace and joy in the believer, and in him that thought himself to be such, as it did in the days, and under the preaching, of the Apostles and of their faithful coadjutors."

Now, my dear sir, does not this represent the gospel as a testimony, or proclamation of pardon through the sacrifice of God's Son, "to every one who believeth and is baptized for the remission of his sins?" But now let me ask, Does not the phrase "ancient gospel" represent a certain arrangement of views on faith, repentance, baptism, remission of sins, the Holy Spirit, and eternal life, and as composed of five or six points or propositions? You thus speak of it in your notice of a sermon on "the fifth point" by your friend Mr. Walter Scott. This notice of "the fifth point" appeared in page 480, vol 2 of the Harbinger. Some say that you intended that as a compliment to your friend Scott; but I regard it as not only countenancing, but

actually authorizing, in your judgment, a new system, completed in the year 1827, called "the Ancient Gospel," and consequently the year 1827 is called "the Era of the Ancient Gospel."

I have, then, from your own pen, I think, demonstrated that what you called "the Ancient Gospel" in 1823, is not that which you called "the Ancient Gospel" in October, 1831. My first objection, then, I think, is.fairly sustained-that the phrase is vague and indefinite.

But it is necessarily vague, not only in your acceptation of it, but also in the very import of the word ancient. The phrase ancient times means any times at a great distauce-say, one, two, or three thousand years ago. So the phrase ancient gospel may apply to the gospel preached by Luther, Wickliffe, Peter de Bruys, or Constantine the founder of the Paulicians, A. D. 650. "Ancient gospel" does not mean the first gospel, nor the Abrahamic, nor the Apostolic gospel; but some gospel of former times.

2. But my second objection is to the speculative character which it has recently assumed as a system submitted to the understanding, as the "Five Points" of Calvinism or any other system. This is more serious with me than the former, and therefore I request your attention to it. The illustration of faith, repentance, baptism, &c, in their New Testament import, may be, in regard to modern systems, a useful work; but to call these correct views of these terms the ancient gospel, is the very error which you reprobate in others. You condemn the Calvinist or the Armenian for calling his views of election, depravity, atonement, effectual calling, &c. "the gospel." No matter how he explains and arranges them, you tell him these are not the gospel: for a person may perceive and believe them and not be saved. Now may not any person perceive your definitions of faith, repentance, baptism, &c. to be more correct than other representations of them and receive them, and be as far from the kingdom of heaven as any man, Calvinist or Arminian, in the nation? And might not an ingenious Calvinist retort your own arguments against yourself, and call your views of faith or of repentance the ancient gospel of faith or repentance, as you speak of his five points? This may be the theory of the ancient gospel, in your acceptation of it; but the theory, any gospel, ancient or modern, is not the gospel, and ought not, in my judgment, to be so denominated. It is not glad tidings of great joy to all people, that faith is the belief of testimony; that repentance means reformation; that baptism signifies immersion, or that it means for the remission of sins, &c. nor is it glad tidings that these items are so arranged; but, us I understand your correspondent T W, it is glad tidings to all sinners that God has proclaimed pardon to every sinner who will return to him through Jesus Christ, and that he requires no more of him than to believe his testimony, repent, and be immersed for the remission of his sins, in order to admission into his family.

of

As I intend, with your consent, to lay before yourself and readers, various objections to your course, I have, in this introductory letter, commenced at the beginning, and touched but one item; but have not, even on that, quoted any of the sayings or doings of those in comVOL. III..

25

nexion with you. It will, however, be expedient that I lay before you what I have seen and heard touching the preaching of this ancient gospel.

As I have never been called a "Campbellite," though I have to my congregation long taught many of the things so stigmatized; I do not choose to give my name, because it would add nothing to what I have to advance, and I cannot think the suppression of it ought to detract any thing from my reasonings. It might, indeed, injure me in the estimation of some who receive from me what they would reject from you; and for their sake, and neither through cowardice nor false shame, I subscribe myself your friend for the gospel's sake,

EPAPHRAS.

As my name can afford no proof of my doctrine, so neither can my place of residence.

