DR THOMAS: HIS LIFE & WORK

A BIOGRAPHY

ILLUSTRATIVE OF THE PROCESS BY WHICH

THE SYSTEM OF TRUTH REVEALED IN THE BIBLE

HAS BEEN

EXTRICATED IN MODERN TIMES

FROM THE

OBSCURATION OF ROMISH AND PROTESTANT
TRADITION

BY ROBERT ROBERTS

OF BIRMINGHAM ENGLAND

LONDON, CHRISTADELPHIAN BOOK DEPOT, 69, UPPER STREET, ISLINGTON
BIRMINGHAM: R ROBERTS, ATHENÆUM ROOMS, TEMPLE ROW

1873

PREFACE

THIS book is published as a contribution to the work in which Dr Thomas’s life was spent. It is not a mere story, nor a story at all, in the ordinary sense. It is the illustration of a development of Bible truth, which in the absence of miracle and direct communication from God, has taken years to come to maturity; which the world at large is unaware of; which some part of the professing Christian world, knowing of it, rejects with bitterness; which others have received with joy; which can be conclusively demonstrated as the teaching of God’s word, and quickly seen by any mind of ordinary power, honestly looking into the evidences.
But though not a mere story, the book has some of the interest always attaching more or less to biographical narrative. This may make it especially useful. It will, of course, be valuable to those already acquainted with the truth of which Dr Thomas has been the agent of development in this age of the world; but others may be induced to look at the truth in this form, who could not be brought to read a formal demonstration of it. They may thus be made pleasantly acquainted with that which certainly will be to their profit, if they give heed with an earnest mind.
No intelligent person can read through this narrative without being largely interested, not only in Dr Thomas, but in the Bible controversies in which he so successfully engaged; nor can he fail to be made acquainted to a considerable extent with the scriptural grounds upon which the Dr maintained his positions. This result is ensured by copious quotations from the articles and correspondence in which the controversy was conducted at its various stages. Ordinarily, such quotations are dry reading, but the intelligent reader will find that their interest in this case is as exceptional as was the man among his fellows, or the controversy among the public questions of the day. They are decidedly what is described as “racy”. They are vigorous and beautiful in style, even to the point of being sparkling; and the supreme importance attaching to the topics so treated, completes the charm they have over the reader.
Amongst books teeming from the press in the present day, this has a significance which we cannot but think would be thankfully appreciated by thousands of intelligent minds who are tossed to and fro in the religious uncertainties of the day. Called upon to choose between the absurdities of priestcraft and the cheerlessness of a practically atheistic philosophy, they are distracted and heartless, while they hold on, perhaps, with a certain reverence to the Bible which they cannot surrender. Many such have been overjoyed to find an end of their embarrassment in the system of truth hereby presented to notice; and there must be many thousands in English society, throughout the globe, whose experience would be similar; who would find herein the ground on which the difficulties of science on the problems of human origin and destiny, are reconcilable with a full acceptance of the Bible with all its accomplished facts in history, and enlivening hopes connected with the re-appearance of Christ and the future of the Jewish nation.
It may be the purpose of God to reach this class in increasing numbers. It may be that the controversy involved in this book may become one of the public questions of the day, as it certainly well deserves (for all other questions are insignificant compared to it). But whether or not, it is the privilege of those who at present have the matter in charge to avail themselves of every means, and use every opportunity within reach, of calling attention to this most important matter. This policy is the explanation of the appearance of this book in the form adopted.
A likeness of the Dr (on steel), as he was a year previous to his death, is inserted at the beginning of the book, to gratify the curiosity that will naturally be felt by every interested reader. The three medallions at the bottom of the picture show his likeness at three earlier stages of his active career.
A complete list of the Dr’s published works will be found at the end of the book.
In thanksgiving to God for the man and his work, as the agency of much enlightenment that prevails, and in prayer that thousands more may be brought within reach of the joyful benefit, and, above all things, that the Lord Jesus may quickly re-appear to save his people, to disentangle the hopeless affairs of mankind, and bring peace after the great storm, and cause the promised blessing in Abraham and his seed to prevail to the utmost bounds of the world, this work is sent forth by one who is more its editor than

THE AUTHOR
64m Belgrave Road, Birmingham
9th April 1873

C O N T E N T S


Preface . . . . . . . . . . . i

CHAPTER 1
Introductory – The Christadelphian contention – Its abstract improbability – A proposed explanation – The history of a work rather than of a man – An unpremeditated enterprise – Unwelcome incidents and unexpected conclusions – The American Reformation alias “Campbellism”, a preparation for the truth – Alexander Campbell necessary to John Thomas – Prominence of Campbellism in the succeeding narrative – Dr Thomas’s natural qualifications – Sources from which this narrative is drawn. Page 1

CHAPTER 2
Birth of Dr Thomas – His inherited qualities – His father’s early days and subsequent pursuits – First a Government clerk, then an independent preacher, then keeper of a boarding school for sons of deceased ministers, - again a preacher, and finally clerk in a gas office - The Dr’s medical studies at Chorley and London – Takes his diploma at St Thomas’s Hospital – Acts as demonstrator of anatomy – Writes a course of lectures on obstetrics – Commences practice for himself – Contributes to the Lancet – The Dr’s early notions on the subject of immortality.
Page 3

CHAPTER 3
The Dr’s father is seized with the American emigration fever – The Dr proposes to go first and spy the land – Sails for New York as surgeon of the Marquis of Wellesley – Storm at sea – Uncertain reckonings of the ship – Ship strikes the bottom thirteen times at Sable Island – All hope of being saved taken away – The Dr in a state of religious mist – Resolves if ever he gets to land again to search for the truth till he should find it – Ship gets off the shoal, and in a leaky state, finishes the voyage in safety – The Dr arrives in New York – His father arrives three days after him. Page 5

CHAPTER 4
The Dr commences his search for truth – Clerical introduction of no service – the Dr starts for Cincinnati – Meets there a Major Gano, a Campbellite convert, who presses Campbellism on his attention – The Dr will not read Campbellism for fear of being biased – Major Gano introduces him to Walter Scott the founder of Campbellism – In conversation with that gentleman, is overcome in argument, and is immersed by him the same night by moonlight in the Miami Canal.
Page 8

CHAPTER 5
The Dr’s introduction to Campbellism in spite of his resolution not to connect himself with any sect – A providential occurrence – The Dr stays seven months in Cincinnati – Is advised by Walter Scott to become a preacher, but refuses – Leaves Cincinnati for the Eastern States – On the way, calls at Wellsburgh, Va, where he meets Mr Alexander Campbell – Is invited by Mr Campbell to his establishment at Bethany – Accompanies him thither – Goes with him to a preaching meeting, and is called on by Mr Campbell to speak – Mr Campbell wants to try the Dr’s mettle – The Dr speaks on Dan ii – Again called on, speaks on the Apostacy – The Dr loves Mr Campbell, but disinclined for such work, decides to leave Bethany, and proceed to his destination – Calls at Somerset Courthouse, and proceeds to Baltimore, where he is made to speak. Page 10

CHAPTER 6
The Dr determined to break away from the preaching career being forced upon him, leaves Baltimore and goes to Philadelphia – Arrived at Philadelphia, is called upon to speak – Cannot get away from it – Accepts a medical practice among the Philadelphian Campbellites on the understanding that he is to speak on Sundays – The result unfavourable to temporalities, but conducive to scriptural enlightenment – His adoption to become the subject of this – The Dr marries.
Page 14

CHAPTER 7
The Dr becomes an Editor without intending it – A Morrison pill vendor proposes to get up a magazine – The Dr by request proposes a name and writes a prospectus – The pastor is angry, and the Dr abandons the matter – The pastor intends to carry on the magazine, but takes ill, and on his recovery, asks the Dr to proceed with it – The Dr does so, and issues the prospectus – Mr Campbell publishes the prospectus – The first number of the Apostolic Advocate – The matter mostly the Dr’s own – Specimens – The Dr’s wonderful comprehension of the Apocalypse so early as 1834 – A characteristic editorial notice. Page 15

CHAPTER 8
The Dr leaves Philadelphia, visits Baltimore, and takes up his residence at Richmond – Is offered employment as an evangelist – Declines, and gives his reasons – Conducts the Advocate, and follows medical practice – His troubles with Campbellism begin – Publishes an article advocating re-immersion where Campbellites had not been intelligently baptised – The Dr writes on the subject to the Campbellite Church at Baltimore – Mr Campbell opposes him in the Harbinger – The Dr’s reply. Page 21

CHAPTER 9
The Dr writes to Mr Campbell, arguing the question with him at length – Letter 1 – Letter 2 – Letter 3 – Letter 4. Page 28

CHAPTER 10
Increasing opposition to the Dr – A few faithful – Albert Anderson’s letter to Mr Campbell – The Dr urges the Campbellites to be consistent with their principles – Mr Campbell writes a long article against re-immersion – The Dr comments thereon – Another source of contention. Page 43

CHAPTER 11
Deeper subjects and further controversies – The Dr publishes thirty-four questions under the heading “Information wanted”. The reception they met with, and the effect on the Dr’s mind – origin of the hostility – candid correspondents and their objections – Enoch and Elijah – The thief on the cross – Stephen’s dying prayer – Spirits of just men made perfect – The Dr’s explanations – Mr Campbell seeks to counteract the effects by publishing an imaginary conversation – The Dr publishes an imaginary conversation in reply. Page 48

CHAPTER 12
The next stage of the conflict – Mr Campbell writes directly against the Dr in his paper – The Dr’s response – Mr Campbell writes a series of articles on materialism, indirectly aimed at the Dr – The Dr replies; extracts from his articles. Page 59

CHAPTER 13
Open rupture between Dr Thomas and the Campbellites – A defamatory letter against the Dr – The Dr defended – An armistice proposed and accepted between the Dr and Mr Campbell – The condition, mutual silence – The silence broken by Mr Campbell, upon which the Dr writes to Mr Campbell – Mr Campbell resolves to take no further notice of the Dr. Page X

CHAPTER 14
Mr Campbell breaks through his resolution to take no notice of the Dr – Writes about the Dr – The Dr rejoins – The Dr leaves Richmond and takes to farming at Amelia – Gives up medical practice, because he finds it incompatible with editing and preaching – The printer of the Advocate sells his business to a clerical, who refuses to print the Advocate – The Dr, with the aid of friends, buys a press and types, and becomes his own printer – The office on the farm at Amelia – Publishing difficulties – A one-horse mail – Slow dispatch – Accidents and runaway assistants. Page X

CHAPTER 15
Discussion between Dr Thomas and Mr Watt, a Presbyterian clergyman – Mr Campbell re-publishes an enemy’s report of it, and declares fellowship between him and the Dr at an end – A bull of excommunication – The Dr writes to Mr Campbell on the subject. Page X

CHAPTER 16
Mr Campbell justifies his disfellowship of Dr Thomas – The Dr replies – The Painsville church obeys Mr Campbell’s call to investigate Dr Thomas’s case – They address a report thereon to the Campbellite body generally – The Dr’s remarks thereon – The Bethel congregation also reports on the same matter – The Dr’s comments – Mr Campbell attacks the Advocate – The Dr replies in a long letter. Page X

CHAPTER 17
Anonymous slanders begin to circulate against the Dr – They cause him to abandon an intended tour in Southern Va – Afterwards makes the tour, and is cordially received everywhere – Friends beseech a reconciliation between Mr Campbell and himself – He goes to Richmond to meet Mr Campbell for this purpose – Hears him preaching – Talks with him three hours on a railway bridge – Afterwards letters pass between them – They have a second meeting, at Painsville – Friends propose a discussion between them – The discussion takes place, after which there is a reconciliation – The reconciliation is short-lived.
Page X
CHAPTER 18
The Dr depressed with the backward state of everything in Virginia – A letter from the ?far west? causes him to entertain the idea of removing – Determines to visit Illinois, to spy the land, before making up his mind – Sets out on a ride of 900 miles on horseback – Amid the difficulties of the way cogitates on the power of the ?letter? which had taken him from home – Comments on the popular dogma that the ?word of God? is a ?dead letter? – Occupies twenty-three days on the journey – Inspects a sublime piece of scenery, which stirs his emotions – Carries no means of defence – Is unmolested – Arrived at Illinois, is satisfied with the country, purchases nearly 300 acres of land at Longrove, and decides to remove to it – Returns to Virginia, and winds up his affairs – At the end of five months, sets out for Illinois with his family, in a four-horse wagon – Occupies two months in the journey – Meets with an accident nearly fatal – Arrive at their destination in a storm of sleet – In due course, has a house built, and commences farming – Suspension of the Advocate – Cultivates medical practice, while a man does the hard work on the farm – A fall in the price of wheat makes farming unprofitable – The Dr finally dispenses with hired labour, and takes to working the farm himself – Ploughing, harrowing, milking cows, too hard work – Resorts to labour-saving expedients, ingenious but amusing – Finally decides to give up farming – Removes to St Charles to start a paper, leaving a man in charge of the farm till he should sell – Opens a printing office which is burnt down immediately after – The office re-opened with money advanced by townspeople – commences the publication of a weekly paper – A paper incident. Page X

CHAPTER 19
The Dr disliking paper associations, gives up the paper and starts a religious monthly magazine, the Investigator – Preaches the word as he has opportunity – Fills a vacancy in a Universalist meeting-house – A Mormon preaching at the same place is opposed by the Dr – A two days’ discussion follows – The Dr Re-visits Virginia on business – On the way calls at Pittsburgh, and sees Mr Walter Scott, who complains of Mr Campbell – At Fredericksburgh was objected to by the Campbellites, who, however, decided by a majority to hear him – Is invited by the Campbellites to various parts of East Virginia, but finds enemies multiplied – Has various offers to settle, but declines and returns westward – Calls at Louisville, where he makes up his mind to leave Illinois – The of this decision precipitates business calamities at St Charles – The Dr is left penniless and in debt. Page X

CHAPTER 20
The Dr’s stay at Louisville – Preaches to the Campbellites – Holds a week’s debate with a Universalist – Offers to show the Adventists they were wrong in expecting the Lord in 1843 – Article written by him for the purpose on the world’s age, with interesting prefatory remarks – Acts as paper editor protem – Writes an article on the nature and tendency of Popery, which excites public indignation – Starts the Herald of the Future Age – After the issue of a few numbers, returns to Richmond, where the Campbellites object to receive him – First organic separation of the truth from Campbellism – The Dr’s progressing studies. Page X

CHAPTER 21
A lull in the controversy between Dr Thomas and Mr Campbell – The lull terminated and the war resumed – Mr Campbell’s misrepresentations corrected by one who knew – A Campbellite congregation’s protest against Mr Campbell’s treatment of the Dr – Peculiar position of the Dr – Unexcommunicated yet rejected – The Campbellite question. “Do you belong to us?” – The Dr’s answer – Another proposed reconciliation between the Dr and Mr Campbell – The Dr’s response – Failure – The last attempt – The Dr weary of Campbellite inconsistency – Speaks out in defence of an uncompromising apostolic testimony and repudiation of the apostacy from which Campbellism had professed to have come out. Page X

CHAPTER 22
A Campbellite editor visits the Dr and afterwards reports the interview in his paper – Speaks of the Dr as a curiosity and a dangerous man – The Dr replies at length in a letter to the editor – The Dr’s explanation of the motives which actuated him in his apparently bootless opposition to the state of things around him.
Page X

CHAPTER 23
The Dr’s visit to New York – How it came about – A cold reception – Nevertheless the Dr receives the use of the Meeting-House and lectures ten times – Interest created – Synopsis of the things unfolded, which were pronounced “chaffy” by the leaders of Campbellism – Proposal to the Dr to accept a “call” to become preacher to the New York Campbellites – The Dr’s response. Page X

CHAPTER 24
A Campbellite criticism on the Dr’s visit to New York – His expositions denounced as “husks and useless speculations – The effect on the Dr’s mind described by himself – Description of the process by which he had arrived at his conclusions – The conviction it brought him to: that he was an unbaptised man – Re-immersed for the hope of Israel – Thereupon publishes a Confession and Abjuration, in which he confesses his mistakes and abjures his errors – The interesting document in which he did so. Page X

CHAPTER 25
The Dr proposes to Alexander Campbell a full written discussion of the immortality of the soul – Mr Campbell’s contemptuous reply – The Dr’s rejoinder – A military allegory illustrative of the career of the Dr and Mr Campbell, by one who had watched both. Page X

CHAPTER 26
After twelve years’ polemic warfare, the two combatants examined by Mr Fowler, the phrenologist – Light thrown on their careers – The Dr comments thereon. Mr Campbell’s phrenological description – Dr Thomas’s phrenological description – Remarks. Page X

CHAPTER 27
Having made a new start, the Dr visits Baltimore, New York, and Buffalo, to make known his perfected apprehension to his friends – Encouraging reception at Baltimore – The truth embraced at New York; disturbance in consequence – A new meeting formed – No result at Buffalo – Visits and lectures at Rochester without result – Closes his first tour for the proclamation of the gospel of the kingdom. Page X

CHAPTER 28
A new stage in the Dr’s work – Britain to be visited – Outbreak of revolution in Europe in 1848 – The Dr thinks the opportunity favourable for a hearing, but does not see how, in the absence of friends and influence, it is to be obtained – Goes to New York to embark – Is permitted the use of the Campbellite meeting-house and speaks – Obtains letters of recommendation to Campbellites in England – Before starting, writes to the New York Morning Star on the political situation, in the light of prophecy – Is announced in the papers as “A Missionary for Europe” – Sails, with his daughter, from New York on June 1st; lands at Liverpool on June 22nd – Hostile notification of his errand to England in the English Campbellite organ – The Dr transmits letter of recommendation to the editor – Receives an unfavourable reply – Sends an answer, which, by inadvertence, gets into the hands of the Campbellite-Adventists at Nottingham, who invite him – This the opening of the door – The Dr’s remarks thereon.
Page X

CHAPTER 29
A rival Campbellite periodical is friendly to the Dr because of Wallis’s opposition – Publishes the Dr’s correspondence with Wallis, also articles from his pen, greatly to the advantage of the truth – Origin of the paper which thus gave the Dr access to the very people from which it was sought to exclude him – The Dr’s account – The Dr visits Nottingham – Is heard by large and attentive audiences – Formation of a community on the basis of the truth in consequence. His visit to Nottingham introduces the Dr to Derby, Birmingham, Plymouth, Lincoln and Newark. Page X

CHAPTER 30
An attempt to injure the Dr’s growing influence in Britain – The Campbellites get up a charge of falsehood – The facts of the case – The Dr denied having rejected, or having been excommunicated from Campbellite fellowship – This is construed into a denial of having published the Confession and Abjuration – Correspondence on the subject – The episode not altogether difficult to understand – The Dr’s remarks thereon. Page X

CHAPTER 31
The reason these personal matters are noticed now – The natural growth of the situation – The Dr emerging but not disentangled from Campbellite associations, to which he naturally clung as giving him facilities for disseminating the truth – The Dr visits Glasgow – Attends the Campbellite Convention there in the capacity of a Campbellite delegate from Lincoln – His admission opposed – Stormy proceedings – The Dr’s action blamed; but when understood, appears in another than a reprehensible light – The Drs account of the matter.



CHAPTER 32
The Dr obtains a large hearing while in Glasgow – Addresses thousands in the City Hall – Interest due to the troubles on the Continent – Visits Paisley – Public soiree at Glasgow in acknowledgment of the Dr’s lectures – Before the separation of the meeting, the Dr asked to write a book – He consents – A committee formed to obtain orders – Elpis Israel afterwards the result – Accepts an invitation to visit Edinburgh – Cold reception, but the iciness thaws after a few lectures, and cordial friendship takes the place of hostility – A farewell soiree at which the Dr is presented with a contribution to travelling expenses – The Dr returns to London to write Elpis Israel – Attends a Peace Society’s meeting in Exeter Hall, to show that war is a divine appointment in the present state of things. Page X

CHAPTER 33
The Dr having finished Elpis Israel, makes a second tour of the country, visiting Aberdeen, Dundee and other additional places – Elpis Israel makes its appearance – Many friends at once turn hostile – They had no idea of the Dr’s views on general theology, his lectures having principally been on prophetic subjects – Elpis Israel burnt; nevertheless the means of enlightening many unto life eternal – Visits Plymouth, and on the return journey holds conversation with a fellow-traveller on the Gorham case, which he afterwards published under the title of The Wisdom of the Clergy proved to be Folly – Afterwards makes a tour of Holland, Prussia, Germany and France – Returns to America as ship’s doctor in the Marathon, arriving in New York just two years-and-a-half after his departure to England – On arriving at Richmond, is seized with a nearly fatal illness – His remarks thereon. Page X

CHAPTER 34
Recovered of his illness, the Dr resumes the publication of the Herald, which he continues eleven years afterwards – Makes periodical tours of the States – Communication through the Herald with friends everywhere – The outbreak of civil war in America compels the suspension of the Herald. The Dr accepts an invitation to re-visit Britain – Arrives in Liverpool, May, 1862 – Visits and lectures at about twenty places; but little done beyond the encouragement of the friends of the truth – Returns to America and publishes Eureka – Communicates with friends through the Ambassador – Travels during the American war – To save brethren from the American conscription, petitions for their exemption; is compelled in doing so to give them a designation; hence the origin of “Christadelphian” – Revisits England in 1869 – Visits and lectures at nearly thirty places – Is gratified with the comparative prosperity of the truth, and decides to settle in England for the rest of his days – The name of the Ambassador changed to the Christadelphian – The Dr cooperates with friends to place it on a stable footing – Returns to America to wind-up his affairs, with a view to removal to England – Sets out on a tour through the States and Canada, but is arrested by sickness, and returns home to die. Page X

CHAPTER 35
Death of Dr Thomas – His daughter’s account of his illness. Remarks on his character and career. Page X

CHAPTER 36
The reception of the at the Birmingham ecclesia – The epistolary expressions of friends on the event – The Dr’s first interment – Executors’ journey to America – Visit to the Dr’s remains in the vault where they had been placed – Interment in Greenwood Cemetery – Tombstone inscription. Page X

CHAPTER 37
Concluding words – Character of the foregoing narrative – The man and the career – The Dr’s summary of results – His qualification for the work – The story in brief – The Dr’s alleged failure in the prophetic dates – The state of the case – His own view of the matter – The Dr not yet proved wrong – The time of the end upon us – Whether or not, the truth unaffected by chronology – The Dr’s prophetico-political prognostications and their verification during the last 23 years – The remaining items of the programme – The probability of their early fulfilment, and of the Dr’s re-appearance in the land of the living – The consummation. Page X

COMPLETE (Chronological) LIST OF DR THOMAS’S WORKS Page X

DR THOMAS: HIS LIFE AND WORK

CHAPTER 1

THIS book has to do with an important religious problem which is daily becoming more widely agitated. The people known as the Christadelphians contend that the popular theologies of the day are destitute of the principles revealed in the Bible, on which they profess to be based; and, further, that the things the Christadelphians believe are the elements of the Christian faith, as originally delivered by the apostles. This contention they are able to maintain with a force of argument that opponents find it difficult to meet; and the latter generally fall back on the abstract improbability of a claim which implies ignorance of Bible teaching on the part of men and systems specially consecrated to the work of Bible study. “How is it,” say they, “that this has not been found out before? How is it that Dr Thomas should find it out and nobody else?”
The present work indirectly proposed an answer to this question, at all events, to the second part of it. It proposed to shew how the truth has been found out, without dealing with the question of why so many have not found it. It proposes to do this by a narrative, which cannot fail to be especially interesting to those who have endorsed Christadelphian conclusions; and which may not be an uninstructive one to those who are still content with an inherited but unexamined faith.
This history to be set forth is the history of a work rather than of a man. For this reason, it deals more with the fortunes of “questions” and principles, than with personal incidents and characteristics, introducing the latter only in so far as they are essential to the elucidation and illustration of the former.
The history is altogether a remarkable one. It is not that of a man starting out with a crotchet, or a theory, or an enterprise, to which he successfully applies the energies of a life-time. It is that of a mind circumstantially driven into a path of research which he was not seeking, and impelled forward in it by a series of unwelcome incidents and experiences, which imposed on him the acquisition of knowledge not, in the first instance, sought for, and conclusions as unexpected as they were startling and disastrous to popularity. The narrative shews a clear intellect, and an inflexible conscience arriving at convictions unpalatable to coadjutors, and advocating them with a recklessness of consequences which unsuited him for sectarian schemes.
This was a slow and unpremeditated result. It came about as the effect of a providential concatenation of circumstances, without plan or anticipation on the part of the Dr. Prominent among these, was the Dr’s contact with the American Reformation, currently known among non-reformationists as “Campbellism”, an account of the leading part taken in the movement by Mr Alexander Campbell (deceased some eight years ago). Not regarding it in the light of true reformation, the writer of this biography will speak of it under its current designation; not out of disrespect, but merely as a distinctive and appropriate appellation. Disrespect will not be the sentiment entertained by a believer of the truth towards a system of things which, though not the truth itself, led up to the development of the truth. Though not a true reformation, it was a large step toward it. This generation is undoubtedly indebted to it for the true reformation since developed by the instrumentality of Dr Thomas. But for Alexander Campbell, the human probability is there would have been no John Thomas; and so far as we can see, but for John Thomas, those who now

rejoice in the truth, would still have been sitting, like the rest of the world, in “darkness and the shadow of death”.
The inseparable connection between Campbellism and the career that led Dr Thomas to the discovery of the truth, accounts for the prominence of the former throughout the succeeding narrative. That prominence will not be regretted by those who desire to see unbarred the various links in the chain of circumstances that led the Dr, step by step, to the grand result for which Campbellism paved the way. The interesting and instructive story of the truth’s revival in our century, cannot be told without a recital of the history of Campbellism, in so far as it bore upon the career of that man by whom that revival was effected – a man at first welcomed by the leaders of Campbellism as a “chosen vessel,” but soon as bitterly discarded and maligned as he was vastly misunderstood.
Dr Thomas was fitted by natural qualification for the great work achieved by his hand. His intellect was a fine balance between perception and reflection, adapting him for full and accurate observation and correct reasoning, while a scientific education brought out those powers to the fullest advantage. On the other hand, his great independence and fidelity to conviction, fitted him to advocate the results of study without compromise. Yet, left to himself, those natural qualifications must have taken a totally different direction from what they did. It required the circumstances to which he was subjected to bring him into the path of Biblical discovery. This discovery was not a result upon which he had set his mind. He had no idea that “discovery” in this department was possible. He supposed “theology” was as much a settled branch of knowledge as any other. It was a branch of knowledge in which, as a young man, he took no special interest. “Our pursuits”, he says, “…were purely medico-chirurgical. We went to meeting or to ‘church’ as regularly as the day of worship came, and, for two years, we attended at the French Protestant Church, near the Bank of England; not, however, for the theology, but for improvement in the French tongue. Our mind was pre-occupied with the world and our profession. ‘Divinity speculations’, as we would have termed them then, we turned over to those whose ‘call’ was more ‘divine’ than our own: we attended to the matters of fact of the passing day. In those years, our literary contributions were solely to the London Lancet; such as reports of cases, and articles on medical reform.” The pressure of circumstances alone forced him into a religious path. His theological career was emphatically a providential development. He had neither designed nor inclined it. It was the result purely of special circumstances, operating upon his peculiarly constituted mind. It is this fact that gives the narrative its highest interest, and imparts to the conclusions he arrived at, a greater value than, even upon the same evidence they could have commanded, had they been espoused at second hand.
The following narrative is of equal authenticity with an autobiography. It is founded on information imparted orally to the writer by the Dr himself, and largely drawn from the periodicals published by him over a period of thirty years; all of which the writer has been fortunate enough to procure, with the single exception of the Investigator,* published about the year 1844. In most of these periodicals, the Dr was compelled by the polemical exigencies of the situation, to recur at intervals to personal explanations, which place at our disposal many valuable autobiographical sketches, of which we have thought it well to give the reader large benefit in the Dr’s own words.

