message," not in its strict and proper sense, as denoting only God's message as presented to the human family in the original Hebrew and Greek, but in its more loose or popular use, as comprehending translation also. On that occasion Philalethes was discussing not the question, how a man who knows nothing of Hebrew and Greek, the languages in which the Scriptures were originally written and are still contained, can acquire certainty that he utters nothing in his discourses but the unadulterated oracles of the living God, &c. but was endeavoring to maintain the infinite superiority of information derived immediately from sacred writ, even through the medium of an imperfect translation, above that derived from the empty harangues which vain self-conceited men spin out of their own brains and pour into the ears of an ignorant incredulous multitude, calling their human effusions, with no small degree of presumption, and certainly without one particle of truth, God's unadulterated, unmixed message. Philalethes well knows that the illiterate are compelled, great as the disadvantage is, to make the best use of translations that they can, and depend on the information which they convey, though not exempt from error. But what has this case of dire and irremediable necessity to do with the case of the man, who, without a shadow of neces sity or authority, arrogates to himself the office and character of a public teacher, and boldly asserts, what it is morally impossible for him in his situation to know, that every word, letter, and syllable which he utters, is divine truth? How can a man ignorant of any language, know that a translation of that language is correct? Impossible! PHILALETHES.

Remarks on Rev. Dr. Cleland on Campbellism. NO. 1.

pre

SIX essays, headed "CAMPBELLISM," signed "C." dated from August 1st to September 5th, inclusive, have appeared in the "Western Luminary," published from Lexington, Ky. by Thomas T. Skillman, and have been politely forwarded to us, neither by the author nor the publisher, but by a friend in Kentucky. It is a favor which we gratefully acknowledge (as we do not take the Luminary) to be sented with so much light on "Campbellism" by so respectable and so learned a Presbyterian Rabbi, who, to atone for the inability of Dr. Jennings, Dr. Ralston, Messrs. M'Calla, and all other writers of his brotherhood, whose failures, in the judgment of Dr. C. required this free-will offering at this important crisis, has vouchsafed to us six essays on this most interesting theme.

My correspondent informs me that the "C" affixed to these essays, means Dr. Cleland, a very valorous champion of the Kentucky church militant, whose scars in the battles of orthodoxy would have honored any knight in the most chivalrous days of the crusades against the infidels. In the conclusion of his last essay which reached me (No.6.) says

he

"In a word, if I may express my own conviction, every attempt to show that "regeneration," "born of the Spirit," "born of God," and the like, denote

either baptism itself, in any mode, or some immediate effect of baptism, has a direct tendency to expose the simple but sublime religion of Jesus Christ to the derision of its enemies; and ought to be as strenuously exploded as the unscriptural and unintelligible dogmas of transubstantiation and consubstantiation."

He ought (to have reached us) placed the word terms before "regeneration," "born of the Spirit," &c. and have read it it thus:'To show that the term "regeneration," and the terms "born of the Spirit," "* &c. Then he would have come into our territory; but as it is, he is as far from us, as we are from transubstantiation or consubstantiation.

But we quote the last passage for another purpose. He is averse to expose christianity to the derision of its enemies, and dislikes the views which he ascribes to us, because he conceives them to have that tendency. Well, now, so far we are agreed, that christianity should not be by any of its friends exposed to the derision of its enemies; and here I would beg the indulgence of Doctor Cleland while I propound it to his serious consideration, whether arguing as we do that the term regeneration and the term baptism are at least once used by an Apostle as equipolent representatives of the same thing, hazards so much the derision of the enemies of christianity as the practice of making holy water by the consecrating prayer of Doctor Cleland, who prays over a bason, that so many drops of the water, and no more than what cleaves to the ends of his fingers, shall be sanctified to the spiritual benefit of the infant, whose repentance, faith, and conversion are all found by proxy in the flesh of a Presbyterian ancestry? A grave question, Doctor, deserves a grave answer! As you are very sensitive on this point, I beg you to consider well who most subjects christianity to the derision of its enemies-you who say that a few drops of sanctified water from the fingers of a person on whose head the hands of the priesthood have been laid, dropped on the eyebrows, forehead, or scalp of an infant, born not of the Spirit, but of the flesh; without faith, repentance, knowledge, speech, or volition, except as these are found in the person of a father or a mother, avails to the changing of its state, not of its character, to its introduction into the covenant and church of Jesus Christ!!