P. S. If you will not give me a full hearing, so long as I demean myself in a becoming manner, please return this and do not insert it.

TO EPAPHRAS-No. 1.

Dear Sir, IT is with pleasure I have given publicity to your communication, because I have the highest confidence in your candor and ability, and feel assured that if, in the numerous conflicts in which we have been engaged, we have either assumed a false principle, or have been betrayed into any inadvertency, there is none more capable of detecting it, nor of setting it more clearly, candidly, and convincingly before the public, than yourself. You will, I doubt not, admit, that in a controversy so long and so diversified, and with such a host as have opposed our progress, it would have been super-human, and beyond the good fortune of erring mortals, not to have spoken or written something which ought not to have seen the light. We plead no exemption from the common lot of fallible man; and it would be saying very little for the experience of more than twenty years, to repeat, that, had we now again to run the same race, we would avoid some hills and swamps, some narrow passes, and some winding labyrinths, which have impeded our progress. But still we wonder more at the straight-forward course which we have taken, and at our progress in that course, than at any incident which has befallen us in all our struggles for "the faith once delivered to the saints."

Since our editorial career commenced, since we launched our feeble bark upon the mighty ocean of human opinions, tossed with the tempests of all the passions of every creed, we have tacked but seldom, if at all. The reason is, we had full experience of what all systems could achieve, and by what means they did achieve their results; and saw distinctly that no theory in christendom was exactly the faith or the gospel once delivered to the saints. Episcopalianism, Presbyterianism, Independentism, Methodism, in all their forms, stood full confessed and full depicted in all their tendencies in our view.

The

little isms of Fullerism, Sandemanianism, and the hosts stigmatized New Lightism, were also fully explored before we weighed our

anchors.

You, my dear sir, it appears, soon saw the object in view; but prudence required that the developments should have been as gradual as they were. Some imagine that our course has been changed because certain matters have been much more discussed now than formerly. But no attentive reader can believe this. They will see in embryo, in the first three numbers of the Christian Baptist, all that has been developed in the last nine years. And this most prominent matter with which you have commenced your strictures, is more fully developed in the quotations you have made, than was any item in that volume. But I will not say that the name there selected to distinguish this gospel from all others, is entirely free from objections. But the his tory of its origin will best explain its merits and demerits. The letter from my correspondent T. W. was written at my request, and was designed for the first number of the Christian Baptist; but not arriving in time, it was not printed till the second number. The subject on which that letter treats had been fully discussed and most satisfactoly established in the mind of that correspondent and myself before the Christian Baptist was commenced. There is no person in existence to whom I am more indebted than to the author of that letter. To his devotional reading, to his prayerful study of the Book, and to his indefatigable labors in the word and teaching for almost half a century, many are indebted; and, indeed, all who are benefited by the present reformation. And yet there is no person with whom I have debated more on all questions than with him. But on the burthen of that epistle we were fully agreed before the Christian Baptist was commenced.

He, as you have stated, headed the article "the proper and primary intention of the gospel," but by examining the whole article you will find that he has distinguished it by the epithets "apostolic" and "original." The phrases "original gospel" and "apostolic gospel" were selected by him to mark out its importance and to arrest attention to it. In making out the index for that volume, for the sake of contrast and of brevity we called it the "ancient gospel," an epithet then familiar by way of contrast from modern orders, arrangements, measures, and gospels. Ancient and modern are the proper contrasts, and for this reason alone did we prefer the phrase ancient gospel to the phrase original gospel. But I doubt not if any epithet by way of contrast or distinction is to be prefixed, the epithet apostolic has the best claims. But of this I am not tenacious, and I would not contend with any man for an epithet of this sort which claims so humble an origin. It is true that we might urge in justification of this term, that, during the Jewish apostacy, when, like the Christians, they had departed from their original order of things, the holy Prophets, such as Jeremiah, used this epithet as we now use it. "My people" (says the Lord by Jeremiah, chap. xviii. 16.) "have forgotten me; they have burnt incense to vanity, and they have caused them to stumble in