CHAPTER 2

Dr Thomas was born in Hoxton Square, London, on the 12th of April, 1805. His father, who was aristocratically descended, was a high-spirited, proud, and talented man, with an active temperament and energetic mind, of eminently moral and intellectual tendencies. His mother was a mild and amiable lady, of a religious turn. The Dr inherited a combination of these elements – the fire and energy of his father being tempered by the softer qualities of his mother, resulting in the gifted, quiet-working, unobtrusive, but indomitable nature with which the Dr was endowed.
His father had been brought up to the East India Civil Service, but left that employment, while yet a young man, for the ministry, which he preferred to the routine of an official clerkship. He graduated as a preacher at Hoxton College when 20 years of age, but continued his duties in the East India Company’s offices, in Leadenhall Street, till he received a “call” from an Independent congregation, that met in Founder Hall, behind the Bank of England, now occupied as a station by the London Telegraph Company. This was several years after leaving college. In the interval, he had followed the clerical avocation, here and there, as opportunity allowed. He had not been many years pastor of the Founder Hall congregation when a misunderstanding arose among the deacons, that caused unpleasantness, and led him to accepting a “call” from Huntley, a small town in the north of Scotland, to which, of course, his wife and family accompanied him. This was in 1812, the Dr being then seven years of age. At Huntley, they only remained a year. The Dr’s father grew tired of the country and the neighbourhood, and, in the absence of any ministerial “call”, returned to London, and opened a boarding-school, at West Square, Lambeth. The boarding-school prospering, he removed to a large house at Clapham, with grounds attached, which he opened as an educational establishment for the sons of dissenting ministers. A society which had been formed for the education of the sons of deceased ministers sent a good many pupils, and the institution was an established success. At the end of five years, however, the Dr’s father, preferring pastoral work to the drudgery of an educational institution, gave up the latter and removed to Richmond (eight miles from Hyde Park corner), where he became the pastor of a small Independent congregation. A year afterwards, he received and accepted a “call” from a congregation at Chorley, in Lancashire, to which he removed with his family. Here they remained about four years, at the end of which (with the exception of the Dr himself), they returned to London, where the Dr’s father obtained a situation as clerk in the City Gas Office. The Dr was sixteen years of age at the time his father left Chorley and remained behind to continue his medical studies with a private surgeon (son-in-law of the curate of the parish), under whom he had been placed two years before. At this time, the Dr was a member of his father’s church, which he had been asked by one of the deacons to join, and for which the deacon reported him to be quite fit, notwithstanding the Dr’s “profound ignorance of the whole subject of theology”, to use his own language. Six months after his father’s departure, the Dr resigned his membership, and continued thence unconnected with ecclesiastical matters till the incidents that led him into the channel referred to in the last chapter. About the same time he returned to London, and was put under a general practitioner near Paddington, to continue his medical studies. At the end of two years he joined the students at St Thomas’s hospital, where he attended lectures for three years, while, at the same time, prosecuting his private studies. During a portion of the period, he acted as demonstrator of anatomy in a school connected with one of the hospitals in the borough of London. On finishing his medical course, and obtaining his diploma, he spent a year as companion to a London physician, for whom he wrote a course of lectures on obstetrics. At the end of the year, he commenced practice as a physician, on his own behalf, at Hackney, where he continued for three years, realizing tolerable success in his profession.
During this time the Dr wrote, or began to write, a history of the parish, for the completion of which, he had to apply to the ecclesiastical authorities for access to the parish records. This was denied, and the authorities, on getting to know what was in progress, gave themselves no rest until they had purchased and suppressed the unfinished MS. During the same period, he also made frequent contributions to the Lancet, one of which is interesting as indicative of the state of the Dr’s mind, at this time, on the subject of natural immortality. We cannot do better than reproduce his own account of it, from the Apostolic Advocate (vol iii, p 223) and Herald of the Future Age (vol iii, p 123), using both to make a complete narrative.

Before I understood the constitution of man, as revealed in the Scriptures, I had views very different from what are set forth in this article. About seven years ago, an essay on “The Materiality of the Mind, the Immortality of the Soul, and the Vital Principle”, appeared in the London Lancet, from the pen of a Mr Dermott, Professor of Anatomy in that city. He supposed that the brain was one and the same thing as the mind; that it is common to all animals, only more perfectly developed in man than in the lower animals, and that the only essential difference between them and man is, that man has attached to his existence “a principle termed ‘the soul’, which is unconscious during this life, but starts into consciousness at death, and thus becomes the continuation of the same individual’s existence”. This communication set us to thinking about the soul and immortality. We were aware that Paul had written something about these in 1 Cor. We turned to the place, read it, and reflected upon it, until we thought we saw the truth of the matter, viz, that there was a vital or germinating principle in the body which continued, attached to every particle after death; that all human animal matter, like kinds of seeds, were subject to certain fixed physical laws; and that when it had lain incorruptible, at the time appointed it then germinated, and, like a plant from the earth, rose a new living being from the dust of death. The existence in man of a part of God’s essence, an intellectual and moral soul, capable of thinking, seeing, hearing, tasting, feeling, &c, without brain, eyes, ears, nerves, &c, to be breathed out with the breath of death, seemed to us a ‘very foolish notion’. It must then depart from the mouth or nostrils; why not, then, catch it in some appropriate apparatus, detain it in a bottle, and subject it to chemical analysis? Such were the ideas suggested by reflection upon the bearing of the case. We rejected this view of immortality as irrational and absurd, but held on to the discovery we supposed we had made. The next thing was to take up our pen, as men draw their swords to battle, and make a push at Dr Dermott’s dormant soul. My article was published in the Lancet in the year 1830, or thereabouts. I then thought that the mind and vital principle were one and the same thing; that these in man differed from those in the brutes; so that, the first I called the immortal human principle, and the latter, the perishable brute principle; that this human principle could not exist separately from Deity, unclothed by or independent of matter; that it was not the soul, but a constituent of what would hereafter form an incorrupt and immortal soul; that this vital spirit was to be the quickening spirit of a new and glorious body after death; that the soul was the incorruptible and spiritual body discoursed of by Paul – an immortal creature, endowed with the properties of matter inimitably beautiful, and the perfection of the Creator’s works. I supposed that the cause of the difference between the mind of animals and that of man was the two dissimilar sources from which they were derived, and not the difference of organization alone, as Mr Dermott imagined. In proof of this, I referred to Moses’ account of the formation of the lower animals and man, and laid much stress upon the very text we have been illustrating throughout. I said that the mind of man must be immortal, because God breathed it into him at his creation. That it was as the Pagans supposed, “divinæ particular auræ”, - a particle of His divine essence. I vainly conceived that Adam was a part of the Deity embodied in a pure and undefiled receptacle; that after the Fall, man was the same principle in an impure casket; and that the spiritual body would be the like particle re-embodied in purity at the resurrection. Such were ‘the speculations and untaught questions’, verily, of ‘my comparatively boyish days’; but since I have become a young man – though but ‘a very young man’ indeed – ‘I have put away childish things’. I erred, not knowing the Scriptures. I have since studied them closely, and they, aided by the light of nature, have taught me the true constitution of man, of the external world, and of the ultimate destiny of both.
In reviewing this first essay, we now see that though more scriptural than the doctor’s theory, we had not struck the right chord. We find, too, that we had come to a Pharisaic conclusion. Certain of the Pharisees believed in the inseparability of the soul and body, as illustrated by the inseparability of the seed and its inherent vitality. A seed may die and never vegetate, but its vital or germinating principle cannot exist independently, and be every whit a seed in another state – the spirit, soul, or ghost of a seed! Thus they taught the sleep of the soul in the grave till the resurrection, when by virtue of its own immortal vigour, it germinated a now living body out of the old materials, which was as much the body buried as the seed sown was the new body growing in the field.
Our carnal or unenlightened reason on 1 Cor. 15 led us to the elaboration of a theory identical with that to which these fleshly-minded Pharisees attained by a similar process. Our error and theirs consisted in theorizing the resurrection of the body too analogically – too strictly upon a vegeto-physiological type. Seeds are perishable; and the only reason we could see why all men should not perish as seeds and animals, was that God had decreed a resurrection. We and these Pharisees, then, believed in the inseparability and immortality of the body and principle of life, whose consciousness was suspended during the period of death, but whose intellectual and vital attributes were again associately developed by their spontaneous elaboration, according to a law superinduced by the inherent germinating energy of the ‘dust and ashes’. This energy we call soul.
We did not believe, for we never knew nor understood that the resurrection of the body was consequent not upon an inherent physical quality, but on the bringing of the energy of the Spirit of God to bear on the mortal remains of the dead saints, through the agency of Jesus Christ at his personal appearing; and that the energy, instead of being in the dead body, was extraneous to it, and deposited in Jesus Christ’ that because this immortal vigour was laid up in him, he is styled ‘the resurrection and the life’, and that, seeing he is the resurrection and the life of the saints, in this sense he is called ‘Christ our life’. We knew nothing about these things, which were all ‘hidden wisdom’, or mysteries, to us in those days.”

CHAPTER 3

EARLY in the year 1832, the Dr’s father, who had meanwhile left the Independents and joined the Baptists, and was, concurrently with his secular employment, preaching to a small congregation at Brentford, was seized with the American emigration fever which at this time began to rage. He was desirous of winding up his affairs, and proceeding to the new country at once. The Dr, having no special prospects, and intensely disliking a priest-ridden state of society, such as that which prevailed at that time in England to a greater extent than now, did not disrelish the idea of emigrating, but, knowing his father’s impetuous disposition, he was afraid he would act rashly in the matter, and therefore proposed that, as a prudent preliminary, he (the Dr) should go to America before the rest of the family, and spy the land and report. In this suggestion his father concurred, and arrangements were made for the Dr’s departure to what was destined to be the sphere of his great work. He procured an appointment as surgeon to a passenger ship, named the Marquis of Wellesley, which was about to sail from St Catherine’s Docks, London, to New York. The ship was about 500 tons burthen, built of strong teak (African oak) and copper bottomed. When the day of departure arrived, the Dr found himself the medical attendant of eighty-nine souls, seventy being passengers, and the remainder consisting of the crew. There were only three cabin passengers, a man of the name of Williams, and a woman and a boy whom he represented as his wife and son. The voyage and its incidents constituted an important link in the chain of events that determined the Dr’s career. For this reason, we enter somewhat into detail.
The ship sailed on the 1st of May, 1832, but had no sooner cleared the river than foul weather set in, which lasted throughout a long and tedious voyage. For a fortnight they were driven about by unfavourable winds, and subjected to the sharp action of a lurchy chopping sea. At the end of that time, the main-mast was snapped off close by the insertion of the main-yard, and the fore-top mast and mizzen top were carried away. A heavy sea stove in the bulwarks, and swept the deck of everything movable and some things not intended to be movable. A heavy-clouded angry sky portended a continuation of the storm; the furious gale howled hideously in the rigging, lashing the sea into mighty high-ridged, froth-crested billows, which rolled in ponderous undulations, and broke in wanton fury over the frail hiding place of 90 souls. The ship was tossed about like a chip in a boiling cauldron. She plunged, and rolled, and creaked in a horrible manner, now lifted on a mountainous wave, and then engulphed in the trough of the sea, as if she would never rise again. The situation was alarming. The people in the ship were frightened, and turned religious, and pressed upon the captain to hold “divine service” on the Sundays. The storm continuing, the captain consented, and organized a “service” after the forms of English Church orthodoxy. Williams, the cabin passenger, who turned out to be a rogue, was appointed to read the prayers, and the captain undertook the responses, which were also eagerly joined in by the frightened congregation. It fell to the Dr’s part to read a chapter from the Bible, and then a sermon from Chalmers’ published Sermons. The arrangement evidently worked well, and served to calm the excited feelings of the people.
For days the storm showed no symptoms of abatement, and there was danger of the ship becoming logged, to prevent which, she was relieved of a large number of chalk blocks. The cloudy condition of the atmosphere had, for some days, prevented observations from being taken, and there being no chronometer on board (only a log line) the ship’s progress was quite uncertain. The captain was confident as to the position of the vessel, but the Dr had strong doubts from the circumstance that the reckonings of all the ships they passed were different from theirs. One Sunday, at dinner, the ship’s position was the subject of conversation, and the captain remarked that if the reckoning of the other ships was correct, they could not be far from Sable Island, but he added that he believed that their own reckoning was the correct one, which made them upwards of 250 miles away from the island. The Dr suggested that it would be as well to assume that the other ships were right, and they wrong, and to take soundings; but the Dr’s suggestion was disregarded. That same evening, the Dr was reading in his state room, which was so placed that he could see the whole length of the vessel and the aspect of affairs on the water, and he was struck with the appearance of the sea, which looked as though they were in shallow water. Seeing the second mate standing by the window, he called his attention to it, and told him he was satisfied if the ship continued on her present course, she would run ashore. The second mate ridiculed the remark, telling the Dr he knew nothing at all about it, being only a landsman. The Dr retired to his state room, but again came out in a few minutes, being ill satisfied with the general aspect of things, and again warned the second mate, who returned about the same reply. The Dr again went into his quarters, and was in the act of taking off his coat, for the purpose of turning into his berth, when the ship scraped on the bottom and struck heavily, almost jerking him off his feet. The cry was instantly raised, “Breakers ahead!” Consternation seized on every soul. The vessel rose with the next wave, and again struck the bottom with crashing force. Each succeeding wave lifted her in this way, and let her down again with a heavy bump, which threatened to break her to pieces every moment. She struck twelve times in succession, striking horror through her living freight with every concussion. The passengers screamed and the sailors ran about excitedly, in their endeavours to carry out the orders of the captain, who strove to get the vessel about with her head to the sea. One man, over 6 feet, was lying near the Dr exclaiming with the puling terror of a child: “We shall go to the bottom! We shall go to the bottom!” The Dr remarked to him that they were already at the bottom, and could not get lower then they were. At the same time, he felt the prospect was pretty certain that they should be broken up and submerged in the waves. His own mind was powerfully acted on by the situation, and, in fact, received a bent which determined the track of his future career. Naturally hopeful, he could not persuade himself that he had come to the end of his existence, but the chances of escape were so slim that he felt uncomfortably pressed by the question as to what would become of him in the event of his being drowned. He had never given any earnest thought to the subject of religion. He was far from being irreverent or irreligious, but he had never made religion a question of practical interest. The consequence was that at such a trying moment as the one described, he felt a cloud of uncertainty. He concluded that the best thing to do in the circumstances would be, as the waves were closing over him, to go down with the prayer upon his lips, “Lord have mercy upon me for Christ’s sake.” At the same time he determined within himself that if ever he got on terra firma again, he should never rest till he found out the truth of the matter, that he might no more be found in such an uncertain state of mind.
After the twelfth rebound, the captain’s efforts to get the vessel’s head round to sea, being aided by a change of wind, were successful, and ecstatic cries rose from every part of the ship, “She rides! She rides!” The words, however, were scarcely out of their mouths when the ship again struck the ground with a crash that made every plank tremble. This was her last and worst collision with the ground, and for the moment, destroyed all hope that they would be saved. She immediately rose on the waves, but it was every moment expected she would settle down and founder. The pumps were ordered into action, lights were called for, and the ship was examined, when it was found that the stern-post was started, and that the water was rushing in at various points. Something was done to repair the damage, but the leakage could not be entirely stopped, and the pumps had to be kept at work constantly during the remainder of the voyage. At the end of ten days, during which the weather continued more or less boisterous, the ship arrived safely in New York harbour, having occupied eight weeks in the passage.
Having cleared the ship, the Dr went to a boarding-house in the city, and his astonishment may be imagined when, on third day, his father presented himself at the door. He had lost patience after the Dr’s departure, and throwing up his situation, had resolved to commit himself and fortunes at once to the emigration scheme, without waiting for the report of his son. He started three weeks after the Dr, and arrived only three days behind him.


CHAPTER 4

ARRIVED on terra firma, the Doctor did not forget the resolution he had formed to seek for the truth. He had received a letter of introduction and recommendation from the Rev Henry Foster Burder, DD, to a divine of the Presbyterian order in New York, and he thought he could not do better than begin his explorations by listening to the latter. He accordingly went and heard him the following Sunday, but at once came to the conclusion from what he heard that it was no use hearing him any more. He next made use of letters of introduction which his father had brought from home, to the Rev Archibald Maclay, late president of the Baptist Bible Society, of New York, and the Rev Mr Foster, another Baptist preacher. Mr Foster asked him where he was going? The Doctor replied that he was going to Cincinnati, where he had a letter of introduction to a gentleman. Mr Foster remarked that the western people were very hospitable but very much infected with “reformation”. The Doctor was struck with the remark, which was the first allusion to the system of Campbellism with which he was destined to have so much to do. Mr Foster tried to induce him to remain in New York. Adhering to his purpose of going to Cincinnati, Mr Foster gave him a letter of introduction to a Rev Mr Lynd, a Baptist preacher there, and also to Dr Stoughton, professor of surgery in the Ohio Medical College. His father resolved to accompany him, and they set out together in the month of September. There were no railroads at that time, and the route was rather tedious. Nothing of note occurred on the way.
Arrived at their destination, they went to the house of a man named Brown, director of one of the Cincinnati Banks, to whom they had a letter of introduction from his brother, Col Brown of London. This indirectly resulted in the Dr’s introduction to Campbellism. The day after their arrival, the fact became known to a gentleman living opposite, named Major Daniel Gano, Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United Sates, whose interest was excited by the announcement that a Baptist minister and family had arrived from England. This Mr Gano was a gentleman, who, as the result of presiding at a debate between the Rev Alexander Campbell and Mr Owen, embraced the views of the former with a sincerity, illustrated by the fact that he incurred a forfeit of 500 dollars lying upon a horse which he had entered for the races at Lexington, Kentucky. Mr Gano gave the Dr and his father an invitation to dinner which they accepted, and the Doctor had not been an hour in this gentleman’s company when he called the Doctor’s attention to the New Testament, and commenced talking with him about what he styled “the ancient gospel and order of things”. The Doctor thought this a very strange as well as unfashionable proceeding, but supposed it was the custom of the country to talk about such things – a supposition in which he afterwards found he was greatly mistaken. The Doctor out of respect to his entertainer, paid due attention to his representations, Major Gano quoted the 38th verse of the 2nd chapter of the Acts in the course of conversation, and used the word “immerse” instead of “baptise”. This aroused the suspicions of the Doctor, who at once said that he had never heard of such a passage in the Bible before. Major Gano replied that truly the word “immerse” was not in the verse as rendered in the English version, but that the Doctor must know that “immersion” and “baptism” meant the same thing. The Doctor responded with the remark that he never did think it a matter of very little moment. Major Gano on parting, gave him a pamphlet on the remission of sins, published by Mr Alexander Campbell, which he told him would inform him all about the subject. The Doctor out of respect, accepted the pamphlet, but determined in his own mind not to read it, lest he should become biased in his independent search after the truth, and get astray. In a few days the Doctor called again, and the Major gave him another pamphlet (subject – “The Holy Ghost”) written by the late Walter Scott, the original founder of Campbellism. The Doctor accepted it in the same spirit as the other, and for the same reason, on his return home, he laid it with the other on the window sill.
On the following Sunday, this Mr Walter Scott was to preach the funeral sermon of a person who died of cholera; and the Major invited the Doctor to go and hear him. The Doctor replied that he was searching after the truth, and intended to hear all the preachers in Cincinnati, and he would hear Mr Scott in due time, but not just then. The Major replied that that was all very well, but he might as well begin with Mr Scott, which out of respect, the Doctor consented to do. This was the incident that introduced the Doctor to Campbellism.
When Sunday arrived, the crowd was so great (the place being a private house) that they could not get in. The Major, therefore, concluded that he would invite Mr Scott to go home with them, so that the Doctor might get the full benefit of the occasion. So, after the discourse, they all returned in a carriage together. A pleasant evening was spent at the Major’s house. Mr Scott introduced religious topics, addressing himself more particularly to the Doctor. He spoke of Daniel’s four empires, which the Doctor only knew as much about as he had read in Rollin’s Ancient History, and of which Mr Scott, it struck the Doctor, knew no more. After a considerable amount of conversation, Mr Scott remarked to the Doctor that they seemed to agree very well in the particulars. What hinders that you should be a Christian?” The Dr replied that he did not know but that he was as good a Christian as anybody. “Well,” said the Major, “have you been baptised?” The Dr answered that the only baptism of which he had been the subject was the baptism administered when he was a baby. Mr Scott was then at some pains to show that that baptism did not avail anything; that, in fact, it was no baptism at all, but only a conventional and valueless ceremony, which had no foundation in Scripture. At the conclusion of his argument, he asked him if he believed in Jesus Christ. The Dr answered that he could not tell the time when he did not believe in him, as he had been born and brought up in that belief. Mr Scott asked what hindered, then, that he should be baptised? Oh, said the Dr, that was a different thing. He thought it was all very well for preachers to be immersed who had to baptise others, but he did not see any necessity for anybody else being immersed, “an answer which,” said the Dr afterwards, “manifested my ignorance.” But he told Mr Scott that he was seeking for the truth, and if he could show him a case from the Scriptures in which a man was baptised as soon as he believed, he should give up his opposition. The Dr, in his ignorance, thought himself well entrenched in that position. Mr Scott at once accepted the issue, and directed his attention to the case of the eunuch (Acts VIII, 27-39). “There,” he remarked, “you see that, as soon as he believed, they went down into the water, and the eunuch was immersed. Now,” said he, “I would suggest you do likewise.”
The Dr, a little taken aback at the suddenness and strength of the issue, said that, to be candid, he must admit that Mr S had established his point; but, as to being baptised, he had not come that evening to be immersed, nor was he prepared, as to change of raiment, and so on. “Oh,” said Mr Scott, “that will be no obstacle in the way. Here is our friend, Major Gano” (who was present during the conversation, along with other persons,) “who will furnish us with everything requisite in that respect.” The Major chimed in very promptly with the assurance that he should be happy to facilitate the operation to the fullest extent of his power.
There was no escape. The Dr was obliged to give in his adhesion, and the necessary arrangements being made, a move was made towards the Miami Canal, which passed the front of the house, on the opposite side of the road, and there the Dr was immersed, by Mr Walter Scott, “for the remission of sins,” in the presence of a number of witnesses, at ten o’clock at night, by the light of the moon.