I pray you, Doctor, to remember how much stress you lay upon the aphorism, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit," in your strictures on baptism for remission: and then see how your few drops, without knowledge, faith, repentance, speech, or consciousness, can avail to the change of an infant born of the flesh, from the visible kingdom of Satan into the visible kingdom of God! When you have shown how this dogma differs from transubstantiation or consubstantiation, then you may fear for the tendency of our views in subjecting the gospel to the de

*For a full exposition of the sophism attempted here, we refer our readers to the "Extra Defended," p. 23-28; in which we are supported by Dr. Stuart of Andover, Moros, Ernesti, Horne, and Michaelis.

rision of its enemies! But till then weep not for us, but for yourself and your brethren, who believe in the translating efficacy of two drops of sanctified water!

But to the numbers on "Campbellism." I have made the last first, for two reasons:-first, because I have not read the five first; and, in the second place, because the last ought to have been both first and last.

The last, or No. 6, begins and ends with an attempt to show how some of the scriptures on which we rely for the proper meaning of Christian immersion, may be so explained as to show that remission of sins depends on repentance, and is connected with repentance alone. Now, lest the reader should think we put a wrong construction on the words of this very erudite Rabbi, we shall let him speak for himself. On Acts ii. 38. he remarks in the following words:

"The first question here is, With what does remission of sins stand connected? With repentance, with baptism, or with both united? The proper answer shall be given by Peter himself: "Repent ye, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come," &c. Acts iii. 19. Here is no mention of baptism in this exhortation of Peter, which would have been an unpardonable omission, if remission of sins and baptism were inseparable. It is therefore plain, the union of repentance and baptism was not an indispensable condition for the remission of sin. Peter's expression in the first passage, to make it consistent with this and other scriptures, must mean, 'Repent-for the remission of sins, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ.' By this simple collocation of the words, not forbidden by just criticism, nor candid interpretation, it will be seen that remission of sins is in consequence of repentance, and baptism is urged as a suitable mode of a testifying that repentance, because an instituted rite of entering into a new visible relation to Jesus Christ, the true Messiah.".

When Peter said, "Repent and be baptized for remission," he meant to leave out baptism, as not at all connected with remission, and intended only to say, Repent for the remission of your sins, and "be baptized as a suitable mode of testifying repentance," and not remission!

In Acts iii. 19. we are taught, says he, the meaning of Acts ii. 38. for Peter says, "Repent and be converted for remission." But the Doctor says not one word upon the imperative "Be converted," but "Repent that your sins may be blotted out." "Here," he exclaims, ❝is no mention of baptism!" No, nor of faith, nor of grace, nor of the blood of Christ; and because not mentioned in this verse, we are to learn that remission of sins is without grace, faith, or the blood of Christ!!!

Now, after all the meditations, readings, and watchings of all his predecessors, from W. L. M'Calla in 1823, to August, 1832-after all the debates which Dr. Cleland has read and heard, this is his learned defence of "Repent for the remission of sins." From Acts ii, 38, he expunges the words "Be baptized," and from Acts iii. 19. expunges the words "Be converted," from the connexion in which Peter placed them; and because baptism is not mentioned in every verse, from Pentecost to the year 90, and from Jerusalem to Patmos, therefore it ought not to be taken into the account!

A word to Doctor Cleland, inter nos. Doctor, to test your logic, please remember that if Acts iii. 19. explains Acts ii. 38. then Acts ii. 38. explains chap. iii. 19.; or, what is equivalent, both must mean, when explained, the same thing. Now how do you dispose of the two interpretations-viz. "Be baptized," and "Be converted?" Apply your own rule, and how reads this last interpretation-Repent for the remission of sins and be converted "as a suitable mode of testifying repentance?" This is your own logic returned to your own bosom.