CHAPTER 5

THE incident recorded in the closing sentences of the last chapter, was the Dr’s introduction to Campbellism, the inauguration of the career which, by slow and certain steps, terminated in the repudiation of every form of popular faith, and the adoption of “The Truth,” as found in the writings of Moses, the prophets, and the apostles. He was, however, himself unaware of the nature and consequences of the step he had taken. He thought he was merely obeying a divine precept without identifying himself with any ecclesiastical organisation. He had studiously sought to avoid such a thing, and had no idea of having departed from his resolution, and united himself with a sect; yet so it was. On going to the meeting with Major Gano, the first time after his immersion, he was greeted on all hands as “brother Thomas”. He was surprised to find himself thus introduced to Campbellism, in spite of his resolution to steer clear of all parties. It proved a providential occurrence, as the sequel shews. The following remarks on the subject occur in “Reformation in Richmond,” Apostolic Advocate, vol iii p 87.
“Previous to our baptism into Christ, we were almost altogether misinformed about Mr Campbell and ‘this reformation’. All we knew about him was from the pen of Mrs Trollope. We had heard in New York of a sect denominated ‘Campbellites’, but of the doctrine of Mr Campbell and his followers, as they were termed, we knew nothing and cared not to know. On leaving our native country, we had denounced all connection with sectarianism, and had determined never to be entrammelled by its bonds, nor to wear a party badge. This resolution was strengthened by an escape from a watery grave. Threatened with shipwreck off the Nova Scotian shore, and experiencing upon that trying occasion the worthlessness of our religious principles as a basis for a sure and certain hope of salvation, we determined, if we were ever permitted to tread the soil again, not to rest until we found the true way to immortality. But our way of seeking the truth proved not to be the way of God. We commenced a tour of sermon-hearing. We first visited the Presbyterian and then the Baptist temples, and here we stopped, or rather, were stopped by the word of God. A private conversation of about three hours, as to what was truth, with brother Walter Scott, resulted in our baptism into Christ by moonlight that same night. By this act, we considered ourselves in fellowship with all and every name who had believed and obeyed the same things. We were invited to connect ourselves with the Church in Cincinnati, with which we found brother W Scott in fellowship. We observed we should have no objection, provided it pledged us to no sect or party and upon being assured that it would not, we joined, and thus found ourselves in fellowship also with Mr Campbell.”
After his immersion, Major Gano invited the Dr to make his house his home, and the Dr, availing himself of the invitation, resided with him during his stay in these parts. Previous to this, his father had accepted the call to a Baptist congregation in Cincinnati, and was at the time engaged as their preacher. On hearing next day of the Dr’s baptism, he was full of wrath, but afterwards his wrath abated, and he himself embraced Campbellite principles.
The Dr resided in Cincinnati seven months. His original idea was to settle there. On this point, he says, in the article quoted above: “Cincinnati was our destination when we left England. We purposed to settle there and practise our profession, but found the prospect of success more flattering in the distance than on the spot it proved to be. The city was crowded with physicians, and we determined to leave it for one of the Atlantic cities. Previous to our departure, however, brother W Scott had often exhorted us to commence the practice of speaking in the cause of truth. He thought if we would only break the ice we should easily get along. But we steadily persisted in refusing. We used to tell him that we thought it out of character for one who had but just become a Christian to set up for a teacher of that religion in the face of older and abler men, who ought rather to teach us. But he seemed to think that no objection, as there were many old Christians who knew but little. He proposed our going to Carthage, where he would introduce us, and pave the way, as it were, for our commencement. But, no; our scruples could not be overcome.”
In April 1833, or thereabouts, the Dr left the West and returned to the Eastern States. On leaving, Major Gano gave him a letter of introduction to Dr Richardson, of Wellsburg, Virginia, and one to Alexander Campbell, of Bethany, both of whom he had to pass on his way. On landing at Wellsburg, he was welcomed by Dr Richardson, who informed him that Alexander Campbell was in the town, and would shortly be at his house. Dr Richardson had been an Episcopalian, but was converted to “the Reformation” as it was called, and immersed for the remission of sins. Latterly it was said he became a Spiritualist.
About an hour after the Dr’s arrival, Mr Campbell was seen coming up the street, and Dr Richardson called the Dr to the door and pointed him out as he approached. The Dr was very much surprised at the appearance of the man. The ideas he had formed of a parson or preacher were of course derived from his acquaintance with the “profession” in this country, where broad-cloth, silk, and fine linen are badges of the craft. What was his surprise, therefore, on seeing a shabbily dressed, farm-labourer-looking man, in an old drab coat and slouching white hat. But though Mr Campbell presented a rough exterior, the Dr afterwards found him to be a very pleasant and agreeable companion. On the arrival of Mr Campbell at the house, Dr Richardson introduced the Dr to him, and the Dr also presented the letter of introduction he had received from Major Gano. This was the commencement of the Dr’s acquaintance with Mr Campbell, which proved another important circumstance in the development of his subsequent career.
In the course of their interview, Mr Campbell invited the Dr to go home with him and spend a little time at his establishment. The Dr consented, and a second horse having been provided, the two set out together for Bethany. Mr Campbell at that time was the owner of 2,000 acres of rich Virginia soil, on which there grazed 1,000 head of sheep. The hills on his estate were full of coal, for which it was only necessary to dig horizontally for a few yards to get to a bed. His establishment comprised a post office, a printing office, a store, a mill, and a stone meeting house, besides his residence. But notwithstanding the opulence of his circumstances, Mr Campbell lived in a very plain and unostentatious style.
On a certain Sunday, shortly after the Dr’s arrival at Bethany, he went with Mr Campbell to Wellsburg, where the latter had a preaching appointment. On the way to the meeting in the afternoon, Mr Campbell (who had spoken in the morning) said to the Dr that he should call upon him to speak that afternoon. The Dr told him that he must not by any means do so, as he had never spoken in public on religious matters in his life, and should have nothing to say if he did get up. Mr Campbell replied that that did not matter; he should certainly call upon him, for he liked to try a man’s mettle. This was said with so decided an air that the Dr saw there was no escape, and remarked to Mr Campbell that if he did intend to call upon him, he (Mr Campbell) must occupy the time as long as he could, so as to give him a little chance of preparation.
Having arrived at the meeting house, the Dr took up his Bible while sitting in his seat, and began to turn it over in search of something as a foundation for remark. He went from one end to the other without being able to fix upon anything, when at last it occurred to him that he knew Rollin’s interpretation of Daniel’s four empires, and that the 2nd chapter which treats of them, being a long one, the reading of it would give him time to accustom himself (before commencing to speak) to standing head and shoulders above the people. The Dr was called upon in due course, and proceeded with the reading of the chapter. Having got through it, he fixed his eyes upon the doorpost, and delivered himself of all he knew upon the subject without venturing to look his audience in the face. Having occupied about half an hour, in which time he completely emptied himself, he concluded by a sudden stop and sat down. He said he was astonished to hear afterwards that the people were taken by his discourse.
On the following Sunday, as he was walking with Mr Campbell to Mr Campbell’s own meeting house in the morning, Mr Campbell remarked to him that he should call upon him to speak again in the afternoon. As there was the prospect of a considerable time to think over the matter, the Dr did not object. He was, however, again taken by surprise: for Mr Campbell occupied from half-past ten till two, and then concluded the meeting with the remark that they would have a recess for a quarter of an hour, after which Dr Thomas would speak to them. The Doctor had calculated upon a considerable interval between the morning and afternoon meeting, and was taken aback at finding he had only a quarter of an hour to prepare. He had considerable difficulty in fixing his mind upon anything to say, but at last decided to speak on the Apostacy, of which he had read something. He occupied the afternoon with this subject, speaking as afterwards transpired, to the satisfaction of those who heard.
The meeting over, the Dr determined within himself that this sort of business must stop. He felt that he was being entangled in a work for which he was utterly unqualified, and entirely opposed to his tastes, and he determined to get out of the way as fast as possible. He decided to proceed to Baltimore, by way of Washington, in Pennsylvania. Communicating his intention Mr Campbell, the letter arranged to send him on as far as Washington, Penn, and gave him a latter of introduction to Mr Postlethwaite, Somerset House, Pennsylvania, and another to Mr Carman, of Baltimore. In due time he bade farewell to Bethany, after spending an agreeable month in Mr Campbell’s company. The Dr makes the following remarks on this occasion, in the Apostolic Advocate, vol i, p 88.
“We were much gratified with his acquaintance. We became much attached to him; and though before our interview and subsequent to our baptism, we had read much of his writings, and highly approved of them, yet we never advocated him. Our visit to Bethany, however, excited in our hearts a friendship for him, which we exceedingly regret should have terminated so unpropitiously; but so it was. For Mr Campbell, we would have laid down our life if called upon; so much greater was his personal than his literary influence over us.
During our stay at Bethany we accompanied Mr Campbell to three or four of his appointments. Wellsburg was one. On returning to the meeting house in the afternoon, he observed to us: “Brother Thomas, I shall call upon you for a word of exhortation.” As may be supposed, we were electrified at this announcement. We expostulated. We urged the suddenness of the call; our unpreparedness; our not having spoken on the Christian religion before, and so forth. But all to no purpose; he would take no denial, but insisted, observing that he liked to try what sort of mettle people were made of, or words to that effect. We have often smiled within ourselves on reflecting upon this incident. Mr Campbell has had abundant opportunity of trying our mettle since! Finding there was no escape, and disdaining the imputation of cowardice in a good cause, we went forward and did as well as we could. He again took us by surprise at another of his meetings, which, added to the foregoing, hastened our departure from Bethany; for, thought we, we never can stand such impromptuism as this.
From Bethany, we travelled eastward, by way of Somerset Court House, in Pennsylvania. To some brethren at this place, we had letters of introduction from Mr Campbell. We remained with them sixteen days. * * * * Nothing would satisfy the brethren but that we should speak on every occasion. A disposition to oblige induced compliance, though sorely against our inclination; for we did not travel as an evangelist, but simply to find a place of settlement in our peculiar way of life; besides the labour of public speaking was very great, owing to a want of previous preparation, and the violence it did to our disposition, which is naturally reserved, and gratified by an abstraction from the noisy and busy haunts of men. But the things we have least sought after are the very things we are most engaged in. Our constant desire was to obtain an honourable living by our calling in as quiet a way as possible. But this desire, in the way we had marked out, has been completely thwarted; and we find ourselves tilling the soil in the retirement of a country life at home, but, when absent, buffeting the waves of a stormy sea. We never sought the engagements of an editor, nor of a public speaker; and from the time that Mr Campbell put our mettle to the proof until now, we have never addressed the people from inclination, but always from a sense of duty, and at the earnest solicitation of others. Many have been the times that we would rather have travelled thirty miles from than five miles to an appointment. We mention these things to shew that our public labours have been disinterested and superimposed; if they have not resulted in the applause of those who have called us out, it is because, though called out contrary to inclination, we have always determined to do our best in speaking according to the oracles of God, or not to speak at all. A public life is not a life of our seeking, but if we must engage in its concerns, we will strive to direct our course by no other rule or standard of expediency than that of the Word of God. We plead for no man but “The Man Christ Jesus”; for no sect but that “everywhere spoken against” of old, and we are resolved to hold no man’s person in admiration for the sake of advantage, even should it result in our falling back upon the much-loved solitude of private life. Our wants are few and simple. Mankind have nothing in the way of honour, glory, or renown to bestow that we think worth contending for. We ask the world for nothing. We neither fear its frowns nor court its smiles. If a nobleman of old would receive nothing at its hand lest it should be said that it had made Abraham rich; neither would his descendants.”
At Somerset Court-house, the Campbellites requested him to settle among them as their preacher, a proposition which the Dr could not for a moment entertain. His object was not to become a preacher but to get into medical practice. He told them so, and that he must at once push on to Baltimore, where he was informed the most intelligent congregation of the Reformationists was situated, and where, therefore, he presumed they would be able to do all the speaking for themselves, and leave him to quietly attend to his medical duties.
He arrived at Baltimore on Sunday evening, and to his dismay, (his approach having been signified by his Pennsylvanian friends) he was at once solicited to address the congregation. He wished to decline the engagement, but they would take no denial: and he spoke. Having heard him, nothing would satisfy them short of taking the public hall (Scottis’ Hall) and calling the public together to hear the new preacher. The hall was engaged for a week, and every night in the week the Dr addressed the public on “The ancient faith”, which he considered the faith promulgated by Mr Campbell to be.

CHAPTER 6

THE Dr, after a week’s stay in Baltimore, determined to break away from the preaching career which was being forced upon him. He told his Baltimore friends he must be off to see Philadelphia before going to Richmond, which was his ultimate destination. “Well”, said brother Carman, “I will give you a letter of introduction to brother Hazlett, who is deacon in the congregation in Philadelphia, over which brother Ballantyne presides.” The Dr thought it would be better to have friends to go to, than to arrive in Philadelphia a complete stranger, and therefore accepted the letter, though not without some misgivings as to the consequences.
On arriving at Philadelphia, he found deacon Hazlett, who expressed great satisfaction at his having come, saying that they wanted some one to speak to them, and to relieve the tediousness of their meetings, as brother Ballantyne who presided, was “very old and very dry”. What could the Dr do? He was the guest of brother Hazlett, and he felt he could do nothing less, as a sort of return for their hospitality, than yield to their request and speak to them. This he did for three weeks. At the end of that time, they proposed that he should remain among them altogether, promising that they would do their best to get him practice, if he would be content to speak to them on Sundays. Getting accustomed to speaking, the prospect of a settlement in his own profession disposed him to fall in with the suggestion, which after due consideration, he did.
The arrangement did not work favourably for the Dr’s professional objects, though conducing highly to the work which providence had assigned to him. As the Dr remarks in the article in the Advocate, already quoted from: “Had we devoted ourselves to medicine, as we did to the things of the kingdom, we might probably have succeeded; but the fact is, that having to address the public continually, our time and energies were absorbed in preparing to acquit ourselves, from time to time, as a workman that needed not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. Ever since leaving the West, our spiritual pursuits have been clashing with our temporal, until we have been obliged of necessity to place our profession in abeyance.” His friends in Philadelphia fulfilled their part of the contract, so far as finding medical practice was concerned; but preaching practice, which was exceedingly distasteful to him, necessitated an amount of scriptural study which interfered with his professional occupation, but which was destined to pave the way for great results.
The Dr’s mind was eminently fitted, by constitution and condition, to be the subject of a simple and pure illumination by the Word. This comes out in what the Dr makes “Tomaso” say in a Dialogue between three Friends on Men and Things (Apostolic Advocate, vol iii p 28). He (the Dr) was never, says “Tomaso”, “cursed with the poison of a theological education. His early years were spent in a private boarding school in England, and from his seventeenth to his twenty-fifth year, among physic bottles, lecture rooms, and dead bodies. He knows nothing (and counts it his happiness) about the writings of popular divines nor did he ever trouble himself much about divinity of any kind till about three years and a half ago (this was written in 1836), when he obeyed the gospel of our divine Master. Since that time, he has addicted himself to the incessant study of the Scriptures. Not having had his mind perverted by human tradition, it just takes whatever impression the Word may make upon it, like a blank sheet the impression of the printer’s types”.
The Dr’s stay in Philadelphia did not last longer than eleven months. During this time, two important events transpired: 1, he married a wife; 2, he commenced his editorial career. A third even was the arrival of his father from England, to which his father had returned after the Dr left Cincinnati. His father now settled with a Baptist congregation in Philadelphia, for whom he preached. Father and son were preaching simultaneously in the same town, but not the same doctrines.

CHAPTER 7

THE career of the Dr as an editor is that in which the circumstances leading to progress were mostly prominently developed. There need, therefore, be no apology for dealing with it in considerable detail. His entrance upon this career was itself an apparently accidental matter.
It came about in the following way: a member of the Philadelphian congregation, named Brindley, who had been a shipbuilder in England, but was then an agent for Morrison’s pills, went to Mr Ballantyne, the pastor (for although the Dr preached, he was not “pastor”,) and suggested that a paper should be started to advocate the principles of the Reformation, intending, as afterwards transpired, to have an advertisement of his pills on the back of each number. After seeing Ballantyne, Brindley called on the Dr in reference to the same project, but did not acquaint him with the fact that he had been to Ballantyne. He talked the matter over as if it had not been suggested to anyone else, and asked him to devise a name, and write out a prospectus. The Dr, knowing nothing of the quackery part of the project, which Brindley was careful to conceal from him, approved of the suggestion, and drew out a prospectus of the proposed publication, calling it the Apostolic Advocate.
Afterwards he was witness of the pastor’s indignation at Brindley for having requested the Dr’s co-operation in the scheme, on which the Dr offered to relinquish all part in it. This did not pacify the old gentleman, whose anger caused Brindley to take no further steps to forward the publication. Brindley’s abandonment of the scheme led to a restoration of peace between Brindley and Ballantyne, and Ballantyne resolved to start the periodical himself; but illness overtaking him, the scheme fell into abeyance.
On his recovery, Mr Ballantyne sent for the Dr and told him he had come to the conclusion that he (Mr Ballantyne) was too old to enter upon such an enterprise as the conducting of a monthly magazine, and that he (the Dr) had better take it in hand and go ahead. This surprised the Dr, but scarcely left him a choice. He concluded to proceed with the undertaking, without reference to Brindley, whose objects he had come to understand. Thus he found himself in a position he had never desired and never contemplated. He issued the prospectus, of which the following is a copy:-

PROPOSALS,
By John Thomas, MD, of Philadelphia, for publishing by subscription, a
Monthly Periodical: To be entitled

THE APOSTOLIC ADVOCATE.
“We (the apostles) are of God: he who knows God, hearkens to us; he who is not of God, hearkens not to us. By this we know the Spirit of Truth and the Spirit of Error.” – (1 John iv 6) – Macknight’s Translation.
“Be mindful of the words before spoken by the holy prophets, and of the commandments of us, the apostles of the Lord and Saviour.” – Macknight.

PROSPECTUS

This work shall be devoted to the ancient Gospel and the original constitution of things as proclaimed and appointed by the apostles. Never was there a time since the days of William Penn, when this and adjacent cities required such an “advocate” as at this present. The voice of the apostles is stifled by the clamour of sectarian declamation. It is true, indeed, they are talked about and their statues adorn cathedral parapets and steeple walls; it is also true that the commercial marts of Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New York, abound in religious establishments, each and every one of them amply furnished with all the gorgeousness and splendid trappings of temple worship; they can boast, too, of an erudite, courtly, eloquent, and right reverend priesthood – the depositaries of wisdom and sacred knowledge – whose fertile ingenuity illustrates, sustains, and fulminates the dogmas of creeds for the deglutition of an unsuspecting and too confiding laity. But all these things, however adored, may be easily unmasked and resolved into their ultimate constituents; the devices, traditions, and commandments of men, and will be proved to be no part of the religion of Christ or of the traditions and teachings of the holy apostles. The Advocate, therefore, will unrol his brief against the corruptions of Christianity: and while he pays all respect to persons that is due, he will use every honourable and scriptural means to disabuse the minds of his fellow citizens of the philosophical dogmas and christianised Orientalisms palmed upon them for the glorious gospel of the blessed God. In subserviency to this end, the following, among other subjects, will be attended to.
The non-identity of all popular religions with the religion of Christ.
The defence of the holy Scriptures against all creeds, “Confessions of Faith”, commentators and system makers.
The objects proposed by the proselytising spirit of the age, as developed in the so-styled “benevolent institutions of the day,” incompatible with and contrary to the predictions of the ancient prophets.
The modern dogmas of physical and spiritual operations not the doctrines of the Holy Spirit taught by the apostles.
The fates and fortunes of the kingdoms of the world foreshown by prophecy.
Religious, moral and literary varieties, with essays on various interesting and important subjects in relation to the kingdom of Christ. The Advocate will glean from the fields of Christian literature whatever is calculated to illustrate the magnificent and sublime politics of the Messiah’s reign. He will endeavour to do justice to all who may oppose and differ from him; his object being to convince, not to condemn. Audi alteram partem – hear the other side – shall always vibrate on his ear; for having neither sympathies nor antipathies to gratify – having no gift, or “sacred office” of pecuniary emoluments to blind the eyes, to pervert his judgment, or to distort his mental vision – being interested in upholding no religious dogmas, in sustaining no sect, in pleading for no sectarian creed: the Advocate will strive to exemplify the apothegm, fiat justitia ruat cœlum (let justice be done though the heavens fall). Let the opponents of the ancient gospel go and do likewise.

This prospectus, which indicates the remarkable tone of the Dr’s mind so early as 1834, was published by Mr Campbell with favourable remarks. The first number of the Advocate appeared in May; 1000 copies being printed and entirely disposed of. It was composed almost entirely of the Dr’s original contributions. We publish the first as illustrative of the quality, as to which the discerning reader will agree with the verdict of the People’s Friend, an American paper, published at the time in Philadelphia: “Style chaste, reasoning close; takes high ground; treats all human authority very unceremoniously; appeals directly to the Scriptures, and contends for their supremacy over all councils and edicts, ancient and modern; shews he has bestowed much attention upon the subjects of which he treats.” These sentences were

descriptive of a pamphlet, at that time published by the Dr, entitled New Catholic Controversy: a mirror for dogmatic religions, in a Letter, &c; but are equally applicable to the Apostolic Advocate, of which the first article is entitled.

THE THEOLOGY OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY

IF one proposition be more self-evident than another, it is this: that the religion of the disciples of Christ cannot be found among any of the popular religions of the 19th century, which divide among them the realms of the demesnes of Christendom. The religion of Christ is a religion of faith and obedience, the one being as essential and important as the other; they are, in truth, one and indivisible. The popular religions, on the other hand, are religions national and speculative in their nature, based on opinions and upheld by systems of abstract definitions, composing creeds, confessions, and articles of faith. With each religion, the fundamental and essential doctrines of the gospel are the leading and characteristic dogmas of their individual creeds. Whatever is not contained in the creed is non-essential, especially if the omission be the diagnostic of some more humble and less popular faith. Popular faith is feeling magnified into confidence, and inasmuch as it produces violent and convulsive action of that important organ of the animal constitution, it is very emphatically termed “faith in the heart”. It is a kind of sanguineous principle, yielding from the several organs through which it passes, copious effusions of tears, mucus, and saliva. Hence that foaming of the mouth, suffusion of the eyes and cheeks, and running at the nose so conspicuous in the subjects of revival, camp meetings, and protracted conventional excitements. Popular faith is lunatic in its phases, being now new, then old, now gibbous, and then rotund, and following the ocean of life in all its ebbs and flows. The opinions of the people’s instructors determine the complexion of their faith, and hence that riddle-like proposition that “Faith is not the belief of testimony”*. It is true the popular faith is not the belief of testimony, and no wonder that, like the priests, the people should maintain it; for well do they know, both the teachers and the taught, that their religious faith is not founded on the testimony of the apostles and prophets, but on the traditions, devices, and commandments of men. What need we marvel, then, at the diversified and contradictory faiths that chequer the ecclesiastical chart of the christianised world? We need not be surprised, I say, that Divine Doctors of the popular faith should insist on a faith christened orthodox with holy water, which does not require testimony to produce, seeing that they are not accustomed to prove their positions either by reason or Holy Writ. Indeed, where is the necessity of proof? Have not their flocks conceded to them their demands in full as to their ambassadorial and holy character, their divine calling and sending, and their claims of succession to the apostles? If these high pretensions be granted, shall we, the laity, presume to ask the Reverend Clergy for their proofs? Absurd in the extreme would it be to concede to them apostolicity without proof, and then to demand a reason for what they affirm! Let them prove the first, and we, for one, in subordinate affairs, will obey implicitly, and for ever after hold our peace. But, as to their divine rights, credat Judœus apella non Ego? – The following will be a fair illustration, both as to believers, the manner of faith, and the effects of popular faith. On the 1st day of March, 1834, an infant first breathed the breath of heaven, and raised its eyelids to the solar beams; unused to this mode of existence, it cried and sobbed and squalled so lustily as greatly to disturb the equanimity of a maiden aunt. Her soured temper could not endure the provocation, and though it was a sacramental week, she tartly reprobated the uncouth noise, and sinned through anger most unchristianly. The original sin and total depravity of the babe were beyond doubt, and as its looks did not promise life beyond four-and-twenty hours, humanity and religion dictated the propriety of saving its soul from hell. A reverend divine was accordingly sent for, who being stimulated by the importance of the occasion, and a zeal in his Master’s service, came with as much despatch as comported with the dignity of the clerical gait. “Go ye,” says the Great Teacher, “unto all the world, and proclaim the glad tidings to the whole creation: he that believeth and is baptised shall be saved, but he that believeth not, shall be condemned.” Acting under this commission, then, this reverend successor of the apostles and

ambassador of Jesus Christ, arrives at the house of mourning for the purpose of imparting salvation to the puny babe. Accordingly, he dips his holy hands into water consecrated by prayer, and with the subject of faith in his left arm, raises, with uplifted eyes and becoming grace, his bending arm with palm supine. The period of grace hovers over the face of the infant – awful moment! The infant scarcely breathes. The sacred drops at length begin to trickle from the holy digits of his reverence; they reach the face, and, with an emphatic sprinkle, the magic words, “Selina! I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost – Amen!” fall on the sealed ears of the expiring child, who, with a struggle, now gives up the ghost.
This instance, and a very common one it is, is a fair illustration of the subject, mode of impartation and effects of the most fashionable popular faith. Its subject is, for the most part, a babe of eight days old, endowed with all the faculties of mind and body in a dormant, undeveloped state; it sees, but it discerns not; it hears, but it understands not; it has a brain, but on the tablet of its mind, no images of thought are there. How then is faith imparted? Let the reverend clergy – so skilled in metaphysics, in all the magic of the Chaldeans, in all the learning of the Egyptians, and in all the mythology of the Pagan world – explain, for I cannot. But the effects of this popular faith, what are they? Scepticism, delusion, death! Common sense contemplating the proud, ambitious priest, discerns in his religious practices and demeanour, the usurpation of supernatural powers, and the impiety of a man who lies in the name of God. Disgusted at such exhibitions of mockery, and acquainted with no other Christianity than that under the form of the religions of the day, the minds of men, with the light only of reason and common sense to guide them, run into the fatal extreme, and denounce all religions as false. Hence, in France, in Italy, in Portugal, and Spain, when occasion offers, they not only avow their scepticism, but deny even the being of a God. Nor are things, in reality, much better in Protestant countries; for though Atheism is not so recklessly proclaimed there, hypocrisy, indifference, latent and avowed scepticism, in all their subtle, specious, open and disguised forms, extensively prevail. Even in these United States, where religion is supposed to flourish, it is not difficult to see the downfall, not very remote either, of all its sectarian establishments. At this very moment, infidelity, like a worm that dieth not, gnaws their vitals, and a numerous and parasitical priesthood is permitted to exist out of courtesy to the ladies, in whose case is verified the prediction of the apostle, for which see 2 Tim iii, 1-7. We rejoice, however, to know, on the testimony of the apostles and prophets, that all these human establishments will be overturned, and the glorious dominion of the Great King, returned victorious and conqueror over his foes, and leading captive at his chariot wheels, kings whose many diadems will deck his brow, will rise paramount and be established on the wreck of empires, immovable as the everlasting hills. Kings and sacred bards have tuned their harps prophetic of this Golden Age. Then will the Prince of Peace reign in his Holy Hill of Zion, and rule the nations with a law of love. No kingly or priestly tyrants then to disturb the world’s repose; no anti-Christian or sectarian rivals then to divide the empire with the King of Saints; no Popes, no Councils, no General Assemblies, Synods, and Presbyteries, with their bulls, and canons, and orthodox confessions to disturb the world. No! These disturbers of the public peace, these social bandits, then will be bound in captive chains in the dark abyss for a thousand years. Such, then, will be the death of all delusion until the last apostacy foretold in time; when Satan shall go forth to deceive the nations which, at that period will inhabit the four quarters of the earth. (Rev xx 7, 8)
The second article is on the Church of England, which he describes as “one of the daughters of a large family, descended from a parentage flagrant in crime, drunken with the blood of Christian heroes, and gorged with the spoils, and the woe, and the slaughter of men.” He finds her origin in “the Man of Sin, and his adulterous consort, the Mother of Harlots and of all the abominations of the earth;” epithets which he says are applied by the Holy Spirit of purity and truth to all the “mystery” of political, civil, and ecclesiastical iniquity that exists in every part of the world; a state of society, the rise, progress, and consummation of which, he says, were foretold by Jesus through his beloved disciple, at a time when it had only begun to work.
The third article, “On the kingdoms of Europe,” deals with the bearing of the Book of Revelations on European events. The following extract is too good to be lost:

A grand defect in the thousand papers of these United Sates is the meagre record of events, daily transpiring in the empires and kingdoms which exist beyond the limits of the New World. In reading the journals of the day, one would think the past had never existed, that the future would never dawn, and that the present was of little import beyond the limits of domestic trifles. To philosophise on their contents, it would seem as though the intelligence of the country was bounded by the horizon of the Bank, the limits of the Constitution, or the jurisdiction of the head of the States. To this, however, we cannot agree. The human mind is excursive, and cannot, whether in America or Europe, be restrained within the narrow confines of domestic rivalries and party strifes. It must expand. The Atlantic ocean and lesser seas, the rivers, lakes, and mountain chains, may mark the bounds of kingdoms, states, and empires; they may determine the ?hitherto but no farther? of neighbour nations; they may do this and more, as regards the bodies of men, but to the empire of the mind, they offer no proscription. The mind, with the rapidity of the lightning’s flash, sweeps over the demesnes of nature, and visits in its course the Alps, the Andes, the mountains of Himalaya, and the Arctic Sea; it retreats to the birth of time, and penetrates into the abyss beyond. What folly, then, how trifling too, to dream of feeding the public mind with the puerilities of party, state witticisms, mountebank delineations, anecdotes, old wives’ fables &c, &c. Sentiment, sentiment! Facts, and veracious testimony, are the mental food for man, whether they pertain to morals, politics, or religion. But, it may be objected, people have ceased to think, thought being too laborious, and therefore they must be entertained with trifles, or papers would become dead stock – many vendors, but no readers. Food to this man is poison to that; therefore, seeing that thinkers are few, sentiment is scarce, and the supplies must be always according to the demand, both in quality and quantity. This, we believe, is the philosophy of the thing, and but too characteristic of the age. Extension without depth is the order of the day, in relation both to the effusions from the press, and the rhapsodies from the ?sacred desk?. Instruction seems to enter but little into the compositions of religious declaimers or religious editors. Notwithstanding all the faults of the political leaders, it is our opinion the world, for intelligence and upright dealing between man and man, is far in advance of ?the Church,? as the popular system of the day is egregiously miscalled. The world, in some sort, discerns the changes attended with commotions and bloodshed coming upon society; but the Church, like a rickety old dame, is doting about a spiritual beatification of a thousand years, in which she, in all her unconscious deformity, is to reign over the souls of men! Her millennium two hundred three score and sixty days, be it known to the Right Reverend crazy Doctors who uphold her crutch, is fast expiring; her reign is almost consummated; for there is One just at the door, coming upon her as a thief, ready to let the kings of the earth upon her, who, in their hate, will eat her flesh and burn her with fire. This is his sentence which he has appointed political executioners to enforce.
By way of introduction to a record of the events now transacting in the benighted realms of Europe, we shall present our readers with an analysis of that chapter of the Revelations from which we have selected the passage affixed to this article.

This article suggests the thought that there is something wonderful in the Dr’s comprehension of the Apocalypse so early as 1834, the more so as his interpretations were independent of the theories in previous writers. He did not re-hash what he found in books. He read and thought for himself, and gave readers the result of original ideas. This feature cannot be better illustrated than by quoting the following sentences from an article on the Apocalypse, appearing in the ninth number of the Advocate:

“As to the Apocalypse, I firmly believe if Christians would study its contents, it would, if they be honest persons in the profession of truth, cure them of the ridiculous and spurious charity they are in the practice of exercising towards ‘other denominations of Christians’, which are in reality the anti-Christian ‘abominations of the earth’. I affirm further that a due attention to the prophecy of this book would convince many who living in a treacherous security and entertaining a delusive hope that they are Christians, expect to enjoy the heavenly beatitudes – that no time is to be lost in escaping from the dominions of Babylon the Great, and taking refuge in the Eternal City of our God. As all have not the leisure, and fewer the inclination, to unravel the mysteries (for they are mysterious to those that are ignorant) of this book, I shall, as opportunity may serve, present my readers with illustrations of its contents. “They who censure and dissuade from the study of the apocalypse,” says Newton, “do it for the most part because they have not studied it themselves, and imagine the difficulties are greater than they are in reality. It is still the sure word of prophecy to which we do well to take heed; and men of learning and leisure cannot better employ their time or abilities than in studying and explaining this book.”
Sir Isaac Newton observes that, “amongst the interpreters of the last age there was scarcely one of note who had not made some discovery worth knowing,” and I flatter myself that I shall not have laid before my readers the result of my humble efforts, without having substantiated my claim to the discovery or solution of certain problems in the Apocalypse, which have hitherto baffled the ingenuity and learning of some of the most celebrated illuminati of the religious world.
In saying this, I do not mean to arrogate to myself any superior talent or discernment, for a man may have all the wisdom that human science and philosophy can afford; his mind may be of a Newtonian order, and equal to enterprises of the sublimest character; he may be the personification of intelligence, and yet fail to unravel the symbolical representations of the providence of the Supreme in the affairs of men. In the absence of that wisdom which God revealed to the apostles by His spirit, all our views in relation to religion are mere speculations, and the failure of the “great and the good men” since the days of Luther, is not owing to a lack of natural talent and discernment, but to that love of speculation and subserviency to system in which they have so freely indulged. Be it observed, however, that there is not a single speculation in the religion or doctrine of Christ, in my investigation, and therefore, I have renounced speculation and substituted, according to the suggestion of Lord Bacon, the simple narration of historical facts. If there be such a thing as prophecy and truth in historical detail, and if history be indeed nothing more than a summary of prophecy fulfilled, which every believer admits, then certainly the natural method of prophetic illustration is simply to place in juxta-position the predictions and facts of history, and see what a breach the Christian makes in the defences of the infidel by such a plan as this. Our most celebrated historians have been infidels and Papists; as though God had chosen them to record the fulfilment of His word, and so to condemn their unbelief and apostacy out of their own mouths. My dates and facts I have taken from Gibbon and Mosheim, the one an infidel and the other a Lutheran. They are faithful historians, and acknowledged as authority both by Christians and anti-Christians. Gibbon is impartial, though styled the apologist of Paganism.

Article No 4, sets forth a narrative of an evangelistic visit made by the Dr to Rockdale, in Pa. The rest of the number is made up of miscellaneous features, from which we extract the following editorial notice as characteristic of the man:

“TO OUR PATRONS.
Nothing is more gratifying to the feelings, or more calculated to arouse the dormant energies of genius, than the patronage of the intelligent and the good. Every man has genius of some kind; too often, however, perverted to purposes beneath the dignity of a rational man. We lay claim to no high order of mental faculty, but are happy in knowing our own powers, which have no pretensions to anything inaccessible to mediocrity of talent. This we believe to be the most useful to society generally, and best adapted to meet its exigencies. The small share we possess we are determined to devote to the service of Him who gave it. May our resolve be duly seconded. No means, no end, is the law of the kingdom of nature, grace, and glory. In the nature of things then, no money, no types, no type setting, no paper, no printing, no Apostolic Advocate. This is an immutable law of nature. Our patrons, therefore, will take it in good part when we hint the importance of a due attention to “condition 2” of the Prospectus. Receipts will be acknowledged in our next.”

CHAPTER 8

BEFORE the publication of the second number of the Advocate, the Dr decided to leave Philadelphia, and carry out his original project of going to Richmond. On learning of his decision, the members of the Campbellite meeting in Philadelphia, among whom a coolness had for some time prevailed, nearly all withdrew their subscriptions to the Advocate, which strengthened the Dr’s determination to go. On his way to Richmond, he stopped for several weeks at Baltimore, where the second number was issued. Six weeks after leaving Philadelphia, he arrived in Richmond, where he had been for a long time expected, Mr Campbell having, twelve months before, sent word that he was on his way. The meeting in Richmond had no preacher, and the Dr was called upon to occupy the pulpit, from which there was no escape. The congregation offered him a salary, but he refused to accept it. He remarks thus on the subject in the Apostolic Advocate, vol v, p 93: ?The securing of our services as an evangelist was agitated among the brethren. But concerning this, our mind was and is made up. If any community of brethren ‘desire to be at charges with us,’ we should not so much object to receive the donation, but to become a hireling, and to have our pay, and so forth, discussed at co-operation meetings, at the bar of the church and the world, being unscriptural and degrading, we cannot away with it.? His ideas had been expressed in the following remarks, in the Apostolic Advocate, vol i, p186: ?A man who devotes his time and energies to proclaiming the good , has an apostolic and scriptural right to be supported. Common reason testifies the same thing. To preach to live is one thing; to live to preach is another; and this constitutes all the difference between paying a clergyman and a preacher of the gospel. It is as much the duty of every Christian man to preach the gospel as brother A or any other proclaimer. But all have not the ability. Then those who feel so little interest in, and know so little about the cause they profess to love and serve that they cannot open their mouths to plead for or recommend it, and who from natural incompetency are incapable of doing as they would, are bound by the principles of honour, justice, and Christian virtue to minister of their substance to those who can. The congregation of the Lord is the ‘pillar and the support of the truth’. The weekly fellowship was instituted to supply this body with funds. The poor saints, the aged widows, the apostles, evangelists, &c, depended upon these funds for their relief, sustentation, and travelling expenses. If the gospel, therefore, remains unknown to the regions round about us in Eastern Virginia, it is to be attributed to apathy; nay, rather, to the criminal delinquency of the congregations of disciples of this section of country relative to these matters. We do not say that this is their character, but if they do not do their duty in sounding out the gospel, the least that can be said is, they will deserve it.?
The Dr told the Richmond Campbellites that he would rather live on bread and cheese, and maintain his independence of thought and action, than submit himself to the power of committees and trustees. He commenced the practice of medicine in Richmond for his own support, at the same time carrying on the Apostolic Advocate. During the first year, his receipts afforded a comfortable livelihood; but in the second year, they fell off greatly, in consequence of the frequency of his absence in various parts of the country, to which he was invited to speak.
The troubles that ended in the Dr’s disconnection from Campbellism began soon after his arrival in Richmond. The foundation of these troubles may be said to have been laid in the publication of an article (by himself) in the sixth number of the Advocate, entitled Anabaptism. In this article (an extract from which we shall give directly) the Dr contended that no immersion was valid that was not based on an intelligent faith on the part of the subject of it at the time of the immersion. Among the Campbellites, who at that time numbered many thousands, were large numbers who had been Baptists, and who were received into the Campbellite communion without any further immersion. Many of the preachers also had been Baptist ministers. The Dr’s article, which was only a consistent application of Campbellite principles, proved very offensive to this class, and even to Mr Campbell himself, who saw in this stringent doctrine a great barrier to denominational development. The following are the leading portions of the article in question:

THE CRY OF “ANABAPTISM”
“ANABAPTISM is a compound Greek word. It is constituted of ana, which, in composition signifies iteration or again, and baptisma, baptism. Used as a verb, it means to baptize again, or to rebaptize (anabaptizo). Anabaptism, in the strict etymological and scriptural import of the term, is unjustifiable and highly to be deprecated. There is a case, however, in which reimmersion can not only be justified, but is really and obviously a duty. In the foregoing definition, I have purposely left undefined the much-disputed term baptism. With Schrevelius’ Greek Lexicon before me, I discover it means an immersion, a dyeing. Hence the idea conveyed to my mind is a dyeing by immersion. This is what logicians would call a profound idea. By further research, I find that the dyers among the Greeks, both ancient and modern, use the words baptized and baptism when speaking of stuffs that had been dyed. To dye by immersion is to baptize anything dipped in a coloured medium. The term is confessedly a dyer’s word. If you were to dip, plunge, or immerse a piece of white linen in clean water, and then present it to the Greek dyer, he would tell you it was lonized, bathed, dipped, or washed, but not baptized or dyed; but if you were to take the same piece of linen, and dip it in a bright scarlet-coloured fluid, he would then tell you it was not only dipped but dyed. Hence the English word immersion only conveys half the idea intended by the word baptisma. There is no single word in the language that exactly conveys the idea of baptisma. Immersion is but one half of baptism. A man may be immersed, and yet not baptized; a man, however, cannot be baptized without being immersed. The fluid into which he is plunged must be tinged of a bright scarlet colour. Let me not be misunderstood. It is not supposed that this tinge is obvious to the natural eye, but the eye of faith can see the crimson dye flowing from the pierced side of Jesus into all the baptismal waters. If a man confess Jesus to be the Son of God, and apprehend his bloodshed for the remission of sins, and he be immersed in the waters of the Potomac, Rappahannock, Mattaponi, Pamunky, or James rivers, the eye of faith can see those waters dyed around him with the blood of Jesus. The eye of faith, however, must be open in the person baptized or dyed, as well as in the dyer or baptizer. A dyer accustomed to look upon coloured fluids may imagine water in his vat to be so; his imagination, however, will not dye the cloth; so may an administrator of baptism imagine that the subject recognises the blood of Jesus, but his imagination will not supply the defect thereof. No! the subject must believe and confess for himself, or his dipping will be mere immersion and not baptism.
“The best definition I have met with of the word baptisma is an Arabic one. The idea occurs in the Koran, where it is represented by the compound word seb-gatallah, divine dyeing, or the dyeing of God. Hence divine baptism may be distinguished from human baptism, by the matter of faith with which the water is dyed. The divine dye is the blood of Jesus; the human dye is frames and feelings, sounds and sights, dreams and visions of hobgoblins, ghosts and spirits damned. The former is believed on the divine testimony of prophets and apostles; the latter is manufactured by rhanting, text-weaving and the fanatical exhibitions of the clergy. Take an infidel and immerse him over head and ears in water: that man has not been dyed with the dyeing of God; take an unbeliever and dip him into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit: such an one is not dyed with the divine dyeing; take a babe and immerse it in the name, &c: such an one is immersed but not baptized; take an adult, who having given in his “Christian experience” to an Episcopal, Romish, Methodist, Presbyterian, or Baptist community, and immerse him into the name of the Father, &c: such an individual has been immersed into his own experience, in obedience to the Thirty-nine Articles; the Missal, the Book of Discipline, the Westminster Confession, or the Baptist Creed, but not into Christ; but take an infidel and convince him of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment by the arguments, &c, which the prophetic and apostolic testimony supplies, and, believing with his heart or understanding divinely convinced by the word, let him confess with his mouth before men that Jesus is Lord to the glory of God the Father; let him glorify God in his body (1 Cor vi 20) by being immersed into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit: and that man, and such an one alone, is dyed with the dyeing of God; his baptism is a divine baptism: he has been baptized with the true ancient apostolic and “one baptism”. Such a man can draw near to God “with a true heart and full assurance of faith, having had his heart sprinkled from an evil conscience, and his body washed with pure water,” he can indeed say, “I am built upon the testimony of the prophets and apostles, Jesus Christ himself being the foundation corner stone:” and such a man alone is entitled to the name of Christian.
“Such a baptism may well be esteemed an ordinance for the purification of sin. “There are three that bear witness on earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and these three agree in one” witness. There, in the baptismal institution, are the water and the blood; and he that comes to this ordinance is led hither by the witness of the Spirit contained in the sacred writings concerning Jesus. “He” (the Spirit) said Jesus, “shall testify of me, and shall take of mine and shew it unto you,” my apostles. What the Spirit dictated to these holy men concerning Jesus, they have recorded for the conviction of the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgement. Such is the baptism proclaimed by the apostles for the remission of sins – a baptism which embodies in it faith in the blood of Jesus and immersion.
“Hence, then, two things are essential to constitute baptism, namely, blood and water. Four things are likewise necessary before a person can enjoy the benefits which flow from blood and water. First, belief; second, repentance; third, confession; and fourth, immersion. Neither belief alone, nor repentance alone, nor immersion alone, will suffice to put men in possession of spiritual blessings. The testimony of the Holy Spirit in the Word must be believed, sins must be repented of, the name of Jesus must be openly confessed, and God glorified in the immersion of the body in water. The Father Himself confessed Jesus before men; “this”, said a voice from the excellent glory, “is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” We must do so too. Jesus was revealed as the Son of God by water; “that he may be made manifest to Israel am I come baptizing in water,” said John. And so must we, if we would be manifested as the sons of God. With the heart of understanding and affections, man believes unto righteousness; and with the mouth, confession is made to salvation.
“Faith in the blood of sprinkling, unfeigned sorrow for sin, confessing that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the Son of the living God, are essential and indispensably necessary to constitute immersion in water baptism. “Converts” who “believe” without testimony (if such a thing be possible), repent without reforming, confess without confessing Jesus, and although immersed, are not baptized.
“Divine baptism is truly a dyeing process, and the subject of it acquires a moral hue. His robe of righteousness is washed and made white in the blood of the Lamb – (Rev vii 14). He puts on this dyed garment when he puts on Christ by the “one baptism”. As a sinner, he is a foul spot in the creation of God. His iniquity, transgression, and sin are upon his own head. He is a citizen of Babylon, under the dominion of Baalzebub, a rebel against God his Creator. He is dyed in sin. Taught by the Holy Spirit, speaking through prophets and apostles, he at length repents of his misdeeds, and resolves to reform his life, and to glorify God in his body. The Holy Spirit, through Paul, Peter, and Ananias, commands him to “confess with his mouth the Lord Jesus”, to “repent”, and to “be baptized and wash away his sins, invoking the name of the Lord”. He obeys the words of the Holy Spirit, he repents, he confesses Jesus, and is immersed into the name of the Father, &c. Who that knows anything of the true genius and spirit of the gospel of Christ, as it stands exhibited on the faithful page of revelation, will say that the application of the blood of Jesus, in the holy ordinance of divine baptism is not adequate to the remission of sins? He that says it is not, gives the lie to the Holy Spirit, who declared by 1 Peter iii 21, that “we are saved by baptism”. A truly baptized believer, then, “is purged from his old sins;” he is dyed white in the purifying blood of Jesus; “he has purified his soul by obeying the truth; he is renewed by the Holy Spirit in an appointed way. Instead of hunting and fishing after vanities, he seeks after that wisdom which is first pure and then peaceable.
“But is it to be wondered at that the Baptists and other sects should deny that a sinner receives pardon in baptism? Would it not rather be marvellous that they should confess that we are baptized for the remission of sins? I think so. Look at their black and white members: how many in a thousand have been immersed upon a confession of the faith? I do not mean on a confession of their faith, but of the faith. I would say, perhaps, five. Now, it is agreed, I believe, on all hands, that water alone does not impart remission, but water and blood. What is there in Baptist baptism to make it an ordinance for the purification of sin? Nothing! For no Christian will contend that a sinner’s experience can make water purifying. I, therefore, do not believe that sins are remitted by popular baptism, which is itself a sin that needs to be repented of. Nothing but the “one baptism” can impart remission, and that “one baptism” is very rarely practised by the sects. There are a few exceptions, and exceptio probat regulum, the exception establishes the rule.

The discussion to which this article gave rise, was greatly stimulated a few months afterwards by the publication of a letter from the Dr to the church at Baltimore, from which the following is an extract:-

JUSTICE TO THE TRUTH
“Brother Ware, of Howler’s Essex, Virginia, one of the Rappahannock brethren tells me he has paid you a visit. Both he and brother P are delighted with what they witnessed. I learn from these brethren that our sister Church in Baltimore, receives none from the ‘Old Baptists’ who do not confess Jesus publicly at the time of admission into her fellowship. I cannot express the satisfaction this intelligence affords me; for in this practice the Church of Christ in Baltimore recognises the principle I have contended for in my writings as well as addresses, which many brethren can testify. I rejoice not because what I contend for is admitted; but because the church in its practice is doing justice to the truth, which it is high time to do in the face of a frowning world. The principle is this - that the terms of admission into the Baptist Church are not adequate to a reception into a Church of Christ. But my satisfaction is not without alloy, for it appears to me, and with all deference I state the conviction, that the church has not carried out the principle according to knowledge. Illustrative of the matter I would respectfully submit the following queries to the candid and unflinching examination of the brethren:
1. Wherefore do you demand a confession of a Baptist? If it is because none has been made by him before, then of what value was the immersion of such a candidate, unconnected with the confession that Jesus is the Christ, whose blood cleanseth from all sin?
2. Is a Christian built upon immersion, or upon the confession made by Peter (Matt xvi 16)? If on the confession, then, as the foundation is always laid before the building is raised, the confession ought to come first and the immersion after; but by acknowledging the immersion valid without the confession (which the church does in practice, by requiring confession of Baptist candidates long after their immersion), the immersion is made the foundation and not the rock or confession that Jesus is the Christ.

3. Is immersion unconnected with belief in the written testimony of the Holy Spirit concerning Jesus, baptism in the estimation of the church? If it is (which I do not for a moment believe), then it is the water and not the blood of Christ that purifies and washes away sin.
4. Would the church immerse a man first, and then proceed to convince him that Jesus is the Christ? If she would, why does she now receive persons into her fellowship who have been immersed first and are required to confess afterward?
5. If it be necessary for these to confess, why are they not required to be immersed again, in order that they may be baptized for the first time? Confession is not baptism, neither is immersion without confession.
6. Can the ordinances of the kingdom of heaven be administered validly by aliens, and therefore beyond the territories of the Great King; and independently of the church of Christ, which is the pillar and support of the truth?
If, brethren, we admit the premises, by all that is sacred in the truth, do not let us flinch from the conclusion, that, in nine hundred and ninety-nine cases out of one thousand members of popular Baptist Churches, both confession and re-immersion are necessary for their admission into the Church of Christ. Illustrative of this necessity, take the following exhibition of the way in which Baptists ?get religion?, and then say if the religion they get be not superstition, their faith credulity, and the whole a strong delusion sent them by God, that they should believe a lie, because they believe not the truth, but take pleasure in iniquity (2 Thess ii 12). It is taken from the Religious Herald, whose editor has copied it approvingly from the American Baptist. Michael Quin, the writer, says he came to Cape May, as a missionary, under the patronage of some anti-christian body, called ?The New Jersey Baptist State Convention?. * He found things in great confusion, and proceeded to institute measures for the renovation of the Church, which he says he performed, not by the word of God, as we would expect; but by the assistance of a council from sister churches. This is the means of renovation generally adopted by his holiness the Pope, Mr Michael Quin’s master. By the end of the year he says, he baptized thirty-one persons. Now mark the preparation for this Baptist baptism. The question with this missionary’s flock was ‘what can be done?’ ‘The church solemnly agreed to meet on the first week in February’. ‘Those of us’, says Mr Michael ‘whose business it was to preach would try to do so, and those who could pray and exhort would do so; and those who could do neither would weep before the Lord for the slain of the daughters of our God’s people!’ Five whose business it was to preach began their operations. A general movement of the spirit was discernible from the beginning, but it appeared on the Monday evening as if the Lord had let down the Holy Ghost in His powerful influence so as to affect the whole congregation!’ Here is the preparation for the immersion of thirty-one persons. An alleged state of things, which if the Scriptures be true, is the grossest falsehood, the merest old wife’s fable of all the fictitious tales ever published in a religious paper. How was the movement of the spirit discernible? Was it seen or heard? What does this Michael Quin mean by the Lord letting down the Holy Ghost? Did a single man, woman, or child in this assembly work a miracle, speak with tongues, or had they luminous appearances on their heads? If not, where was the power of the influence in converting to the Baptist religion thirty-one out of one hundred who asked ‘for an interest in the prayers of God’s children?’ Is this what the Baptists call the powerful influence of the Holy Ghost? What a discrepancy in the power exerted at Cape May and on the Day of Pentecost! Of the remaining sixty-nine, some are asking what they must do to be saved; and others profess to have obtained a trembling hope.
Now, brethren, suppose these thirty-one immersed, but deluded votaries of superstition, were to present themselves for admission into the Church over which you preside, could you conscientiously receive them upon a simple confession? If you could, then I see no cause why you should not fraternize with every devout pœdorhantist in the land, upon a simple confession that Jesus is the Christ. But, brethren, I am too well acquainted with your

intelligence to believe you would receive such persons with these facts before you, without requiring them both to confess and to be re-immersed. The true Church of Christ is thus spoken of by the apostle: ‘Christ also loved the congregation and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify it, having cleansed it with a bath of water with the word (not separate nor distinct from, but with the word) that he might present it to himself glorious, a congregation not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing, but that it might be holy and without blemish.’ (Eph 5 26). Can it be said of Michael Quin’s thirty-one converts - can it be said of Baptist churches generally, that they have been cleansed by a bath of water conjoined to the word of truth? Are they sanctified? No; for in their prayers they confess they are full of wounds and bruises, and putrefying sores; that they are sinners in the hope, the ‘trembling hope’ of pardon, and that if they get to heaven at all, they must get there as sinners. Paul teaches us we must get there as glorious, immaculate, unwrinkled, holy, and unblemished saints. But Michael Quin and the populars know better than Paul. If they yield obedience to one precept of the divine law, it is the obedience of bondsmen and not of sons. If a church of Christ receive such into its fellowship, can it be said to be without spot or wrinkle? The apostle exhorts us to ‘examine ourselves, whether we be in the faith’. Let us do it, therefore, even if it should bring us to the conviction that we ought all to be reimmersed, that we may be for once baptised. If we are wrong at the foundation, all the rest is a mere rope of sand. My conviction is that all among us who have not been immersed upon the confession that Jesus is the Christ, and who did not understandingly appreciate the value of his blood, had better be re-immersed upon that confession; and that all, from this time forth, who may wish to join us from the Baptist denomination (a few excepted, who can shew just and scriptural cause for exception) be required to make an intelligent confession, and to be re-immersed.
These things I submit to you, brethren, in your presbyterial and congregational capacity, as matters of superlative importance to the well being of us all, and of those who may prayerfully declare for the truth. The church – the highly-favoured church – in Baltimore, is the pillar and support of the truth in that city. It behoves you, therefore, to scrutinise dispassionately this matter, which, if carried into practice, will be the purification of the churches. None will object who have embraced the principles of the Reformation from a love of the truth. Had I not good testimony, or rather the testimony of a good conscience, purified by faith in the blood of sprinkling, this day’s sun should not go down before I put on Christ intelligently. Let us act nobly in these matters, for the very perfection of the Christian nobility is, when we discover our errors, to abandon them, even at the peril of liberty, of prosperity, and of life.”

The leaders of the Baltimore church replied to their letter; and to this reply the Dr made a rejoinder. Their reply and the Dr’s rejoinder appear in the Apostolic Advocate for September, 1835, p 97. The Baltimore letter on one point refers to Mr Campbell’s periodical (Millennial Harbinger, vol v extra, page 411) for explanation. In the Dr’s response to this, appears the first public symptom of disagreement between him and Campbell; and it also contains a clear indication of the Dr’s knowledge of the kingdom at this early date. He says, “The reference to the ‘extra’ is not satisfactory. It is a hazardous affair to set one’s judgment in opposition to such a giant as our beloved brother Campbell; but in this instance, I cannot help it.’ He says, ‘The whole earth is the present territory of the kingdom of heaven’’ but this is contrary to fact. China, India, the Mohammedan countries, Europe, Africa, and America, are all the territorial and actual possessions of the rulers of the darkness of the world. Jesus does not possess a foot of land that owns his undisputed sway. He will possess all these countries, but he will have to conquer them first.”
The breach incipiently visible in these words was destined to widen, notwithstanding a manifest effort on both sides to avoid it, or the appearance of it. Some Campbellite professors in Fredericksburgh, who had been Baptists, and received among the Campbellites without re-immersion, called Mr Campbell’s attention to the Dr’s letter to the Baltimore church, quoted in the foregoing, and asked him what he thought of the Dr’s statement that the majority of Baptists should be re-immersed? Mr Campbell replied: “It was with no ordinary feelings of regret and mortification too, that I saw, a few weeks since, an intimation in the Apostolic Advocate, to the church in Baltimore, that they ought to re-immerse all who came over to them from the Baptists. That the Baptists are greatly degenerate and fast immersing themselves into the popular errors of the age, I am sorry to confess, is my sincere conviction in the presence of God; but among these hundreds of thousands, there are some tens that have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal, and are as worthy citizens of the kingdom of the Messiah as any of our brethren. Some few persons in this country have, under the impulse of their new discoveries, been re-immersed, but they generally were immersed at night or in secret. But in the ardour of our young brethren in Va, and in their zeal for truth, they have not only re-immersed in open day, but published to the world the prevalence of these symptoms, and registered the converts. I need not tell you that I have not only a very great esteem for brother Thomas and brother Albert Anderson, but a most ardent affection for them; but had they made these bold and, at best, doubtful measures matters of privacy, I could not have been induced either to have inserted your letter, or to have published this reply to it. But much as I love and esteem these two brethren, I esteem and love the twelve apostles and the cause of my Lord and Master more; and, therefore, I must say, that the preaching up of reimmersion to the citizens of the kingdom of Jesus Christ, for the remission of their sins, is wholly ultra to our views of reformation, and, in our judgment, wholly unauthorised by the New Testament.”
This letter appeared in the Millennial Harbinger for September, 1835, and was re-published and answered by Dr Thomas, in the Advocate of the following month. The Dr heads his reply with the following quotation from Campbell’s own works, which is itself a sufficient answer to the objections sheathed in Campbell’s letter: “We have always said, and we say it again, that persons who were without faith in Jesus as the Messiah, on believing, should be immersed into his death. THEY DIFFER NOTHING FROM IMMERSED INFANTS; and if a person has been immersed solely into his own experience or conceit, instead of into Christ, as we believe sometimes happens, then, indeed, as respects Christian immersion, that person is as one unimmersed.” – Millennial Harbinger, vol vi, number 9, page 420.
In the reply which follows the Dr repels the charge of “re-baptising the baptised” as unfounded. He says: “I admit that I have baptised the immersed, and continue to do so still, but cannot the readers of the New Testament discern the difference between an immersed and a baptised person? If they cannot, then with them I have no fellowship as Christians; for with doctrinaires of such a mould, who maintain that water washes away sin, I cannot fraternise. The Scripture teaches ‘baptism’ and not water ‘for the remission of sins’. This is what I contend for, and what I preach to the immersed and unimmersed. But what surprises me more than anything else, is that brother Campbell, upon such a vague testimony as ‘Susan’s’, should have penned the second article, and which contains his reply to this writer. Mr Susan says he believes so-and-so, because he was told it! Is he in the custom of believing everything he is told? To believe what is told us without examination, is credulity. Susan has credulously received a report, and our beloved brother C has credulously adopted it. I ask Mr Susan, did he ever read in the pages of the Advocate, with his own eyes, or hear from my own lips, with his own ears, that I ‘preached up re-immersion to the citizens of the kingdom of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins?’ I ask brother C did he ever? I unhesitatingly affirm that there lives not the man, the woman, or the child, that ever heard or read such a sentiment from my lips or pen. If there be such a person living, let him come forward, and not only affirm, but attest the charge.
“Again, we wish it to be known that, in all things, it is our intention to act openly, and in the face of day. If it is right to re-immerse privately and by night, it is equally so to do it publicly and by day; that is, if it may be done at all, it ought to be done openly; and if a necessity exist for re-immersion, it ought to be made known for the information and consideration of others. I agree that the ‘notion of re-baptism is wholly out of the ‘Record’ in all cases except one, Acts xix. With the exception of this case, so is re-immersion. There is but ‘one baptism’, and that ought not to be repeated. It is for the ‘one baptism’ I contend, in opposition to the many immersions of the sects: the Greeks, Russians, Baptists, Mormons, &c, &c, &c.”