Again-(pardon my presumption in speaking so plainly to a Presbyterian Doctor!)-again, I say, to use your own logic, if, as you assert, it would have been an unpardonable omission in Peter to leave out the command, "Be baptized," in his second discourse, Acts iii. 19. if connected with remission: I ask you, on your candor, Doctor, was it not an unpardonable omission in Peter's first discourse to leave out the command, "Be converted," if conversion was necessarily connected with remission? Thus you see that your logic equally excludes baptism and conversion from any connexion with remission, and contemplates them both as mere .nodes of testifying repentance!

But we can make your logic still more illustrious. The command to believe and repent are not one and the same thing in your theology; nor do the words faith and repentance mean the same thing in any dictionary in the world. This single remark, and we proceed. Paul preached to the Jailor, and when asked by the Jailor what he should do to be saved, Paul said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." Now how unpardonable in Paul to omit the command, "Repent," if, according to you, remission depends alone, or is consequent upon repentance alone. Paul, on your premises, makes no account of repentance, conversion, grace, the blood of Jesus, or baptism in the affair of salvation, if his not mentioning them on one occasion to one who inquired what he should do to be saved, is to be regarded as fair argument and rational proof. By this time, Doctor, I think you will excuse me for pushing you no farther with your own logic!

Thus the Doctor over acts his part, and sets all the Apostles at variance with one another, and the same Apostle at variance with himself, in his attempts to expunge the command, "Be baptized," from the place in which Peter placed it when first he opened the reign of Jesus and announced the glad tidings.

I will treat my readers now and then to a few samples of Doctor Cleland's logic and theology. The Presbyterian Doctors are becoming much more alarmed than formerly; because, in defiance of all their talents and address, the ancient gospel is shining into their congregations, and some of their most intelligent members are removing out of Babylon and submitting to Jesus as the only Lawgiver and King in his kingdom.

The Baptist Doctors are generally taking a nap after the fatigues of their numerous campaigns. It is kind in the Presbyterian Doctors

to keep sentinel at this crisis, especially as the heresy is now upon their borders, if not actually within their camp.

I will, Deo volente, show that Dr. Cleland is just as much at fault on the four remaining passages commented on in this No. 6, as in the passage now examined. We thank the Doctor for his efforts, as they will prove to the most intractable of our readers, that, with all the superior pretensions of our Presbyterian Doctors, they are nothing more puissant in the volumes of revelation than our Baptist Doctors.

If the Editor of the Luminary will publish my replies, I will publish all Dr. Cleland's essays in the Harbinger. I request the Postmaster at Lexington, Ky. to forward one copy of the Harbinger, containing my replies to Dr. Cleland, as I do not know his address.

EDITOR.

THE CHURCH IN RICHMOND, VIRGINIA.

LITTLE has been said by us concerning the separation of the Reformers from the old Baptist church, in the city of Richmond. The brethren in Richmend devoted to the Apostles' doctrine and the original constitution of the christian kingdom, conducted themselves so much in conformity to the mild, gentle, and long-suffering spirit of our religion, as to have even extorted the admiration of the very persons themselves who were determined to exclude them or cause them to separate from their communion. Their behaviour during all the trials which they had to suffer required no vindication, inasmuch as it was commended by Messrs. Ball and Sands, the very organs of the intolerant party in Richmond. I say intolerant, with the most conscientious regard to the literal import of the term; for Mr. Ball says, in the positive language of certainty, "We know that the minority did not wish to separate" of course the majority were the intolerant and schismatic party, in Richmond. They compelled the minority to withdraw from their society or to disobey the Lord. Yet the separation was effected with so much christian decorum, and the minority so firmly and gracefully withdrew, when the crisis arrived, that the same organ of the majority is again compelled to do them honor, affirming that "it was a subject of gratification that this separation was effected in such an amicable manner. "It is greatly," he adds, "to the credit of both parties." Most certainly the reformers, as they are called, richly deserved commendation, when Mr. Ball himself could thus speak of them.

Notwithstanding all this, he insinuates "that efforts will be made to throw the odium of this separation on the majority." Yet he declares that odium belongs to the majority; for, "he knows that the minority did not wish to separate." And this is not all: he thinks that the majority are worthy "of the applause and thanks of all the Baptist denomination, for [this odium] this firm stand, on this occasion;" for making a concurrence in opinion with them a test and term of communion. Other insinuations, that the time would come when the minority would be the majority and that then the heterodox would ex