CHAPTER 9

SUCCEEDING to this reply, the Dr addressed a series of communications to Mr Campbell, which it will be useful to reproduce, as they illustrate the bearings of the controversy at this early stage, and exemplify to some extent the characteristic and style of Dr Thomas as a young writer, and also constitute a valuable exposition of the important subjects of which they treat. The letters were published in the Apostolic Advocate, in which we obtain access to them.

LETTER 1
“Richmond, September 19, 1835
“DEAR BROTHER CAMPBELL, - In the foregoing article, I have confined myself to a running criticism upon ‘Susan’ and upon ‘reply’. I have done it in the finest humour and best feeling. I am obliged to commend myself lest the feeling of my remarks should be misinterpreted. I am not unconscious of an apparent ‘bitterness and severity’ of style which my opponents are very glad to lay hold of as real, to my disadvantage. It is but apparent, however, for I can honestly, in the presence of an All-seeing eye, affirm that I have no bitter feelings, no not an atom of animosity in my heart against a single member of the human race. I make this remark lest an expression should have escaped me that may seem like resentment. I am aware that what might seem very mild and conciliatory to me might appear ‘harsh’ to one of a difference temperament. I disclaim, therefore, everything of this sort; and hope you will just receive it in the spirit of the intention. This is one item of reformation: to confess our faults and forsake them.
“In the document alluded to, I denied the charge in general, but I have not descended to particulars. I shall now, therefore, detail to you and my readers the views I hold, and leave you to judge of their accordance with the Scriptures.
“Just before our Royal Master ascended to the right hand of God, he gave a commission to the eleven apostles, the witnesses of his resurrection. The four writers of the testimonies concerning Jesus give different versions of this commission, but all of them agree in this, that the labour of making known the way in which mankind might obtain remission of sins was entrusted to them. Two of these writers record the means by which remission or pardon may be enjoyed; a fourth, the effects of their adoption. Matthew says he told them to ‘go and convert or disciple the nations’ and tells us how; by ‘baptizing them into the name of the Father’, &c. This writer says nothing about faith, for this simple reason – because it is implied in the word baptising. But Mark does, to show that without faith, condemnation awaits us. He says, ‘He who shall believe and be baptised shall be saved, or pardoned; but he that shall not believe shall be condemned’, showing that immersion without faith is nugatory. Luke differs from both, phraseologizing the commission (if I may so express myself) by recording the effect of belief which is repentance, and of baptism which is the remission of sins, to wit: ‘Thus it is written and thus it behoved the Messiah to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day; and that reformation and the remission of sins should be proclaimed in his name among all nations, commencing at Jerusalem’.
“To understand the meaning of repentance in this place, and its dependence upon faith, I am in the custom of listening to Peter on Pentecost and at the house of Cornelius, and to Paul at Athens, Ephesus, or Corinth. I prefer attending the lectures of these two apostles, because the one was the apostle to the uncircumcision, the other to the circumcision, who together constituted the entire population of the Roman world. I do not forget to call in history to my aid, that I may learn the actual state of these classes of men at the time when the gospel, or reformation, was first announced. This is necessary in order to learn what they were to repent of, or reform from; and by knowing the gospel, it was easy to tell what they were immediately to do.
“Well, then, to the Jew first, and then to the Gentile will we go. When John the Baptist began to proclaim ‘the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins,’ all classes of Jews had forsaken the law of the Lord, and had corrupted the institutions of Moses. This unhappy state of things had been superinduced by the introduction into the Jewish economy of a class of men unauthorised by God, and unknown to the nation before the Babylonish captivity. These ‘clergymen’ were styled ‘scribes, Pharisees, and lawyers,’ whom our Saviour so severely denounced as a race of vipers, hypocrites, devourers of the widows’ houses, whited sepulchres, &c. They had made of none effect the word of God by their traditions, so that it was in vain that they and the people worshipped God, as all their worship was the mere observance of the commandments of men. The minds of the people thus perverted by the Jewish clergy were blinded, and their hearts hardened, so that, having no relish for the truth, seeing they did not perceive, and hearing they did not understand. Their morals were likewise depraved, and violence and extortion filled the land. When multitudes of these characters flocked to John, and asked him what they were to do, did he command them to beat their breast and cry, as an eviction of ‘sorrow for sin?’ ‘Bring forth the proper fruits of reformation’, said he. ‘Let him that has two coats impart to him that has none, and let him that has victuals do the same. Exact no more than what is appointed you. Injure no man, either by violence or false accusation, and be content with your allowance.’ The proper fruits of reformation, then, were good actions flowing from a belief of those things announced by John.
“But to the long catalogue of crimes that might be exhibited against the nation, the Jews superadded the climax of their wickedness, by rejecting him whom God had sent to them, and putting him to death. The repentance for sins, which the apostles proclaimed, had respect to the murder of Jesus, which John’s proclamation, in the nature of things, could have had no regard to. The Jews by the apostles, as the instruments of the Holy Spirit, were to be convinced of sin, because they believed not on Jesus, but put him to death. They were so convinced, on the day of Pentecost, by Peter; and what were they to do? They were to repent. But some may say they did repent, and, in consequence of repentance, exclaimed, Men and brethren, what shall we do? But not so. This inquiry was the result of conviction, and not of repentance, for when they heard these things (see the foregoing part of Acts ii) they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, What shall we do? They were commanded to repent or reform. How were they to do this? By being baptised, as Matthew records, in the name of him whom they had murdered. This command, they who received it with readiness obeyed that very day. It is, therefore, obvious that the way in which these Jews returned to God, from straying after human tradition, was by immediately putting themselves under the authority of Jesus Christ, whom God had appointed a Prince and Saviour, to give reformation to Israel and the remission of sins; and this was by being baptised into his name. This was the first proper fruit of reformation.
“Let us now accompany Paul to Athens. Standing in the middle of the Areopagus, and surrounded by Epicurean and Stoic philosophers, and in the presence of the archdeacons of a city ‘exceedingly addicted to the worship of demons’, what is the burden of his proclamation? Reformation towards God and faith in Jesus. Hear him, then, in an assembly of Pagans wholly devoted to human traditions, reason with them on the absurdity of idolatry, or, their dependence upon one God for life and breath and all things, calling upon them to reform towards God, unknown, indeed, to them before, but now declaring His willingness to look over the past, and announcing Jesus as the righteous Judge of the world. What astonishing demands these, on the faith of Pagans that were to forsake their gods, their philosophy, and their wisdom, in which they prided themselves, and to return to the unknown God, now heralded to them by a wandering Jew. They heard, and what was the result? As there was but one proclamation, those who were convinced by what they heard, did what other Pagans did, namely, were baptised. Thus it was affirmed of the Corinthians, that, “hearing, they believed and were baptised”. Some of the Athenians jested, but others consorted with Paul. Reformation, then, in relation to a Pagan, was to renounce idolatry, and immediately to be baptised. This was its first proper fruit, and evinced reformation towards God and faith in Jesus Christ.
“As Cornelius was a circumcised Gentile, a discourse on the treasonableness of idolatry would have been out of place. Hence his reformation did not imply renunciation of the gods, any more than that of the Jew. It evinced itself, however, in the same way, viz, by being baptised. This event gave rise to the passage in Acts xi where it says that they glorified God, saying then has God given to the Gentiles reformation to life, and in chapter v there is one like it in relation to the Jew, viz, ‘Him has God exalted at His right hand a prince and a Saviour, to give reformation to Israel, and remission of sins.’ In these passages then, reformation is said to be given to both Jew and Gentile. How is this? some may say. I explain it thus. Faith, reformation, baptism, religion, &c are terms expressive of things rendered necessary because of man’s having fallen from God’s favour by breaking His laws. Man is the offender, God the party offended; and as God is man’s supreme in every respect, it is for God, and not man, to dictate how the breach shall be healed up. Whatever appointments God makes, then, according to which He will receive man into His favour, are His gifts to man. In this sense, everything pertaining to the several dispensations of true religion, since time began, is the gift of God. Reformation is God’s appointment. There is but one way of repentance towards God acceptably, and that is by doing what He has commanded. The first act of reformation is to be baptised into Christ. A Jew might have beat his breast like the publican, and have called upon God all day to have mercy upon him; he might have done anything else that suggested itself to his mind as good and evidential of repentance; but all this, after the Day of Pentecost, would have availed him nothing as the fruits of reformation. A Gentile might have renounced idolatry, and afterwards have led a very moral life; he might have patronized the Christians, and have defended them from the rage of their persecutors; but all this would have aviled him nothing as repentance towards God; and why? Because God had not required it at their hands. God has set up the standard of reformation; He has given and appointed the way, and to this we must confirm if we would obtain His approval. Reformation implies baptism, and baptism the remission of sins; so that he who shall believe and be baptised, shall be saved or pardoned. A baptised person in the apostles’ days, was a reformed person in the Scripture sense of reformation. When God, therefore, is said to have given reformation to the Gentiles also, it means that He had permitted them to enjoy the same privileges as the Jews upon the same terms, viz, by being baptised into Christ.
“But in ancient days, some who had reformed towards God, fell into grievous offences. How then, say some, were they forgiven? By being re-baptised? The question as well as the practice under such circumstances would fully denote the ignorance of the Scriptures by all concerned. There are two institutions for the remission of sins appointed in relation to aliens and citizens – the world and the Christians. For aliens, the one is baptism into Jesus Christ; for citizens, confession. The apostle John says ‘If we confess our sins, He (God) is faithful and just to forgive our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.’ – (1 Ep i 9) And again, ‘If any one has sinned, we (Christians) have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, the Just One; and he is a propitiation for our sins’. (ii 1)
“The conclusion from the whole is this, that in the days of the apostles, God caused a proclamation to be made to all the inhabitants of the Roman Empire, calling upon them to abandon the traditions of men, and to return to Him from whom they had departed, and that every one who obeyed the call, submitted to Jesus Christ, the future Monarch of the world, by being buried with him in baptism; that every one who was so buried was pardoned, adopted into God’s family, and made an heir of endless life, and none else. That such persons had reformed with a godly reformation, and that for them, the institution of confession was appointed if they should commit sin.
“Thus much, then, for the present, concerning the reformation of ancient days. In my next, I shall consider it in relation to the times in which we live. The insertion of this, and the preceding article, in the Harbinger, will much oblige your sincere and affectionate brother in the hope of a glorious and never-ending life.” JOHN THOMAS

LETTER II
“Richmond, October 10, 1835.
“DEAR BROTHER CAMPBELL – In my former epistle, I glanced at the state of the Jews and Gentiles, at the several periods when ‘repentance and the remission of sins or salvation by Jesus Christ, was proclaimed to each of them by the apostles, the chosen witnesses of his resurrection. I shewed that ‘the circumcision’ evinced their repentance towards God, by transferring their obedience from the law of Moses, and the law of human tradition, to the ‘law of faith;’ that ‘the uncircumcision’ proved theirs, by renouncing the vanities of Paganism for the realities of truth; and that both these classes of men were manifested as ‘living stones’, ‘a holy and royal priesthood’, an ‘elect race’, ‘a holy nation’, ‘a purchased people’, in short, were made known to the world under a new character, even that of a Christian’ and that this manifestation was effected by an indiscriminate immersion of every believer into Jesus Christ. This was the sole and only possible way in which Jews and Gentiles could become Christians at the period under consideration. An immersed believer of the testimony which God had given of His Son, was the only truly reformed character in those days of apostolic purity and simplicity; he alone was truly repentant; his sins, or actual transgressions, were alone remitted; he alone was sanctified or made holy; he alone had received the salvation of his soul. Such characters of the apostles addressed as ‘qualified for a portion of the inheritance of the saints in light’; as ‘delivered from the power of darkness and translated into the kingdom of God’s beloved Son’; as ‘having redemption, even the remission of sins’; as characters ‘to whom it has pleased God to make known what the riches of the glory of this secret among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you (by faith), the hope of glory’, as ‘circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in the putting off the body of the sins of flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in immersion, by which also you have been raised with him through the belief of the strong works of God, who raised him from the dead; for you who were dead on account of trespasses, and by the uncircumcision of your flesh, he has made alive together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses’; as ‘having put off the old man with his practices, and having put on the new, who is renewed by knowledge, after the image of Him who created him’; as ‘heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ”, in whom the glory hereafter to be revealed transcends all human conception. Such, then, was the state of a Christian, and such, too, was the only way in which a Jew or Gentile could enter therein. No one out of Christ had any right to these privileges; and in the apostles’ days, there was but one way of getting into Christ, and that was by being immersed in water into his name.
“I would here beg leave to observe, that when once reformed, it was the practice of these Christians to conduct themselves holily, unblamably, and unreprovably, in the sight of God. There were exceptions. It is not of these I speak. I refer to those who walked worthy of their high calling. To some of these worthies, of whom the world was not worthy, were distributed the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Those of them who received these gifts were called ‘spiritual men’. These endowments were bestowed for the qualification of certain of the Christians for the service and edification of the body of Christ – the Christian community – and ceased when that body attained to ‘the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God’; which it did when the knowledge and matter of faith, distributed among the spiritual men, were united and rendered permanent in the writings of the Holy Scriptures. Since the days of the apostle John, we have no credible testimony of the bestowing of a single gift of the Holy Spirt. The gifts of the Spirit, however, are to be distinguished from the fruits of the Spirit. The gifts were, ‘the word of wisdom’, ‘the word of knowledge’, ‘faith’ to remove mountains, ‘gifts of healing’, ‘operations of powers’, ‘prophecy’, ‘discerning of spirits’, ‘kinds of foreign languages’, &c &c; the fruits, ‘love, joy, peace, long suffering, gentleness, goodness, fidelity, meekness, temperance’. The former are the result of inspiration; the latter flow from the truth believed and obeyed. These fruits are the signs by which true Christians may be discovered and discriminated from hypocrites, I mean those who profess to know God, but in works deny Him.
“The practices of these reformed characters were required to be such as would ‘adorn the doctrine of God their Saviour in all things’. Jesus is the true image of God – the perfect model of the new man. He was perfection personified, and his true and only portrait is to be found in the sayings and doings recorded of him in the holy oracles. ‘He suffered for us, leaving us a pattern, that we should follow his footsteps’. Was Jesus holy? So must his followers be. Was he unconformed to the principles and practices of the world? His followers must be so too. Did he bear arms for the destruction of men? Did he mingle as a political agitator in the paltry questions of human policy? Although he ate with sinners, did he make the swearer, the fornicator, the debauchee, the companions of his solitude? Did he degrade the image of God by such conduct as this, by corrupt communications, by unholy deeds? Neither must the Christian, if he would be an acceptable ‘imitator of the Good One’.
“Such, brother Campbell, appears to me to be the outline of ‘reformation’ and of the Christian character in the days of ancient times. It is, I believe, the outline sketched by the inspired artists. The light and shade might easily be thrown in by a few more touches; but this must suffice at present. The facts and doctrines of ‘reformation’, ‘remission of sins’, and ‘eternal life’ are all comprehended and condensed in the phrase ‘glad tidings’ or the term ‘gospel’. Every other doctrine, message, tidings, word, or proclamation in the world that does not correspond, in all its parts, to the gospel delineated upon the page of the New Testament, the outline of which I have transferred to these letters, is ‘another gospel’, concerning which Paul writes as follows: ‘I wonder that you (Galatian Christians) are so soon removed from him (Paul) who called you into the favour of Christ to another gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and wish to pervert the gospel of Christ. But if even we (the apostles) or a messenger from heaven declare a gospel to you which we (the apostles) have not declared to you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so now I say again, if any one declare a gospel to you different from what you have received, let him be accursed’.
“Now, I would ask every candid, every honest and well-informed man, are the proclamations made from week to week by the several clergy of the ‘four great denominations of Christians’, as they are called, one and the same with the proclamation made by the apostles on the day of Pentecost and afterwards throughout the Roman Empire? This is certain, that the apostles all proclaimed one and the same thing, and this is equally sure, that the Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Methodist, and Baptist apostles all declare different things. If then they do not agree among themselves, how can they be said to agree with the apostles of Christ who knew nothing of any such sects as these? Seeing, then, that these denominational gospels do not agree with that recorded in the New Testament, and seeing that things different cannot be the same, it follows that they are ‘other gospels’, or pervertings of the gospel of Christ; and, therefore, both the clergy who preach them and the gospels themselves, are ‘accursed’ in the sight of God.
“Take the following example of an accursed gospel. It is from the pen of a writer named Warren Woodson, under the patronage of that bundle of weekly fables, the Religious Herald. I would just inform you that the writer had imbibed a smattering of your opinions, and thus became a ‘Campbellite’. For anything I know to the contrary, he is a well-disposed youth; but I suspect somewhat spoiled in the Virginian factory of priests, near this city. Our ‘Rev’ friend as we have said, became a ‘Campbellite’, but his mental soil being rather thin, and the loss of popularity a trial too severe to be endured, he soon wanted both the energy and the inclination to discover the truth, and consequently, as requiring the least effort, offered a penitential oblation to his former patrons through the columns of the Herald, and thus relapsed into the traditions of Baptism. Well, then, to his gospel. I shall put down its parts in the form of items. 1 ‘The Holy Spirit accompanies the truth in the conversion of the sinner’. This dogma is confirmed by an appeal to his ‘own experience’. 2 Conversion is a change of heart, and a consequent change of life. 3 The sanctification and cleansing of the body of Christ with the washing of water by the word, does not refer to baptism; but means ‘the cleansing influences of the Holy Spirit, comparable to water, who uses the truth as the instrument’. 4 That as a sword is in the hands of a man, so the word of God is in the hands of the spirit. 5 John iii 5; Titus iii 5; 1 Cor vi 11, refer to the regenerating, sanctifying and cleansing influence of the Holy Spirit on the heart. 6 ‘A man is justified, pardoned, adopted, and saved prior to baptism, and when he believes in the Saviour and sincerely loves the Lord, though he may not be baptised, yet, he is now in a state of salvation secured by him’. ‘Repent and be baptised for the remission of sins’, and ‘arise and be baptised and wash away the sins’, signify that in baptism we openly avow Christ – that we submit to an ordinance which is emblematical of our salvation through him – that our faith is led to Christ as our Saviour and we have a livelier view of that glorious salvation through the Redeemer’s mediation’.
“These seven items constitute an important part of the gospel of the Baptist sect, as taught in their schools. The sixth is notoriously the burden of their proclamation to the world. Although Paul says, that we must enter Christ by being baptised into him, yet these speculators maintain and teach that a man is saved although he shall not have put him on! Do you discover the chicanery of this dishonest tradition? It enables the Baptist to fraternise with the other sects, and to provide a way to heaven for their new-hatched acquaintances as well as for themselves. Thus they have immolated the trust of God upon the altars of popularity, hypocrisy, and pseudo-charity. Can you imagine anything, than the interests of party, to prevent the coalition of the Baptists with the other denominations? If they can pray with them, preach with them, sing with them – nay, but unite with them in every religious exercise upon earth, and expect to meet them in heaven, what by all the rules of reason and common sense, prevents them breaking bread together? And if they agree to do this, is not their coalescence with anti-Christ complete?
“Now, brother Campbell, what redeeming qualities do you see in these four great and leading sects of ‘Protestantism’, when reviewed by the New Testament? Protestantism, in whole or in part, is not the religion of Jesus Christ. It is nothing else but modified Popery. It is one of the horns of the beast which John saw ascending out of the earth, lamb-like in its appearance, but of dragon-speech. (Rev xiii 11). It is a system of deception, and constitutes in the aggregate a part of that ‘strong delusion’ which Paul predicted God would send upon men, ‘that they might believe a lie, in order that all might be condemned who have not believed the truth, but have taken pleasure in iniquity’. (2 Thess ii 12). Take the whole world, and what do you behold? Precisely the same state of things as obtained in the days of John the baptiser: the whole population of the globe (a very small fraction excepted) in abject subjection to human tradition. Varieties will be found between the first and nineteenth centuries; still they are traditions – human traditions. Turn we to China, to Hindostan, to Turkey, to Italy, to England, or to America, and in each of these countries we shall find the traditions of a Confucius, a Brahma, a Mohammed, a Pope, a King Harry, a Calvin, an Arminius, a Wesley, a Knox, a Fuller, a Gill, &c, &c, &c’ all severally making of ‘none effect the word of God by their traditions’. If the Jews had their Scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees, and lawyers, with their commandments, and the Gentiles their Platonic, Epicurean, and Stoic philosophers, with their speculations and their priests with their mysteries, we also have ours with their abominations, ‘every name and denomination of them embodied in the order of the Clergy’.
“The Jewish is the type of the anti-Christian clergy. The former were the enemies of all true righteousness – the righteousness of God, while they compassed sea and land to establish their own. They perverted the right way of the Lord as set forth in the prophets and the law, and while those ‘bodies of divinity’, the Talmud and Mishna, pretended to unveil the Mosiac mysteries, they only served to make darkness visible. It was the Jewish clergy, the Scribes, Pharisees, and lawyers, the blind guides of Israel, who used long prayers for a disguise’, that taught the people to err, and urged them to the betrayal and murder of the Just One. The ignorance of the people was attributable to them, ‘for they carried off the key of knowledge, not entering themselves, and those who were entering, they hindered’. ‘Yes’, says Peter ‘there were also false prophets among the people (Israel) even as there will be false teachers among you (Christians), who will privately introduce destructive sects, denying even the Lord who bought them, bringing on themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their lewd practices, on account of whom the way of truth will be evil spoken of. And through covetousness, they will make merchandize of you by fictitious tales’ (spurious and accursed gospels). ‘These indeed’, says Paul, ‘are they who go into houses and lead captive silly women laden with sins’. And ‘Such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. And no wonder; for Satan himself transforms himself into a messenger of light. Therefore, it is no great wonder if his ministers also transform themselves as ministers of righteousness’. ‘These are wells without water, clouds driven by a tempest, for whom the blackness of darkness is reserved for ever. They promise their disciples liberty, while they themselves are slaves of corruption.’
“Such are the descriptions given by the apostles of those who have arisen since their day, as ‘successors of the apostles’, ‘called and sent of God’ to proclaim that sins are pardoned and sinners adopted into his family without being baptised into Jesus Christ!!! These are the ‘accursed’ false teachers of ‘another gospel’, who are the blind guides of the Gentiles, making merchandise of them by fictitious tales, and ‘on account of whom the way of truth is now evil spoken of’. Brother Campbell, do you candidly believe that anything good and acceptable to God can come out of the denominational Babylon over which such a fraternity presides, unless it be purified with a bath of water in connection with the Word? No; God hates the garment spotted by the flesh.
“I expected to close our correspondence with this letter, at least for the present, but I perceive I must still tax your patience for another month. This epistle, then, may suffice to show that the body politic of our world is still labouring under the same moral or spiritual disease as in the days of Tiberius Cæsar; and this disease is, obedience to human tradition. We have seen that the remedy prescribed at that day was a proclamation of ‘reformation for the remission of sins’. In my next I shall consider the propriety of prescribing the same system of spiritual therapeutics. The insertion of this in your paper will further oblige your fellow-traveller to the realms of light. JOHN THOMAS.”

LETTER III
“DEAR BROTHER CAMPBELL – Once upon a time, a husbandman planted upon the mountainous barrens of his plantation two trees, both olives, the one good, the other indifferent, which, therefore, he permitted to become wild. The former he dressed and tended with the greatest care. The root and stem were healthy, as evinced by the fatness of the fruit, and for a time, put forth branches of the most luxuriant and promising growth. The period came, however, when the olive cast its fruit, and some of the branches lost their perennial freshness, and at last withered away. The root retained its vitality, and consequently its power of sustaining its accustomed branches yielding fruit. The husbandman, therefore, lopped off the dead branches and with exquisite skill, ingrafted some of the branches of the wild olive into their place. Thus restored to a sound and healthy state, he continued to cultivate it with the greatest attention. As to the withered branches, he did not destroy them, as they were not entirely past recovery, only he pruned off and burned such parts as he found wholly sapless. This ingrafted olive tree, with the necessary culture, continued to yield its fruit for many years; but the time at length arrived when it ceased to recompense the labour bestowed upon it by the planter. Some of the ingrafted branches lost their vigour, they began to droop, to fade, and at last they died. At this period, the natural branches, which had been cut off, began to freshen. The cultivator, therefore, deemed it advisable, for the preservation of the root, to remove the branches that had decayed, and to re-ingraft the natural branches. This he did with so much dexterity, that the good olive was effectually relieved of all symptoms of decay, and for ever after yielded fruit abundantly from its perennial boughs. This is the parable, the following is the interpretation thereof.
“The husbandman is Jehovah, to whom the earth and its inhabitants belong. The two trees are two nations or classes of men – the one, the Jewish; the other, the Gentile. The Jewish nation is the good olive; the Gentiles the indifferent, or wild olive. Jehovah for many centuries bestowed the greatest care upon the house of Israel. He had, yes, and still has, the greatest affection for them on account of the fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, whose God He is. He cultivated them by kindness; He pruned them by judgements, not that they might be destroyed, but that they might bring forth much fruit to His praise and glory. The fine olive was yielded when Messiah was born, and after his resurrection and ascension, the good olive yielded abundant fruit in the thousands of Israel who obeyed the gospel of Messiah. Soon after this, Israel became barren and ceased to produce believers in Jesus as the Christ. On account of their unbelief, therefore, the Jews were broken off from the national compact, by the Romans, as Jehovah’s pruning knife, and cast out from his plantation, the land of Judea, for a time. But, branches from the wild olive, or believers from among the Gentiles, were grafted in or naturalized as Jews and descendants of Abraham, and therefore, a constituent part of the Israelitish nation; because being inducted into Christ, by faith they became his brethren, and therefore Jews; for Abraham has two kinds of descendants, first, those who are his descendants according to the flesh, or natural birth; second, those who are his descendants according to promise, or by baptism into Christ. ‘And if you are Christ’s, certainly you are of Abraham’s seed (Jews), and heirs according to the promise’ made to Abraham; that the Almighty Jehovah would be a God to him and to his seed after him; and that He would give to him and to the seed, the land wherein he was a stranger, ALL THE LAND OF CANAAN, for an everlasting possession – (Gal iii 29; Gen xvii 8). This promise was sealed by the mark in the flesh called circumcision 430 years before the law of Moses was given. Jesus was circumcised according to the Patriarchal law, so that every Gentile who believes and is baptised into his name partakes thereof, having been circumcised with the circumcision of Christ (Col ii 11, 12), and so ingrafted into the stock of Abraham, or true house of Israel; and therefore, with Christ, as heir to the land of Canaan (in Asia) for an everlasting possession. This is what is meant in the parable by grafting branches from the wild olive into the good olive tree. The Gentiles stand by FAITH, evinced by obedience, not be immersion into an experience, as a constituent of the good olive tree, or true Israelitish nation. If faith fail among the Gentiles, which is signified by the grafted branches losing their vigour, drooping, fading, and at last, dying, they also will be cut off by terrible judgements, and they who are Jews outwardly – the natural branches of the good olive – will be re-ingrafted, or restored to Canaan, and possess it, in company with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, with all the true Israel, consisting of all Patriarchs, Jews, and Christians, who shall be honoured ‘to share in the resurrection and the other age’ – (Luke xx 35, 36). All these will sit down with Jesus, their descended King, at his table in the kingdom of God, or the millennial reign – (Matt viii 11, 12; xxvi 29). This is what is meant by the good olive yielding fruit abundantly from its perennial boughs.
“This parable, you will perceive, embodies the illustration of the apostle as recorded in the 11th chapter of Romans. I have introduced it here to show that as the natural branches of the good olive were broken off because of unbelief, so will the Gentiles, for they only ‘stand by faith;’ and, says the apostle, ‘all Israel shall be saved’, for blindness in part only has happened to them ‘till the fullness of the Gentiles come in’. When, therefore, this fullness shall have come in, the wild olive branches, or Gentiles, will have become sapless, withered, faithless; and, therefore, destitute of the principles by which they stand unvisited by the terrible judgements of Jehovah. But as some of the Jews, in the days of the apostles, obeyed the gospel, and lived in obedience to Jesus as Messiah, when their brethren of the flesh were cut off, so there will be some of us Gentiles who believe at the time, when ‘the vine of the earth shall be reaped’, or the wild olive branches of our class shall be lopped off. But we Gentiles now must be on the same foundation as the believing Jews were in the days of Paul; otherwise ‘the severity of God’ will fall on us as upon the rest of the world; for it is only by FAITH, the belief of testimony, and not by CREDULITY, an assent without testimony, we stand in the favour of God. Now, I wish to impress your mind with this conviction, that there is a real difference between faith and credulity; and that this distinction obtains between the ‘faith’ of the immense majority of professors of this age, and that of the apostles and disciples in their day; and, consequently, that what goes current for faith now is not the principle recognised by the Scriptures, and by which alone the Gentiles can stand in God’s favour. Look at Spain; does not every orthodox Spaniard say that he believes in Jesus Christ? Do he and his faithful countrymen stand in God’s favour? Look at the state of Spanish society, and let that speak as to the estimation in which God holds the faith of that people. Look to France; look to enlightened England, Ireland, and Scotland: in these last-named countries, you will find millions who will tell you they believed in Jesus as the Christ! But how does God estimate their faith? Let the famine, the pestilence, poverty, the progressive destruction of the Church, the disorganization of society, and national burdens – let them reply. Look to the communities of Oriental ‘Christians’, who say they believe, nay are even immersed in the name of the Father, &c, how is their faith estimated? Let the grinding despotism of the Autocrat, the Egyptian, and the Turk reply. Look to the States, which compose this Union, where ‘faith’ is abundant as mosquitoes, and how is it esteemed by heaven? Let the pestilence, the tornado, the popular tumults, the civil, religious, and political discords – let these answer the question. The fact is, their ‘faith’ is nothing more than credulity, on account of which the judgments of God are pouring out upon all nations of the earth. Now, I would ask, where is the difference between the ‘faith’ of the Baptist Gentiles, and of the Spanish and French, English, Irish, Scotch or Oriental ‘believers’? Look at the practices of these ‘believers’ , and you will find thousands – yes, I was going to say myriads of them – who have worn better in their morality than multitudes of those immersed into the Baptist church. Nay, there are those who maintain that Jesus was no more than the son of Joseph, and believe in a universal salvation, whose moral conduct – unless the immorality of insulting the parentage of our Lord be maintained – is unexceptionable. If we are to take the morale of a man’s life as the sole, or even the chief criterion of his standing by faith in God’s favour, we must conclude that all who say they believe in Jesus and lead a moral life, are of the right faith and in a sure way to immortality. But who that understands the Scriptures will venture to affirm this? Surely there are some immersed people, called Baptists, who truly believe in the Lord Jesus Christ! Verily; and they may be known as true believers by being found in the practice of holiness, ie, keeping the commandments and ordinances of the Lord as delivered by the apostles. It has been truly observed by Thomas Hartwell Horne: ‘Vain men value themselves on their speculative knowledge, right opinions, and true belief; but no belief will be of advantage which is separated from the practice of holiness’. Now, no practice is holy unless it is approved of God; and nothing is approved by Him which He has not ordained. He may permit a thing to be done, but this is no proof of His approbation. The Baptists as a community, insult Jesus, by setting aside the worship he has ordained, and substituting their own, which is nowhere to be found in the Scriptures, either in the form of precept of example. How far God will exonerate individuals from the transgressions of their denominations to which they give their countenance, I know not; but as a denomination is made up of individuals, I suspect they will find themselves grievously responsible. The ordinance of baptism they have corrupted, so that there exists not among them a means by which the polluted may be cleansed from their iniquity. It is a very good rule to judge of a man’s faith by his moral actions, but then the deception is that the morality of an action is, for the most part, determined by a human and not a divine standard. The only true standard of morality is the New Testament, under the Christian Dispensation, and the Old, under the Mosaic. The ordinary standard now is the common consent of mankind, a consent, for the most part, to consecrate as holy or moral that which God condemns. A professor who lives in conformity to the world, or who, in his personal or congregational capacity, does not live in conformity to apostolic teaching, although he may injure his neighbour in nothing, nor offend the customs of society, is, to all intents and purposes, an immoral or an unholy man, in the sense of Scripture, according to which he will be judged, and either acquitted or condemned.
“Seeing that things are in this state, and with the premises now before us, in answer to the question, What ought to be done? I would lay before you the following suggestions in relation to the ‘Reproclamation of Reformation and the Remission of Sins’. Lay the truth, facts, testimonies, and practices of the New Testament before the minds of all, both immersed and unimmersed, with a view to convince them of sin, of unrighteousness, and of judgement to come. If we succeed in this, and the unimmersed enquire What are we to do? To them we must reply, in the words of the apostle, ‘Repent and be baptised, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins’ – (Acts ii 38). But if the immersed be convinced that they have not been living according to the truth, and they also enquire, What are we to do? I would reply to them all ‘Examine yourselves, and see if you be in the faith’; and let that examination be conducted in the spirit of candour, and by the light of the testimony of the apostles and prophets. If upon a review of the past, some of them find that instead of being in the faith, they are in the experience, opinions, feelings, or conceits, and, therefore, in their sins, I would call upon such to be re-immersed for the purpose of being baptised for the first time. And if others of the unimmersed, upon due examination, become convinced that they are in Christ, but that, since their baptism, they have not lived according to the truth, then I would say to them, you must publicly confess your delinquency, and join with the congregation of the disciples in prayer to God, to forgive your derelictions, for He has promised to cleanse us from all unrighteousness, through Jesus, in this way, if we have previously become Christians. But if they will not examine? Then such are not fit for a society which professes to be preparing itself for the reception of the returning Bridegroom. They ought not to be received. These three classes, the immersed, the re-immersed, the supplicants (for distinction sake), should then be collected together into ‘one body’, or added to one already formed, and placed under the supervision of proper persons, competent to teach them the duties of their subsequent lives, and to drill them into good soldiers of the cross.
“Now, in relation to our societies already formed, I appeal to you and to my readers, to say if you really believe they are ‘founded upon the testimony of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief corner stone?’ How can they candidly answer this in the affirmative, with their knowledge of the destitution of the Baptist churches, from which so many have come out of the apostolic and prophetic testimony? Does not their practice, now, in condemning their late Baptist brethren, condemn themselves? Or have the Baptists only sunk into utter darkness, since they lost the light of their brethren, the ‘Reformers’? They who are upon the right foundation, have great reason to rejoice, and to sing for joy; but those who are based upon their opinions, or who stumbled into the Baptist community during some mad frolic of a revival, have nothing to look for but ejection from the everlasting kingdom, having on the ragged garments of their own righteousness, instead of the pure, white, and resplendent vestment provided for all who are invited to the Marriage Supper of the Lamb.
“In my next, I shall consider certain objections that have reached me. Till then, I subscribe myself your brother, in hope of redemption from the bondage of a perishing state,
JOHN THOMAS”

LETTER IV
“Richmond, Va, Dec 20th 1835
“DEAR BROTHER CAMPBELL – The subject of re-immersion appears to me of much importance. This conviction does not arise from any abstract reasoning, but from a calm and deliberate view of society as it exists. The religious social compact of the world is the field of vision, brought up ‘in bold relief’ before my mind, by the light, not of popular opinion, but by the light, the strong light, of apostolic and prophetic testimony. I see, by the naked eye, a concourse of men and women, composed of the most fashionable, the most indifferent, listless, thoughtless, harem-scarem characters, now ecstatic with fanaticism, now absorbed in the levities of life, deeply immersed in the world, and profoundly skilled in the knowledge and practice of every vain thing, but grossly ignorant of the word of God. I see them full of the lust of the eye and the pride of life; in fellowship with the world, having a form – a flimsy form – of godliness without the power, and compassing heaven and earth in their opposition to the gospel of Jesus Christ, as set forth by the apostles. I see, I say, this diverse and motley crowd, and ask, Whence, and what are these? A reply informs me that they are professors of religion, who ‘got converted’ at a camp meeting or revival, and upon giving in an experience of the feelings they had felt, the sights they had seen, and the voices they had heard – by all of which they were assured their sins were forgiven – were immersed by a clergyman into the Baptist denomination’. And I advance towards them, and inquire, ‘Do you believe that Jesus is the Christ, the expiatory sacrifice for the sins of the world?’ ‘Of course, I do’, is the thoughtless and universal response. Is belief in the singular, remarkable, astounding facts and testimonies of the gospel so contrary to ordinary experience a matter ‘of course?’ As an intelligent Christian, you will answer ‘No!’ Yet such is the ‘matter of course faith’ of the multitude. Brother C, I would say emphatically, that since the camp meeting and revival system has been adopted by the Baptists, this is the character of their converts; and that these bear a proportion of ten to one of those who have remained faithful to the Word of God. And why is the disproportion so great? Because few converts only are made by appealing to the understandings of men, while thousands may be added to any craft by working upon the passions, as the blind guides of ‘orthodoxy’ do upon the people of this day. Now to those who object to the agitation of this subject, I say that this view of facts it is which moves me to it. For my own part, I desire to belong to a pure body of Christians, and therefore, I cannot rest without raising my voice, however weak it may be, against the corruption within, and the source of it from without. I am not to be led away by the utopian speculation of converting the world in an enlarged sense, with our feeble means; we have not yet arrived at that period; the proclamations of the ‘everlasting gospel’ will do that at the appointed time. But we live in a day of thrilling and momentous interest to every right-hearted believer: a day of preparation for the reception of the returning bridegroom. The business of our lives, therefore, ought to be, to clothe ourselves, and persuade others to do so, individually and congregationally, with the resplendent robe of righteous actions, compared to linen pure and white, in Rev xix. It is a small minority only of mankind whose taste is suited to this employment. The self-denial is too great. We must, then, purge out the old leaven from among us, by a strict and righteous discipline, and be careful how we admit persons into our communities from the Baptist denomination. A revival-made Baptist is not a Christian Baptist, in other words, a Christian; and therefore, if such characters exist among us, and they be really desirous of being on the right foundation, they ought first to become convinced of the truth, and then re-immersed. Their own eternal weal ought to stimulate them to do so; and instead of murmuring at us for agitating the question, they ought to thank us heartily for rousing them to self-examination. I say that the horde of revival-made carnal professors, who crowd the ranks of the Baptist denomination, is the source from whence much of that corruption to be found among us, emanates. A love of novelty and change, a cheap religion, and an expectation of living, uncontrolled, according to the impulse of their instincts, are too often the inducements which operate the translations of these professors into our infant communities. They are not benefited, and we are disgraced. Others, again, will attend a ‘big meeting’, and there, under the exciting influence of singing, and the mellifluous voice of some oratorical adept, give in his adhesion to the reformers, with a mind as barren, a head as empty, and a heart as apathetic, as the worst enemy of the truth of this. In the absence of preaching, his religion departs. He has no taste for the worship of God and the reading of the mere word of truth; he forsakes the assembling of himself with the disciples, and, being admonished, is astonished at the liberty with a ‘free man’; thus he rebels, and thus develops the genuine and native hue of his ungodly character. Woeful experience verifies this state of things. The error, I fear, lies with those who are entrusted with the instruction of the congregations. They labour more for the enlargement of the church, than for its edification. The weakness of any army consists in large undisciplined numbers; and so does the inefficiency of the church. A church with little Scripture intelligence is more injurious to a neighbourhood than its utter destitution; for ignorance generates disorder and corruption, to the serious prejudice of the best causes. This anxiety for numbers has been the bane of the church in all ages. It compromises principle, paralyses discipline, and breaks down the landmarks of the truth. We ought, then, to be as firm against the influx of corruption, as rigid in its exclusion. And, as we all admit the existence of vast numbers of immersed fanatics in the Baptist denomination, we ought to be rigidly averse to their admission without an intelligent induction into Christ, by a re-immersion in water, upon a belief of the truth. I do not contend that this would exclude all corruption, but it would go far to exclude a great deal, and that, too, on the most scriptural grounds.
“Again, it is objected that my broad assertion, that 999 out of 1000 of the Baptists ought to be re-immersed, is unfounded in fact, and owing to a want of acquaintance with them. To this I would reply, that no individual man’s acquaintance with them can disprove the position. What is the value of one, two, or twenty men’s knowledge of a sect of 500,000 people? To become acquainted with a denomination, we must study it in the mass. We must observe their public acts and monuments, familiarise ourselves with the writings of their recognised scribes, and compare their proceedings with the New Testament. As to the specific numbers above-mentioned, I use them indefinitely, to convey the idea of the disproportion now existing between revival-made Baptists and the Christians of the denomination. In Scripture, nothing is more common than this mode of speech, namely, to put an indefinite for a great number; for example, the concourse in the Revelation which no man could number. My remark concerning the numerical disproportion applies to the Baptists now, that is, since the prevalence of the revival, camp-meeting, and anxious-bench system among them, which has deluged them with a most incongruous horde of religionists. That there are many intelligent, worthy, and excellent people belonging to the sect, who disapprove, nay, are disgusted at the bedlamitish proceedings now sanctioned by authority, there can be no doubt; but these, at this day, constitute the minority, a minority so small that its voice is but a whisper, inaudible to the ‘Rev Divines’ who are the fiddles of the religious-mad frolics of the times. I say, then, that whatever the Baptists were twenty-five years ago, matters not as regards the present controversy. We have to do with our generation; and he who avers that the Baptists were twenty-five years ago, matters not as regards the present controversy. We have to do with our generation; and he who avers that the Baptists made by the popular measures of the day are Christians, in my opinion knows nothing at all about the way in which they were made by the apostles of Jesus Christ, and had better look to his own state, for if his foundation be no more apostolic than theirs, he will never attain to the resurrection of the justified.
“Again, difficulties have arisen in the minds of some, as to the administrator. They misunderstand me as contending for a re-immersion where the administrator turns out to be a deceiver, false brother, or otherwise. Now, my position concerning this is as follows: namely, that no administration of a Christian institute can be acceptable to God which is enacted by a clergyman or lay person of any other congregation than that in which is to be found the Christian Ordinance of Purification for sin; that is, the Jews might just as lawfully have appointed a Moabitish Priest of Moloch to administer the Great Annual Sacrifice of the Atonement, as the Christians recognise the immersion of a Sectarist by a clergyman of the Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Romanist, or any of the ‘names and denominations’ of the anti-christian world. The sanctifying effect of baptism does not flow from the administrator, but from the blood of Jesus Christ, to which the subject has access by faith AND immersion in water, which together constitute baptism. But, on the other hand, where a denomination once Christian has abandoned practically the testimony of the apostles and prophets, and has substituted the text-weavings of a clerical head-loom; the remission of sins by a voice, feeling, or sight; the haremscarem madness of the camp, the bench, or the altar; and is ruled by clerical or denominational instead of apostolic constitutions, there – that is, wherever such practices prevail, their faith is credulity; their institutions an abomination; and their administrators, as Paul calls them, the ‘accursed’ preachers of ‘another’, and therefore diabolical ‘gospel’. Immersion by such administrators, and in such a church, I contend, is as invalid as the Jewish sacrifices after the propitiation of Messiah.
“Again, there are those who (in effect) say that immersion in water, abstractly considered, is baptism, and that as there is but one baptism, and not two, immersion ought not, therefore, to be repeated. Now, these persons profess to believe in baptism with their immersion for the remission of sins; hence, they must suppose that water washes away sins, which is, of all absurdities, the most absurd! ‘The garment spotted by the flesh’ is purified or washed white in the blood of the Lamb, not in the water abstractly regarded. Such objectors need to be taught the first principles of the doctrine of Christ, for, assuredly, they who plead thus against re-immersion, never knew the truth. Immersion is not baptism, neither is re-immersion re-baptism, if they can possibly understand the difference, which one would suppose self-evident to the merest tyro. It is the candidate’s firm assurance that the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses from all sin, and that he rose again from the dead, that makes his immersion in water baptism: if he does not believe this – and he can only believe it on divine testimony contained in the Scriptures – he is, doubtless, immersed, for that is a matter of fact, but he is not baptised, for that is a matter of faith. Do not let me be misunderstood here: no one can be baptised, if he have all the faith in the universe, unless he is immersed in water; and one may be immersed and re-immersed fifty times, but if he be destitute of faith, as the thousands of the immersed fanatics of the Baptist denomination are, he is uncleansed, unsanctified, unreconciled, unadopted, unsaved, and because he is unbaptised. Re-immersion, therefore, ought to be repeated in the case of such, provided always that they have that assurance of which they were destitute at their first time, and not a re-baptism, as some erroneously imagine.
“Again, there are some who admit that re-immersion is justifiable, and that, too, on Scriptural grounds; but they object to its publicity, because, say they, ‘of the cry of anabaptism, in ali ages most odious and injurious to the truth, which would, on the slightest grounds, be raised against us’. Now, this objection comes from one of the most valiant and uncompromising defenders of the faith in the region round about. But let me ask my worthy friend if this be not a lapsus pennæ? He is not one of those who thinks that the prosperity of the church of Christ depends upon the multitude of its members. States intrinsically small are generally strongest – the little island of Great Britain, to wit – so is the little state or kingdom of Jesus, when well regulated, disciplined, and instructed, under the provisional economy of this age of the world, in his estimation. He knows that all the slander, all the hues and cries, all the rage of the arch-fiend and his legions, in combined attack upon this kingdom, little as it is, cannot shake it; but, on the contrary, like the trees of the forest, when shaken by the tempest, only makes it take root deeper and firmer in the earth. He knows this. Why then need he mind the ‘cry of anabaptism?’ Suppose the cry is raised against us by the ‘orthodox’, what need we mind? They did the same against our fathers of ancient times, and need we, if we contend for the truth, expect better treatment than they? The Christians of old were called ‘Atheists’ because they had no visible God, and ‘Ass-worshippers’ because a cry was raised against them that they worshipped that docile animal! But should they have set up images or forborne to ride the ass because of these ‘orthodox’ cries? Yes, they did set up images to meet the prejudices of the heathen: hence all that iconoclastism of the Romish Church. Let the ‘orthodox’ raise the hue; can any cry be ‘more odious or injurious to truth’ than that of ‘Campbellism’? The applause of ‘orthodoxy’ is treacherous. Timeo Danaos dona ferentes – I fear the Greeks bearing presents. Truth has nothing to fear but from the unscriptural practices of its friends. Save me from my friends, says she, and I’ll take care of my foes. The Christian Institution knows no secrets in its administration. It courts investigation; it claims the observance of the world. ‘What has been whispered, proclaim on the house top’. If then re-immersion is justifiable, and can be defended on scriptural grounds, it is right and expedient, therefore, to do it in the glare of day, and to make it known, far and wide, that there exists a body of people who have first purified themselves ‘by a bath of water with the Word’, who are determined, as a band of brethren, to live in absolute subordination to the precepts and examples of the New Testament alone; to vocalise on the house tops the testimony of the apostles and prophets against that grand apostacy which sits brooding, like an incubus, upon the intellect of the world; who are preparing themselves to meet the returning bridegroom; who have raised the midnight cry, ‘Behold he comes’, ‘Come out of Babylon’, for the avenger is at hand; and who are resolved to admit none among them unless they can shew scriptural pretensions to the Christian name; and, if not, unless they submit to immersion or re-immersion, upon an intelligent assurance of the truth.
“Again, another class of objectors reason thus:- ‘We are prepared to say that our opinion is, and it is but an opinion, that infants, idiots, and some Jews and Pagans, may, without either faith or baptism, be brought into the kingdom of glory, merely in consequence of the sacrifice of Christ; and, we doubt not, that many Pædo-baptists of all sects will be admitted into it. Indeed, all they who obey Jesus Christ, through faith in his blood, according to their knowledge, we are of opinion, will be introduced into that kingdom. But when we talk of the forgiveness of sins which comes to Christians through immersion, we have no regard to any other kingdom than that of grace. We repeat it again, there are three kingdoms: the kingdom of law, the kingdom of favour, and the kingdom of glory. Each has a different constitution, different subjects, privileges, and terms of admission. And who is so blind in the Christian kingdom, as not to see that more is necessary to eternal salvation, or to admission into the everlasting kingdom, than either faith, regeneration or immersion? A man can enter into the second kingdom by being born of water and the Spirit; but he cannot enter the third and ultimate kingdom through faith, immersion, or regeneration. Hence, says the judge, Come you blessed of my Father, and inherit the kingdom of glory. Because you believed? No. Because you were immersed? No. Because you were born again by the Holy Spirit? No; but because I know your goodness, your piety, and humanity. I was hungry, and you fed me, &c’. This, I say, is the sentiment of a large class. Where they learned it from, I leave them to tell; for myself, I have never seen the like in the whole revelation of God. I shall designate them by the initials CB. Well, CB entertains this sentiment. It enables her to extend the right hand of fellowship to every sincere sectarist, and rids her profession of much unfashionable odium. Why? Because she has opened a door into heaven for those who do not choose to go her way; and thus she can get along without giving offence, and so ‘doing harm’. I do not say this is CB’s motive, but this is the working of the thing. Now, as infants, idiots, Jews, Pagans, and many Paidos of all sects, can get into heaven without baptism, re-immersion appears to CB unimportant, especially as the grand thing is ‘to obey Jesus Christ through faith in his blood, according to a man’s knowledge; hence she objects to the agitation of this question as calculated ‘to do harm’, ie, in plain English, to diminish the numbers of the converts to their denomination, or ‘Zion’, as the sects call their parties. Now, to CB I would observe, that, if I could believe her doctrine, I would give up the Scriptures as an unintelligible jargon, a misrepresentation of the character of God. It charges God with injustice; it nullifies the Sin Purifying Ordinance of the Christian Religion; and stultifies Jesus and his Apostles. To confer immortality on infants and idiots, unconscious of existence, and to deny it to the mass of intelligent adults of the world! But these inconsistencies, to give them no harsher term, come of the popular notion that immortality can be attained by other means than those appointed by God in His several dispensations. This doctrine evidently results from the hereditary immortality of the sects. If the Scriptures be true, not a single man, woman, or child, will attain to immortality, in the kingdom of glory, who does not submit to His ordinances during his life on the earth through all generations. To whom will the Judge say, ‘Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom of glory?’ I reply, To his disciples, and to those who have kept his Father’s laws under former dispensations. And who are his disciples? Not those who obey according to their knowledge, because if they happen to have no knowledge, there will be no obedience; but they ‘who persevere in His doctrine’, and ‘produce much fruit’ – (John viii 31, 15, 9). Now, to persevere in the doctrine of Christ, we must become his disciples; and, to do this there is no other way than to be baptized into him. The feeding the hungry, and clothing the naked, &c, will not be received as a substitute for obedience; they will be commended in the disciples, not in the disobedient. It is true we shall not be pronounced blessed on account of faith, immersion, or regeneration, nor shall we be, without them; for no one, since the apostle’ days, can enter the kingdom of glory, unless through the kingdom of favour There is no by-way to glory. The road is a royal one, ie, we must follow the King. Could the High Priest enter the Most Holy without passing through the Holy Place? Neither can we enter heaven without passing through the Church of Christ. We must believe, be immersed, persevere in well-doing, die, and be raised from the dead before we can enter the kingdom of glory. This is the true and only way: ‘the straight gate and narrow way’ travelled by very few. To win the prize we must start fair, and run according to the rules of the race. To be immersed first and to believe after, is the wrong start. Such a person may run according to the after-rules, but not having begun right, he will be like a thief and a robber who enters not by the gate into the sheep-fold, but climbs over the fence. CB’s objection, then, has no weight, and may now be dismissed.
“Much akin to CB is another, whom I shall call AR. This worthy brother in an observation appended to a ‘discourse’, says, ‘We are far from believing that no unbaptised persons go to heaven. All persons who obtain all the spiritual light they can, who act in accordance with all the light which they obtain, use all their ability to obey God, will, we think, go to heaven, whether they have or have not advanced so far in the divine light as to understand the New Testament doctrine concerning baptism!! From this, one would suppose it a wonderful progress in divine light to understand the doctrine of baptism, which Paul calls one of the ‘first principles’. This may be called baptismal nullification, and comes of systematizing the gospel and sin, and of segregating them into six points! Another, whom I shall name BWS, says, ‘If I never enjoyed Christian experience, and remission of sins, and the gift of the Holy Spirit before baptism, I have never enjoyed them at all;’ and says further, that he would be ‘shut up in desperation!’ I would ask BWS whether he can find such a character in the New Testament, after the day of Pentecost, as an unbaptised Christian? Were any in those days pardoned persons who were not Christian men or women? And can a man have the experience of a Christian before he becomes a Christian? Then had he lived in apostolic times, he would have been joyless of Christian experience and remission; nay, even ‘shut up in desperation’. This comes of the doctrine of ‘obeying Jesus Christ through faith in his blood according to our knowledge’. What an anomalous obedience! What a fallacy in terms!
“1 – If unbaptised persons go to heaven, what is the use of baptism?
“2 – If a person cannot enter the kingdom of favour without remission of sins, how can he expect to enter the kingdom of glory without?
“3 – Can a person whose sins are not remitted on earth enter heaven? If so, where does the Scripture teach this? One example will suffice.
“4 – Can a man love God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, and not obey their Commandments? Now, as baptism is a very first command, can an unbaptised person be an obedient one; and if not, can he be said to love God, his professions to the contrary notwithstanding? And can a lover of God in theory, but not in practice, enter the kingdom of glory?
“5 – If baptism be God’s appointment for imparting remission, as you and all intelligent Christians believe, and there be no other way of pardon for unbaptised persons, as we all admit; and if what Jesus says be true, that ‘IF YOU DIE IN YOUR SINS, WHERE GOD IS YOU CANNOT COME’, how comes it that some of our prominent brethren dare to teach that the unbaptised, and, therefore, unpardoned, may and do enter the kingdom of glory? I wait for a reply.
In conclusion, is there any reason or just cause of offence to anyone in the agitation of this important question? Let those who are on the right foundation be thankful, and remain so; those who are not should also be thankful that someone is disinterested and kind enough to endeavour to arouse them from their carnal security to a sense of the false position in which they stand. I should esteem him my best friend who manifested his regard for me by shewing me the truth. If a man is an honest reformer, he will labour first to reform himself, and then his neighbours. Does reformation, or coming out of Babylon, or preparing to meet the bridegroom, consist in nothing more than changing one’s place of worship, and in breaking a loaf weekly? And yet this is about the amount of reformation we see practised in many places.
“And now, brother C, I have brought to a close my views upon this matter. You and my readers can judge whether the Word of God is for or against me. I write not for applause but for truth. An eternity of weal or woe is staked upon our uprightness or demerits here. In view of this, I have not calculated on the approbation or displeasure that may accrue to me for the position I have maintained. I cannot but express my confidence that you will meet what has been said fairly in the Harbinger. You certainly owe me reparation for the unintentional misrepresentation of my practices, which you have published to the four winds of heaven. Let it not, then, remain on record, uncontradicted, that there lived in the metropolis of Virgina one who contended that the citizens of the kingdom of heaven should be re-baptized, and you will much oblige your brother, in the good hope to be revealed at the coming of our common Lord, JOHN THOMAS.”



CHAPTER 10

THE opposition to the principles advocated in these letters became bitter and general, headed up as it was by Alexander Campbell. A few were faithful. To this class belonged Albert Anderson, from whom we find a letter addressed to Alexander Campbell couched in the following terms:- “Some of our brethren appear to look upon the present time of the reformation as big with evil. May the Lord deliver His people from all from which they need to be delivered, and establish them in all in which they need to be established, for His great name’s sake, Amen!
“Thanks to God our Father, that He has made our beloved brother Campbell a great means of removing much rubbish from the foundation of the prophets and the apostles; a great means of bringing our eyes to see, our hands to lay hold on, and our hearts to enjoy the true foundation. Will brother C become the means of averting our eyes, our hands, our hearts, from the beautiful, and firm, and perfect foundation? Thanks to God, that He has made brother C a great means of teaching us, in a better way, to use the armour of God! Will brother C become a means of unteaching us to use this fit, and bright, and glorious armour of God? God has made you, very dear brother, a great means of enlightening our minds on many subjects. One of them is baptism. Our attention has been called to the Book, and fixed upon it. We cannot, must not give up the Book. Let us attend to it as children of God. This lays before us the will of our Father in Heaven. To honour the Son is to honour the Father. To honour Him is to obey His word. He said to his Apostles: ‘Go throughout all the world, proclaim the glad tidings to the whole creation. He who shall believe and be immersed, shall be saved; but he who shall not believe shall be condemned’. Is not baptism for the remission of sins a part of the glad tidings? Let the Holy Spirit, by Peter, on the day of Pentecost, answer this question. Then, he who believes, believes the glad tidings, a part of which is baptism for the remission of sins. God forbid that we should take anything from His word, or add to it, or change its order! He said to his apostles, ‘Whose sins soever you retain, they are retained.’ Now, whose sins were remitted on the day of Pentecost? And whose retained? For whom did the Lord institute baptism? For those whose sins are already remitted, or for those whose sins are not remitted? Certainly, for those whose sins are not remitted. Then, the Baptists have taught and do teach an immersion which is not the Lord’s. They teach an immersion for those whose sins are already remitted, according to their own language. As they do not teach the Lord’s institution of baptism, they teach a human institution, and, therefore, a vain one. ‘In vain they worship me, while they teach institutions merely human.’ It pleased God to give immersion connected with its design, as on the day of Pentecost. The word of God nowhere says that immersion, unconnected with its design, is acceptable to God. It appears to me, beloved brother, awfully hazardous to separate what God has joined. The Baptists have done this; therefore, to me it is sin to remain satisfied with their immersion. There appear some few exceptions among them. Some of the ‘Pœdobaptists’ have the design of baptism, but they have not immersion. We hesitate not to baptise them. I am as much opposed as brother C to putting off Christ in order to put him on. But will not brother C join with me in urging him who never has put on Christ, to put him on?”
The Dr urges the Campbellites to be consistent with their principles, in a short and pithy article, which we subjoin.


RISING WITH CHRIST IN BAPTISM
How are we raised with Christ in baptism – is it by the abstract act of emergence from the water after submersion?
“No; we are raised with Christ in baptism ‘through the belief of the strong working of God, who raised him from the dead.” (Col ii 12) That Jesus is the Christ can only be believed as true by a belief of the testimony of the Holy Spirit contained in the sacred Scriptures. The belief of the resurrection of the Christ depends upon the same testimony. It is necessary that that testimony be of the strongest character, for the fact is contrary to all human experience since the days of the apostles. It may be assented to as a matter of convenience, but it cannot be believed without such divine testimony, and that too confirmed by miracles. To test a person’s belief of this astounding fact, it is only necessary to demand his proofs. If he cannot adduce divine testimony, that is, the testimony of the apostles and prophets, he cannot, he does not, believe it. Prophetic testimony is necessary to show that the King whom Jehovah would anoint was to suffer death as a propitiation for iniquity, and afterwards to rise from the dead; apostolic that Jesus was that Anointed King, and that he rose from the dead according to the Scriptures. There are certain axiomata, or first principles, adopted by ‘Reformers’, which are immutably and eternally true. First, that faith is the belief of testimony; second, that where there is no testimony there can be no faith. We say, then, let ‘Reformers’ be consistent; let them not fear to face the inevitable conclusions of the premises they have adopted. In this age of apostacy, men do not search the Scriptures, for the simple reason that they do not think to obtain by them eternal life. The men and women of this day are either masked or overt infidels; and, if the former, surrendering themselves, body, soul, and spirit, understanding and judgment, nay, even their eternal destinies into the hands of clerical conscience-keepers; their souls are bartered for gain by these spiritual merchants who teach them to esteem the Scriptures as a dead letter which kills them; although they inculcate their total depravity and stony deadness, they rarely, if ever, attempt to prove the resurrection of Jesus, because, say they, ‘every body knows that;’ and thus they discourage the people from searching the Scriptures. Seeing that this is the fact – a fact proved by the observation of every First Day’s ministrations in the temples of the anitichrist, by social intercourse from day to day with ‘professors of religion’ – how is it possible that ‘reformers’ can admit the allegation, in the very teeth of their own principles, that the faith of the people is true and genuine, that is the belief of the apostolic and prophetic testimony? All Christendom, from the Pope to the gravedigger, assents to this great fact; but will ‘reformers’ say they believe with ‘faith unfeigned?’ The assent of Christendom is credulity, or faith without testimony, if I may be permitted the solecism. Our inference is this, that the vast mass of all the ‘denominations’, and a great majority of the Baptist sect, since the introduction of religious rioting in all its puerile, ridiculous, and anti-christian forms amongst them, which said clerical devices and inventions have superseded and silenced the testimony of God for the most part – the former, we infer, are superstitious and credulous, and the latter, although immersed, have not been raised with Christ in baptism, through the belief of the strong working of God, who raised him from the dead, and are, therefore, unjustified, unreconciled, unadopted, unpardoned, not saved. The application of our inference is this, that none ought to be admitted into a community, professing to be based upon the testimony of apostles and prophets, Jesus the Christ, the foundation corner stone, unless they (having been previously to application for admission immersed-revival-made Baptists only) be re-imersed upon an intelligent confession and belief of the truth. Strange to tell, there are those who admit our premises, nay, even our inference, but from fear of the world, or of hard names, or some other imaginary evil, start with the utmost repugnance from the application.”
Subsequent to this, an article by Mr Campbell, of seven pages and a half, appeared in the Millennial Harbinger, against the practice of re-immersion. On this the Dr, after introductory remarks, speaks as follows: “I may be ‘illogical’, ‘playful upon words’, ‘sport with language’, a ‘young convert’, a ‘stripling in the kingdom’, ‘ardent’, ‘sanguine’, &c: but with all this, the question remains untouched as to the necessity of the members of the ‘BAPTIST APOSTACY’ being cleansed by a bath of water in connection with the word, on their coming out of that district of Babylon. As to the tout ensemble of the article aforesaid, I am authorised by brethren within the range of my acquaintance, who have not been re-immersed, to observe that it is unsatisfactory, because calculated rather to divert the reader’s attention from the point than to convince the judgment. It is as dust to the eyes: it may blind, but it cannot enlighten. For my own part, I see below the surface a something which the writer contemplates with much alarm. What the apparition may be, our brother, who deems the agitation of the subject ‘inexpedient at this time, best knows. But the same premises not being before my mind that are before his, he must excuse me if I follow my darkness visible rather than his latent light.
“I would make some very brief remarks on a few particulars in this article. I do not inform my readers that those re-immersed by me and others ‘were unbelievers until about the time of their re-immersion.’ At the time of their first immersion, their faith, or rather assent, outstripped their evidence; and if they assented to the proposition ‘I believe in Christ’, they knew not why. At that time, they assented to the ‘doctrine of men’, which had transmuted the gospel into ‘another gospel’, like to which, they have since discovered, none is to be found in the Scriptures of truth; that into a Christ, and on any assent to a gospel, they had been immersed; but having subsequently had their minds directed to the true Christ, and to the one only true gospel as announced by the apostles, by brother Campbell (and may his memory be ever held in grateful remembrance for this same thing!) they determined (and who would not?) to embrace it as far as they could. They accordingly came out of the ‘Baptist Apostacy’, but with ‘the body of the sins of the flesh’ adherent to them. Their consciences became uneasy as to their first immersion, but a few comforting remarks in the Harbinger tranquillised their fears, until the Advocate aroused them from their slumber, and induced them to bury ‘the Old Man’ in the watery grave of sin. This is a brief history of their journey from Babylon to Jerusalem, and of their putting off Antichrist, that they might put on Jesus as the Messiah. Notwithstanding all that has been said against it, they stand unshaken and rejoicing in the hope of immortality, to which they expect to attain by walking worthily hereafter. It is asked if the agitation of this question is for the purpose of rendering ‘our cause as unpopular as possible, by making it appear to be all about water’. This is not quite ingenuous. Surely, there can be no mistake as to what we are contending about! The question should have been worded by making it appear to be all about faith. It is against the value of water we plead, unless that water be used in connection with faith in the blood of Jesus, ie a belief of the testimony of the Holy Spirit, concerning the shedding of the blood of Jesus for the remission of sins. As to the popularity of our cause, I believe if it becomes so now, it will be at the sacrifice of purity and truth; for these divine gems now are of little value in the religious world. It has always been the fate of the religion of Jesus to decline in efficiency as its name became popular. That it will be popular in a few years, there is no doubt. It will not be by our efforts though. Physical displays of Jehovah’s omnipotence, by overturning the kingdoms and ushering in Messiah, called the making bare His arm, the prophets show will be the efficient cause of its ascendancy. The work before us is plainly set forth in Rev xix. It is THE PREPARATION OF THE CHURCH TO RECEIVE HER RETURNING LORD. This is too much neglected for the business of proselytising. And if our dear brother feels called to the work of converting the world, at this late period of ‘the times of the Gentiles’, he will allow me to use his words and say that I feel ‘called to the work’ of contributing my humble efforts to the conversion of those who pretend to have been ‘converted’, and of building up the faithful in their most holy faith. We should depend more upon the body for the increase of itself. If a church of one hundred adults were well grounded in the faith, and were to demean themselves as becometh saints, they could not fail, in ten years, to treble their numbers; but while the labours of the brethren are expended on the world, the numbers are in full retreat to the chambers of night.
“The trust, if known, digested and believed, will produce feeling; and that feeling will be chastened by its influence and duly developed in prescribed acts of devotion to God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ; and of beneficence to our neighbour, be he alien or citizen of the kingdom. I am as much for feeling, in its proper place, as our feeling brother, though perhaps, I may not be so fortunate or exuberant in its expression as he. But lest I show too much feeling in relation to these feeling insinuations, I will pass on.
“I would ask, ‘Is an immersed Atheist baptized?’ If he is baptised, then he is ‘in Christ’, ie, a Christian. Who will venture to affirm this? Then baptism is something more than immersion, or immersion is something less than baptism. What is wanting, then, to the baptism of such a person? A belief in a Messiah? Something more than this. A belief that the shedding of blood is necessary to remission? Something more than this. A declaration that he ‘believes in Jesus?’ We say something more than this; for a man may affirm that he was indeed the Christ that was to come, the Son of God, in a certain sense, but nothing more, in reality, than the son of Joseph and Mary. Now, as this is contrary to Scripture evidence, it is clear that in whatever Jesus he believes, it is not the Jesus whose witnesses were the apostles. What, then, is wanting in the case? We reply a full assurance of faith that Jesus, the Nazarene, is the Christ, the Son of God, the Living One; that he died for (his blood being shed for the remission of) our sins, according to the Scriptures; that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures. And this assurance must precede and not follow, to make it baptism. A man, I conceive, may believe that Jesus is the Son of God, in the Scripture sense, and that he rose from the dead, and, upon this belief, be immersed, and yet not be baptised. For, if there be ‘no remission without the shedding of blood’; and seeing that so much stress is laid upon his blood by Jesus himself and his apostles, it is clear that there is one thing lacking yet, if a belief in the sin-remitting efficacy of the blood of Jesus be wanting. Well, then, belief in this is absolutely necessary to constitute an immersed person a baptized one, who has had his heart or moral faculties sprinkled from an evil conscience by ‘the blood of sprinkling’.
“I must notice a sophism even in the reasoning of our logical brother. He quotes from the Advocate thus: ‘If unbaptised persons can go to heaven, what is the use of baptism?’ In his remarks, there are four notes of astonishment. He endeavours to show that the enquiry would, in its operation, go to abolish the Lord’s Supper as useless, because we may be saved without having once eaten thereof. Now, I am tempted to put a note of astonishment after this, but ‘I forbear’. Brother Campbell’s interrogations are not parallel with mine. Had Jesus said, He that believes and partakes of my supper shall be saved, the answer to my enquiry would be equally applicable. He that maintains that, under this dispensation, sins are or may be remitted to the world without baptism, in effect, says that pardon is granted independent of the blood and water which are united in that institution. Now, if this be so, ‘baptism for the remission of sins’ is a mere conceit, and therefore superseded.

And as to the supper, if it had been put in the place of baptism for salvation, and men had treated it as they have baptism, upon their premises, it would be a mere conceit, and, therefore, useless. And so of the other inquiries, I am afraid, my good brother’s ‘confidence in my good sense’ will be shaken here, for I confess myself still blind to his refutation.




“Brother C says he has ‘not told the half’: nor have I. I shall leave the other half for another time. We will, however, that our respected brother’s memory may be refreshed, and our readers informed, quote a few of the many excellent remarks* to be found in the Christian Baptist on the subject to baptism. I take this work with the more confidence, as the publication of a revised edition, within a few months, makes it oracular as to his present views. ‘To the strength of this conviction’ (of pardon), ‘upon their putting on Christ, is attributable the great difference in the converts of Jesus Christ, and the converts of the various creeds and sects now so numerous. There is something so impotent in an assent to mere opinions in forming a sect, in becoming a Baptist, Methodist, or Presbyterian, that it makes no sensible difference in the affections towards heaven, and therefore fails to purify and elevate the heart of the proselyted’. Speaking of the true gospel and modern ones, he truly saith of the men of this age: ‘Indeed, few profess to believe the same gospel. Many of the preachers repudiate the forgiveness of sins through the obedience of faith in immersion. They ridicule it; they nickname it, like Mr Brantly, ‘baptismal regeneration;’ they hold it up to derision. How, then, can those led by them experience any great felicity from that which their spiritual guides ridicule? They cannot. ? THE POPULAR IMMERSION IS NO BETTER THAN A JEWISH ABLUTION. It is a mere rite, a ceremony, an ordinance, &c. I will now assert it, and leave it for philosophers, and historians to disprove it if they can, that he who is immersed for the remission of his sins, in the full belief that he will receive remission in the act, will enjoy more of the life and joy of Christianity, and not be half so likely to apostatise, as he that is immersed for any other purpose, I care not what it be. This I have proved by observation; I was going to say by experience, too. ‘May the Lord deliver us from the ghosts and spectres of an untoward generation!’ See the quotation in full, page 656. Now, reader, here brother C and I heartily shake hands and say Amen! Reader, are you the subject of this Jewish ablution? If you are, do you honestly believe that by means of this ‘mere rite’, you have the remission of sins? I leave you to your own reflections.
“Now, stripping the subject of all adventitious matter, it is all resolvable into this: Brother C has re-immersed and so have I, and for the same reasons. Why, then, this difference? I answer, we are at issue on the expediency of doing publicly what we agree is scriptural. He maintains that it ought to be done with all available privacy, and I that, as there are no secrets under the reign of heaven, and as truth, either in theory or practice, never suffers by publicity, that it should be freely canvassed and practised openly, for the good of all. It is a question of expediency then; and who is to be the judge of this among us? Brother C will join with me and unhesitatingly say, THE BOOK. And how is the meaning of the book to be determined? Let every man judge for himself according to the evidence in the case. The evidence of the book shines like the sun, and will dispel the darkness of the minds of all who will examine with an indifference to every name and thing but truth. But enough for to-day’s fight.
“The ‘stripling’ has slung his stone in as good and courteous a spirit as that in which Goliath has provoked the combat. He doubts not but ‘the esteem and confidence of all brethren will be greatly heightened’. All the balsam I ask for my

wounds is fair play and equal ground. Let brother Campbell, then, do me the same justice as he has done to a Waterman or a Meredith – and I am sure he will – and permit me to speak for myself to his more numerous readers, by the insertion of this in the next number of the Harbinger.




CHAPTER 11

I
BEFORE the controversy on re-immersion had advanced to the stage reached in the last quotation, another and far more fruitful source of contention had come into operation. Other and deeper questions had engaged the cogitations of the Dr. “The constitution of man, and of the things to which he stands related here and hereafter, as God has constituted him and them,” had received his attention “primarily (as he informs us in the 3rd volume of the Advocate, p188) by the necessity he was under of replying to certain queries bearing on the topics embraced in this general design; as well as by the difficulties presenting themselves to his own mind when reading the Scriptures. Not then having arrived at conclusions, he determined to seek the aid of others.” We glean the following information from the Herald of the Future Age, vol iv, p 125, as to the steps he took to obtain this aid:- “In writing to our father in London, who has been all his life an intense and laborious student of ‘divinity’ and college lore, we commenced to propose a few questions for his consideration, in hope that he would answer them, and thus furnish us additional matter and variety for the pages of the Advocate. One question suggested another, until the list grew to upwards of thirty. When we had finished, the thought occurred, if these questions were also published in the Advocate, they would, perhaps, elicit examination of the Scriptures; and replies, which might likewise furnish ‘information’ on their divers subjects. We adopted the suggestion, and copied them out forthwith. The original was mailed to England, and the copy appeared in the next number of our paper.” The following are the questions which appeared in the Advocate for December 1, 1835, under the heading of
INFORMATION WANTED
“1 – Is there any other difference between man and the inferior animals, than their organization, ie, does not the essential difference between them consist in their susceptibilities?
“2 – What was the state of our first parents, in relation to eternal existence, before God said, ‘Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it,’ &c; ie, was it any other than a state in which they were susceptible either of mortality or immortality?
“3 – Is man naturally and, therefore, necessarily immortal, ie, is he an ‘immortal soul’, because he is man; or is immortality a gift consequent upon the due observance of certain conditions proposed by God, at certain periods of the world’s age?
“4 – If the former, how can ‘life and incorruptibility’ be said ‘to be brought to light by Jesus Christ in the gospel?’
“5 – If the latter, can idiots, infants, pagans, and unbelievers of every grade, with Scripture propriety, be called ‘immortal souls?’
“6 – If immortality be a gift, is that gift conferred as soon as a man dies, or does he wait for it, in unconsciousness, ‘till the revelation of Jesus Christ’, at his second advent, when he will descend from heaven to ascend ‘the throne of his father David?’
“7 – Can any person living be said to be immortal, except by anticipation of his resurrection from the dead?
“8 – If, as soon as the breath is out of a man’s body, he be instantly translated to heaven or hell, how can he be said to be dead, and to rise again from the dead? Is a man in heaven or hell, dead and alive, at the same time? If so, where do the Scriptures teach this?



“9 – Do the Scriptures teach that men, women, and children come from heaven and hell, when they rise from the dead; or do they not rather teach that men’s mortal bodies will be made alive, ie, re-animated by the spirit, ie, the power of God, as the body of Jesus was?
“10 – If immortality, or perennial bliss or woe, be conferred upon men as soon as they die, ie if they be even sent direct to heaven or, contrariwise, to hell, pray what is the use of the judgment, which all say is to be at the end of the world?
“11 – Is the ‘second death’ eternal life in torment?
“12 – If instant perennial bliss or woe has obtained through all ages, at death, consequent upon the alleged possession of an hereditary immortal principle, is not the gospel nullified, seeing that Paul says it brings life and incorruptibility to light?
“13 – Are not ‘the great recompense of reward’ and ‘punishment’ consequent on the rejection of God’s proclamation, or offer of immortality, on the terms of the gospel?
“14 – If so, and if God have never made the offer of ‘life and incorruptibility to Pagans, say the Chinese, will they be raised again from the dead to suffer punishment, and to be involved in a common and fierce catastrophe with those who have heard it and yet refuse to obey it?
“15 – Does not God’s distribution of judgments on the nations, show that he makes a difference between those to whom His message has been sent and those to whom it has not?
“16 – Is not the term ‘unjust’, in the Scripture sense, limited to those who have rejected God’s way of justification; as the term ‘just’ is confined to those who have accepted it under his several dispensations?
“17 – Does not ‘the resurrection of the just and of the unjust’ exclude Pagans who have never heard the messages of God, infants, idiots, and insane, ie, do not these at death fall into a state of unconsciousness, from which they will never be delivered?
“18 – When it says, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and RE-plenish the earth,’ &c, does it imply that the earth was inhabited before the creation of Adam; and that the earth being without form and void, and darkness upon the face of the deep waters which pervaded it, was the result of a catastrophe, by which its former inhabitants were destroyed?
“19 – May not these inhabitants be ‘the angels who kept not their first estate, but left their proper habitation, whom God has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness, to the judgment of the great day’ (Jude 6), ‘the angels that sinned whom He spared not, but with chains of darkness, confining them in Tartarus, delivered them over to be kept for judgment (2 Peter ii 4), the angels whom Christ and the saints are to judge’ (1 Cor vi 3), may not these inhabitants of a former world on earth be the demons whom God in ancient times permitted to possess man, the chief of whom is Satan*, and who cried out, saying, “Ah! Jesus of Nazareth, what hast thou to do with us? Art thou come to destroy us? I know who thou art, the holy one of God’ (Mark I 24); and ‘what hast thou to do with us, Son of God? Art thou come hither to torment us BEFORE THE TIME? – (Matt viii 29)
“20 – Is not the word ‘heaven’, in Scripture, synonymous with dispensation, state of society divinely constituted and governed, in opposition to that composed of institutions merely human?
“21 – Does not the phrase, ‘heaven and earth’, signify an age in reference to its governmental and subordinate relations?
“22 – Does not the phrase, ‘a new heaven and a new earth’, simply import a NEW dispensation of ages, in relation to a former one which had become old?
“23 - Are not dispensation, state, age, and world, often and for the most part synonymous terms in Scripture?
“24 – Does not the solid material earth composed of hills, mountains, oceans, rocks &c, bear a similar relation to dispensation, state, age, and world, that the permanent stage of a theatre does to the shifting scenes?
“25 – Does not the Scriptures teach that three ‘heavens’, or Divinely constituted states of human society, are to obtain upon the earth; and that the third is to remain through all eternity?
“26 – Are not these three heavens, first, the kingdom of heaven, or the church of Jesus Christ; second, the millennial age; third, the eternal dispensation? Is not the first illustrated

in the writings of the Apostles and Evangelists; the second in Isaiah lxv 17-25; Ezekiel xxxviii 21-28; chaps 40-48 &c; the third in the Apocalypse, chaps 21, 22 to v5: And was it not the third heaven, or eternal age, which is also called Paradise, to which Paul was suddenly conveyed away in vision, when he heard unspeakable things?
“27 – Does not the promise made to Abraham, Gen xvii 8, confirmed by the institution of circumcision, v 9-14, - in which those who are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands by the circumcision of Jesus Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, are interested – refer to the possession of Canaan, in Asia, under the personal reign of the Messiah?
“28 – Will not the faithful of all past dispensations be put in possession of Canaan in Asia, and of the government of men of all nations, by a resurrection from the dead; and will not the faithful on the earth at the time undergo an instantaneous change from a state of mortality to one of incorruptibility; and will not all this be consequent upon the descent of Jesus to the Mount of Olives?
“29 – Is not the subject of God’s promise to Abraham synonymous with the ‘Kingdom of God and of Christ’; and is it not when Jesus enters on the possession of the land of Canaan that the apostles will sit upon twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of (the restored) Israel, that he will partake of the Passover which will be accomplished in the kingdom of God; that he will drink of the product of the vine with the apostles, new in his Father’s kingdom; that many will come from the east and west, and will be placed at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven, &c.
“30 – Does not the present animal constitution of things bear the same relation to the millennial and eternal ages as a mass of bricks, stones, timbers scaffolding, mortar, &c, do to a palace about to be built, or rather being built from their materials; and may not all but the true believers, be aptly compared to the refuse or rubbish, after the palace is built, fit only to be burned, destroyed, or cast out, and trodden under foot of men?
“31 – Will not the inhabitants of paradise restored, or the eternal age, symbolised by John in the Apocalypse, as the new, not the restored, Jerusalem, be the TRUE ISRAELITISH NATION – a nation, every member of which will be an immortal, incorruptible, or spiritual, as opposed to an animal or mortal man; a nation, constituted of the descendants or children of Abraham according to the promise?
“32 – Is not restoration, and not destruction, the ultimatum of all God’s dealings in relation to man; and does not the restoration relate to the earth, which was cursed on man’s account, as well as to its inhabitants? If so, why look for heaven in some unknown, unrevealed, remote region of immensity? And cannot the hell of the wicked be scripturally discovered in the renovating and purifying flames latent in the bowels of the earth, to be brought into operation for judicial and physical purposes?
“33 – Are not ‘the court of the priests’, ‘the holy place’, and ‘the most holy place’ types of the Jewish, Christian, and millennial states of society under Divine rule?
“34 – Are not these interrogatories worthy of the investigation of all who desire to add to their faith, knowledge? Are they not calculated to stimulate us to search the Scriptures? And if the hints contained in these questions be valid, what becomes of the popular notions of immortality, heaven, hell, baby-rhantism, circumcision by modern Jews, funeral sermons, modern psalmody, immersion into experience, obituaries, salvation of Pagans independent of the gospel, untypical sectarian churches, &c, &c; and would not their scriptural elucidation remove many obstacles at present in the way of objectors to revelation, on account of the supposed incompatibilities and incongruities?
The reception accorded to these questions was of a very unfriendly and hostile character. The questions were construed into a declaration of the Dr’s convictions on the various points raised, and they were denounced as a new and infidel creed. Letters breathing this sentiment came from all parts of the country, and some readers at once discontinued their subscriptions to the Advocate. “We asked bread”, says the Dr, “but our contemporaries gave us a stone. Our mind was not made up on any of the questions. We wanted light. Instead, however, of some one condescending to instruct us, we were beset on every side.” The din of war began. The artillery of “the present reformation” played from the heights of Bethany. Discharges of small arms were levelled at him from divers points. Discontinuances came in from various quarters. No one ventured to touch freely and candidly on a single point or suggestion contained in them. On the contrary, they vented their ill humour. And why? Is it because it is a criminal thing to ask for information? Did Jesus brand the disciples with infamy when, in their simple ignorance, they asked questions for information? And yet we have asked many who profess to tread in his footsteps to impart to us their views in candour and honesty on certain things which have been suggested to our own mind, and instead of, in a gentlemanly and Christian-like manner, attempting to enlighten our darkness, or to direct us in the way of truth, they turn round upon us, and cry aloud earnestly, with a pretended zeal for orthodoxy, Infidel, infidel!”
The hue and cry raised against the Dr was, however most beneficial in its results. As he himself says: “Had no notice been taken of these questions, it is exceedingly probable we should have thought no more about them.” The abuse showered upon him from various quarters “failed”, he says, “in its desired effect. Instead of intimidating or putting us to silence, it only roused our determination to comprehend the subject; if wrong to get right, and when righted, to defend the right, and to overthrow the wrong or perish in the attempt.”
Much of the opposition manifested, owed its virulence to the Dr’s attitude in the controversy on re-immersion. On this point the Dr expresses himself thus in the Herald of the Future Age, vol iii p 125: “We do not say that the war began; it had commenced several months previously. The question which began the strife was, Does immersion, predicated on ignorance of the doctrine of remission impart to the subject remission of sins? Mr Campbell had already published, that ‘the popular immersion was no better than a Jewish ablution;’ and he had declared to us in a letter, that he had himself re-immersed individuals, but always upon their own application, and ‘with all attainable privacy’, because of the cry of Ana-baptism, which had always been injurious to the truth, and that there was no difference between us on this subject except as a matter of expediency.
“After such admissions as these, it was obviously impossible for Mr C to maintain successfully his opposition to us on this ground. He had subjected himself to ‘expediency’; we, however, acknowledged no such lordship; our rule being, that it is proper to advocate whatever is true. But Mr Campbell was the champion of a squad of preachers whose baptism, from their own protestifications against their former co-religionists, was evidently no better than a Jewish ablution. They preached a baptism they were not themselves the subjects of; and there was no one to disturb their drowsy consciences on this matter but the editor of the Apostolic Advocate. They could not silence him by Scripture or argument, and to the time of the thirty-four questions, they had failed to affect him by clamour. Hence, these questions came as a god-send to these preachers, who preached baptism for the remission of all men’s sins but their own. Our correspondent has caused us to turn our attention to the question concerning infants, Enoch, Elijah, Moses, &c.
“The article thus elicited was as a spark to the ecclesiastical electricities whose combination shook the heavens with its thunder. The questions were magnified into a creed and test of fellowship; others fancied they saw in them infidelity and Atheism; some declared them to be untaught questions and speculations; and others consequently prophesied that we should be an infidel in six months! Henceforth, they said very little about re-immersion, being but too glad to find something to fasten upon by way of a foil to that. They now appealed to material prejudices, and raised a clamour about materialism, soul-sleeping, and no-soulism. This process not being sufficiently rapid, they attacked our character, and denounced us for everything villainous and unholy. All this failed in its desired effect. Instead of intimidating us and putting us to silence, it only roused our determination to comprehend the subject; if wrong, to get right; and when righted, to defend the right, maintain the right, and overthrow the wrong, or perish in the attempt.
“The battle being thus forced upon us, not upon a field of our own selection, but on ground chosen by the adversary, we were involved in a discussion of minor and comparatively unimportant points, such as the destiny of infants, idiots, and pagans, the last end of the wicked, &c. These are details, or consequences, resulting from a great principle, not the principle itself. The opposition strove to keep this out of sight, and to make it appear, if possible, that what we contended for was the non-immortality of the soul, the non-resurrection of infants, idiots, and pagans, and the annihilation of the wicked, ‘as the pith and marrow of the gospel!!’ Here is where their hypocrisy, dishonesty, or ignorance beam forth as the meridian sun. We were long detained campaigning in the chapperal of these diminutive growths from the parent stock; nevertheless, we gradually acquired experience in the art of war; and came to understand well the character and capacity of the men with whom we had to do. Their attacks compelled us to defend points which might have been neglected. The result of the whole has been that, from being the assailed, we have become the assailant; and, without boasting, the facts show that, having driven in their outposts, their camp is now besieged, and they are put to it to prove that they are upon apostolic ground at all. This makes some exceedingly mad; others are disposed to meet the crisis calmly and dispassionately; while others seem to be dumb with astonishment at the turn which affairs have taken.”
One or two correspondents, whose letters appear in the Advocate for February, 1836, treated the Dr’s queries in a candid and reasonable mood. One of these, “A R Flippo, Caroline,” “found many valuable considerations embraced: some of which were entirely novel to him.” Nevertheless, he saw difficulties which he duly presents, viz, the cases of Enoch and Elijah, the thief on the cross, Stephen’s dying words, “Spirits of just men made perfect,” &c. From the Dr’s answer to these, we make the following extracts:
“The thirty-four queries were propounded as interrogatories merely, and not as things proved. But I will assume that they are true and inconfutable, and in their behalf, proceed to combat your antagonistic positions.
?First, then, as to your adopted phrase, ‘the spirits of just men made perfect’. I suspect you have fallen into the common, and therefore very orthodox error, of applying this phrase to a congregation of disembodied spirits in some remote and indefinite region of immensity, called by earthlings Mount Zion, the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, - a city to which all ‘the ghosts of all defunct bodies fly’. But what is the meaning – the untheological, and therefore unsophisticated, meaning of the members of this sentence? Let us see. The spirit of a just man or person; in the Greek, to pneuma dikaiou. Is the subject of such a phrase only to be found remote from earth? Are there no justified spirits upon earth; none in the church of Christ, that we must go to some astronomical heaven in search for them? What is the significance of to pneuma? Shrevelius, in his lexicon, tells me it means spiritus meus humana; sensus animi in Latin; and Ainsworth says the spiritus is adopted into English to represent certain ideas current among us, such as ‘breathing, air, wind – a smell, stench, vapour, or steam; life, spirit, soul; as sound, the human mind, or the affections thereof, such as ambition, courage, spirit, haughtiness, &c. Also when used in the singular number, a man or person.’ Now which of these meanings shall we take? Oh, says orthodox theology, we will take spirit, for that comes nearest the vulgate sanctioned by the Council of Trent, and it accords with the true theological dogma of man existing without a body in the heavenly region of ghosts!! Pneuma spiritus, spirit; certainly this conveys a fund of information to the unlettered man. Spiritus means spirit, and spirit means spiritus! This is truly orthodox! But, my brother, gospel phrases must be interpreted by gospel doctrine, and not by theological dogmas. Man is spoken of in the Scriptures as ‘body, soul, and spirit, the whole person.’ It requires body, blood, and breath to make a whole or living man. Breath, abstracted from body and blood, is not man; blood abstracted from body and breath is not man; neither is body abstracted from blood and breath, man. When we speak of these, we say the body of a man, the blood of a man, the breath of a man; but when we find them all three combined, we speak of the individual so composed as a man. You will remember the Scripture is not given to teach language, but is so ordered as to take the language of men as it finds it; and in that language and in the common, and for the most part erroneous ideas of man to convey to men, illustratively, things unknown to them before. Hence the Holy Spirit has adopted the common lingo of the world, not because the ideas signified are correct; but because, unless he were to inspire them with an entirely new and divine language, it is the only way judged fit to communicate to them things unknown concerning the present and future state of being, called ‘the world or age to come’. Well, then, God has made use of the terms body, soul, and spirit convertibly for man – living man. Hence we are told to ‘Glorify God with our body’, that is, with our whole person. Three thousand souls (pscuchai) were added to the disciples; that is, living persons, or spiritus, spirits – see last definition of Ainsworth above. The philosophy of the use of these terms as applicable to man is founded in nature; they are adopted, as various forms of expression relatively to man, because of the absolute necessity of the things they signify to his existence. Man cannot exist without breath or spirit, blood or soul, and body, or an assemblage of organs for the development of functions, manifested by the action of air and blood upon them. The how these functions were evolved, especially those of the brain, being inscrutable to the ancients, as to a certain extent it is to us, they infused a ghost into the cavernous si of the body, where they kept it a prisoner until liberated by the veritable kidnapper death! This is truly Pagan, Papistical, and Protestant; a real tradition of the devil. Having thus tenanted the body with a ghost or spirit, they made him president of the corporeal republic, the immortal shade of mortal substance. Thus enthroned, all mental, moral, spiritual, or intellectual operations were attributed to him; all other functions to the body. Although as a doctrine false as the source from which it emanates, it answers the purpose of human speech; and as there is the promise of a period when we shall be physically and morally perfect, the phraseology engrafted on the terms soul and spirit, will do very well to explain our moral state and attributes anterior to the momentous epoch, and during our existence under the present provisional dispensation or age.
“I perceive that you believe, that what your side of the question calls spirits of just men’ are, by the death, separated from the bodies of just men, and by some means, ‘on angels’ wings,’ perhaps, immediately wafted away to what orthodoxy calls ‘heaven’. Well, suppose we grant it, seeing that the Scripture speaks of body, soul, and spirit, and seeing that the body returns to dust, pray tell me, my dear friend, what becomes of the soul? You have provided a place for the body, and a home for the spirit, but you have left the poor soul a wanderer without a habitation in some ‘undiscovered country, from whose bourne no traveller returns’. You will say perhaps, that soul and spirit are significant of the same thing. I admit that they are so used, and I claim the benefit of the admission for the term body, as equally significant of the whole man, comprehending within it the other two. Hence, where you have placed the spirit and soul, the body must be, or if you consent not to that, where fact places the body, there the spirit and soul must be at rest, till the trump of God call them forth from the grave to a new and eternal life. Now, why not be contented with the apostle’s illustration of this matter? He compares man – a whole, not one or two-thirds of a man – when deposited in the grave to a grain of wheat, or any other grain sown or planted in the earth. Turn now to 1 Cor xv and mark well his reasoning upon this beautiful analogy ‘What you sow is not made alive, or reproduced, except it first die.’ Now, in sowing, you do not sow the body that is to be produced; you do not take a sheaf of wheat under your arm, and scatter each body of wheat, comprised of root, stem, ear, and grain in the ear, over the field; no, but you sow broadcast the naked grain, previously separated from the ear. Just so is the resurrection of the dead. They are sown animal bodies, they are raised spiritual or incorruptible bodies. Permit me to inquire, Is not grain under certain conditions, resolvable into body, soul, and spirit? The body is the grain as threshed from the ear; the soul, the germ, the spirit, that which is produced by distillation. Would you call whiskey, rye? No, but is not the whiskey contained in the rye? Yes. Cut out the germ, the blood, or soul of the grain, would you call that the grain? No, deprive the grain of its spirit and germ, would you call what is left the grain? You perceive then, in order to constitute a grain of wheat, the body, the germ, and the spirit are all necessary. Well then, a perfect whiskey is perfect rye. Would you send an imperfect man – that is, the third part of a man – to heaven, where you acknowledge that no imperfection can enter? Again, Paul says, and all botanists know he is correct, that the grain will not be reproduced except it die. Will you say that the spirit and soul of the grain leave the body, and that when they rise again above the ground, a re-union of body, germ and spirit takes place, in order to produce that effect? No. Well, it is just as unscriptural, and therefore irrational, to say that a similar re-union is necessary to the resurrection of the dead. Before a corruptible animal can be made incorruptible, he must, like a grain of wheat, first die, and having lain dead the appointed time, then, like a phœnix, if I may so say, arise out of his ashes to an unending life. What is it that causes the resurrection of the vegetable world every year? Is it not the power or spirit of God, operating by second causes which He has appointed? Assuredly. And what do you think will be the cause of the resurrection of the animal human world, when the spring time of human existence shall arrive? Do you suppose it will be caused by myriads of disembodied ghosts rushing from heaven to earth, to search each one for his old clay tenement!! Ha! Ha! my dear friend, what a Papistical conceit you have fallen upon! What a scramble will there be among the ghosts to get out of hell, purgatory and heaven, to look after their old mortalities! What a whooping of fiends, what a squalling of sprinkled babies, what a gabbling of old wives and priests, - why methinks when the gates of the Protestant and Papal shades are flung open, the road from these umbrageous regions will present to the calm, unimpassioned observer, perhaps the most vivid picture of a protracted revival that ever was witnessed on earth, either among the howling dervishes of Mahomedanism, or the equally riotous devotees of Protestant camp meetings, &c!
“I proceed to the consideration of the cases of Enoch and Elijah. The former of these was a type to the “sons of God” of the patriarchal age, and the latter to the same characters of the Mosaic, of that transformation which is to take place in relation to men. It is recorded of Enoch by Moses, that he walked with God; that is kept His ordinances and statutes as far as they were made known in that day – and he was not. for God took him. Upon this remarkable incident, Paul has the following observation: ‘By faith Enoch was translated, that he might not see death, and was not found, because God had translated (or taken him away); for before his translation it was testified that he pleased God’ (walking with him). For a moment, allow me to enquire what was Enoch’s faith concerning? See Heb xi 5, 40. Concerning what God hath promised – a promise which must have been notorious in his day, Jude tells us that Enoch was a prophet, for says he, he prophesied saying, ‘Behold the Lord comes with his myriads of holy messengers, to pass sentence on all, and to convict all the ungodly among them of all their deeds of ungodliness, which they have impiously committed; and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him’ (the Lord). Jude’s epistle runs chiefly on two things, namely, ‘the common salvation’ and certain false teachers who had crept in privily among the brethren. The common salvation is that deliverance from the grave, called also the great salvation, which is common to all who fall asleep in Christ. This constitutes the most interesting and exhilarating portion of the subject matter of the faith formerly delivered to the saints, either anterior or posterior to the resurrection of Jesus. Enoch prophesied concerning this common salvation when he declared that, ‘The Lord comes with his myriads of holy messengers’. We know that this coming relates to the resurrection of the just, as well as to the passing sentence on the ungodly, because Jesus, Paul, Peter, David, Daniel &c have testified the same thing, but more circumstantially. Now this promise of salvation being the subject-matter of Enoch’s strong faith, what more consistent than that Enoch should be made an illustration of his own belief to his contemporaries? This remarkable event, then, was designed to illustrate the change that would be operated upon men, and not the place to which they were to go, for of this they remained in ignorance, because the natural eye could not follow Enoch beyond a few thousand feet. The case of Enoch to the Antediluvians is similar to what that of the believers who are alive at the coming of the Lord will be in relation to the rest of the world. The true believers at that epoch, like Enoch, are not to see death. They are to be changed, as he was, in the twinkling of an eye, and, like him, to be caught up into the air, there to remain until the plague of the hailstorm – which is to destroy great numbers of men – shall have subsided; and then they will descend, with their Sovereign Lord, and so remain for ever with him.
“The change on Elijah was similar to that on Enoch, although the attendant circumstances varied. The Scripture nowhere says that they were “taken up into the presence of God,” who, indeed, dwells “in light inaccessible, whom no man hath seen or can see.” “No man hath seen God at any time,” says Jesus: hence, neither Enoch nor Elijah, though absent from our globe, have seen God in any other way than His stupendous works display Him. Now, you will observe, that they were not Enoch’s and Elijah’s spirits that were taken to heaven, but the men themselves, and, in Elijah’s case, clothes and all – save his mantle, which fell off – went to heaven with him. The phrase, spiritual body, seems to have misled you. You seem to attach to the words the popular ideas concerning spirit. Now, a spiritual body is as substantial and material as an animal or natural body. If you would have a tangible definition of a spiritual body, allow me to refer you to the body of Jesus after his resurrection. Before this event, his body was an animal or natural body; but after he rose, the same body, having been purified by death and a re-animation, became a spiritual body. As a spiritual body, he ate fish, he travelled in company with ordinary men, was composed of flesh and bones, could be seen and handled, had the same marks or scars as the animal body, in the hands, the feet, and side; he recollected all past events, recognised his apostles, and they him, conversed in the language of men, was clothed, breathed, &c, &c. This spiritual body is also called his most glorious body, into a like form with which our humbled body will be transformed. – (Phil iii 20). All Jesus was and did as a spiritual body, we shall be and do when we enter heaven, ie, the heaven of holy writ. The word spiritual, in relation to body, is synonymous with incorruptible, glorious or splendid, powerful. This is the antithesis of the word animal. Animal, in relation to body and ‘living soul’ are the same; spiritual body and ‘vivifying spirit’ are their antithetical synonyms. The first Adam was the type of a living soul; the last Adam, after his resurrection, of a vivifying spirit; and because the faithful look for him from heaven, he is called ‘the Lord from heaven’, ‘the heavenly’. Now, Paul confirms my affirmation, ‘For’, says he, ‘as we have borne the image of the earthy (or animal Adam), we shall also bear the image of the heavenly’ (or Lord from heaven). I will here offer an opinion; you can receive it or let it alone as you please. I think that the grand essential difference between an animal and a spiritual body is this, that the primary and necessary essential ingredient of the former is the blood, but that the spiritual body is entirely free from this fluid. The blood is by physiologists termed the pabulum vitæ, or food of animal life. Sir Ashley Cooper, Bart, calls it ‘the storehouse of the human system’. It is, in fact, the fluid from which all the organs of the body eliminate their secretions, and by which they are stimulated and continued in functional operation. An animal body is flesh and blood, and therefore corruptible; a spiritual body, flesh and bones, and therefore incorruptible. Now, ‘flesh and blood cannot enter heaven,’ but flesh and bones cannot enter the kingdom of God; neither can corruption (into which an animal body is resolvable) inherit incorruption’ (contrary to which the kingdom of God and all that pertains to it, has no tendency). Now, to change the animal into a spiritual body is the work of a moment – Enoch and Elijah to wit. ‘We shall not all die’, says Paul. No, we who are alive when Messiah comes again will be ‘changed in the twinkling of an eye’. But we are not to anticipate those who are already dead, for ‘the dead in Christ are to rise first’, and then the living disciples are to be changed (1 Thess iv 13-18). Yes, says Paul, ‘the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible’ (bodies). He does not say the spirit shall be re-embodied, but the dead who were buried shall be raised, ‘for this corruptible (animal) body must put on immortality’ (at the epoch).
“You enquire if Enoch and Elijah obtained immortality before the judgment, why may not all who die under gospel favour? To this I might briefly reply that God has not so appointed it. But I will explain. I use the word judgment in its popular acceptation – the truth of which I do not believe. I do so to show in striking colours that the common notion of immortality destroys the sectarian judgment. Judgment must be considered in its bearing on the righteous (or just) and on the unjust… Now, if these persons when they die go straight to heaven or direct to hell, what is the use of this judgment? Does not the notion stultify the Scripture, where it says that the time comes when all that are in their graves shall hear his voice (as Lazarus did) and “shall come forth – they that have done good shall arise to enjoy life, and they that have done evil shall arise to suffer punishment.’ How can persons already in heaven be said to arise from the dead to enjoy life? Do they not enjoy life in heaven? Or how can persons already in hell, suffering torment, be said to arise to suffer punishment? Do they not suffer punishment in hell? On the contrary, is it not obvious from this passage that it is necessary to arise from the dead to enjoy life as well as to suffer punishment? My inference is that second life and second death do both begin at the first and second resurrection and not before, except in such cases as Enoch and Elijah, which are exceptions to the rule, and therefore, establish it. Ergo, it follows that an immortality of existence, beginning at the era of temporal death, is a fable unworthy of belief. Immortality is not hereditary, but the gift of God who only has it, and which He confers conditionally on mankind. The condition under all dispensations is the same, viz to believe and do, and persevere in whatever God commands. ‘Our (eternal) life is hid with Christ in God; when Christ, our life, shall appear. then shall we appear with him in glory’ (Col iii 4). ‘David is not ascended into heaven’ (Acts ii 37). Shall we get there before him? Nor had Jesus ascended when Mary saw him in the garden after his resurrection (John xx 17). Is there any revelation exempting us from the process to which Jesus was subjected? The brutes have ‘souls’ as well as men. You start at this, but reflect. The word soul in the Greek is psuche, and signifies the animal life. Now, is not animal life common to men and brutes? Certainly. Well, then, the soul or animal life, which Moses calls the blood, does not ‘distinguish the man from the brute creation. I will tell you the grand difference. MAN IS SUSCEPTIBLE OF IMMORTALITY CONDITIONAL ON OBEYING GOD. The brute creation is not. Let this proposition be refuted if it can. As for Addison, let him not be mentioned for a moment in relation to topics of Christian import. He had the name of a Christian, it is true, but deserved it no more than they who conferred it when they signed him with the sign of the cross. True, the soul, or animal life, is annihilated, but not the man. A spiritual body composed of flesh and bones does not require a soul or blood. Animal life and a spiritual body are quite incompatible. The one would vitiate and destroy the other. You have heard talk of ‘religion in the soul’: Well, the true meaning is fanaticism in the blood. This puts me in possession of the philosophy of the word for the fanaticism of the day. Do you not know that a man is most ‘religious’ when he is most drunk? This is owing to the rapid circulation of his blood. The religion of the blood frenzies the brain, and enables the subject to see sights and hear voices, and feel feelings of the most remarkable kind. Reason and Scriptures have nothing to do with such religion. To fever the blood is the true secret of getting up a revival.”
The appearance of this reply to Flippo only added fuel to the fire. Mr Campbell was bitterly chagrined that a co-worker in “the Reformation” should promulgate ideas so ultra-heterodox, and so calculated to jeopardize the rising popularity of the movement. To counteract their effect, he published an article, in conversational form, entitled “Conversation at Thomas Goodall’s”. In this conversation the Dr’s articles on the mortality of man were freely canvassed. A Mr Wickliffe (supposed to represent Mr Campbell) acting the part of the Dr’s confuter, and a Mr Payne undertaking to explain the views to be confuted – a duty for which his part in the conversation shewed him to be unqualified. Catching up the idea, the Dr, by way of reply, published a

DIALOGUE BETWEEN THREE FRIENDS ON MEN AND THINGS
(from which the following are extracts:)

Alethes – My absence has been indeed long; but as for tidings, I have none of importance to communicate. I thank you for the pleasure you express at seeing me again. I reciprocate your kindness, and trust that the blessing of God will rest upon you, and upon all the faithful followers of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Phil – I thank you, Alethes. – Pray what is that you hold in your hand?
Alethes – It is the April number of the Harbinger, which I have just obtained from the Post Office.
Philo – Does it contain anything of interest?
Alethes – Yes, indeed; the Editor, you know, is always worthy of being read.
Philo – Read the table of contents, if you please. [Alethes reads]. There, friend Alethes, stop! Turn now to the Conversation at Thomas Goodall’s. Read it, if you please. [Alethes reads it through deliberately, and Philo pays profound attention]. Who is he whose writings seem to be the subject matter of conversation there?
Alethes – Mr Payne calls him his “English friend;” I judge, therefore, that he refers to an individual who edits a paper in Richmond. I am the more strengthened in this opinion, because I have some recollection of having heard the quotation which appears to have concussed Father Goodall’s aged nerves so violently, cited as coming from him. I know that he is from England.
Philo – Then you do not read Mr Payne’s friend’s writings?
Alethes – No; as yet I have not. But the manner in which the Harbinger has recently noticed several of his articles has excited my curiosity. I like to read both sides of a question; and to read a man’s defence of his own sentiments, which I confess the Harbinger has not enabled me to do in relation to this “shrewd gentleman’s” writings, as it calls him. I intend to take his paper, and judge for myself.
Philo – I coincide with you in this matter. The whole conversation appears to be a very one-sided view of the subject, written in a style calculated to catch the multitude. For my own part, I cannot learn the views of this half-christian, half-sceptic, as he is represented, from the Editor’s exhibition. He reminds me of the textuaries, who dislocate a sentence from its connexions, and declaim for an hour or so upon it, like men beating the air; when they are done, no more is known of the author’s meaning or views than when they began weaving their theological web. So it is with this conversation in relation to me; I am still ignorant of this “learned” and “grave preacher’s” views.
But here comes Tomaso, perhaps he can assist us in our review of this conversation at Father Goodall’s.
Tomaso – Good morrow, brethren! May I enquire the subject matter of the discourse in which you seem so earnestly engaged?
Alethes – We have been commenting upon a conversation in the last number of the Harbinger. I suppose you have read it, for I know you are a reader both of it, and of the Advocate published at Richmond. Are you acquainted with their respective editors?
Tomaso – Yes, I have a personal knowledge of them both. He of the Harbinger is a very excellent man; of fascinating manners, and most esteemed by those who know him best.
Philo – Can you tell us the reason there is so much difference on many subjects between your two friends?
Tomaso – With the greatest ease in the world and no offence to either. The history of the men’s lives solves the whole mystery if there be any. My friend of the Harbinger, you must know, is by birth an Irishman, and by education a Scotch Presbyterian. He was educated in a University in Scotland, the land itself of ghosts and witches, in all the mysticism of that gloomy sect. Hence he imbibed all their traditions, with which his mental constitution became thoroughly imbued. He is most accurately instructed in the “divinity” of John Owen and other mystics, and I have heard him lament the time he lost while transcribing the scholasticisms of these Rabbis. Now, what I much admire in him is, the successful effort he has made in forcing his way through so many obstacles in order that he might occupy the kingdom of heaven. He has clearly set forth to the men of this age what is the true worship of God, and what the means he has appointed for the remission of sins. These things he has clearly proven. But as he has himself remarked, I think, concerning others, “he still smells of the old cask.” He has not succeeded in emancipating himself from all his popular divinity; hence every now and then, but more frequently of late, you find him standing up as the champion of human tradition, without indeed knowing it. He seems to manifest an undue sympathy with the sects of the Anti-christian world, so that I have reason to believe he is rising in their estimation; at least, in these parts. Notwithstanding this, he is a man of great merit and devotion to the truth as far as he knows it, and therefore, deserves our unfeigned gratitude for what he has done and may yet do. As for my other friend of the Advocate, he has never been cursed (shall I say?) with the poison of theological education. His early years were spent in a private boarding school in England, and from his seventeenth to his twenty-fifth year among physic bottles, lecture rooms, and dead bodies. He knew, and he counted it his happiness to know, nothing about the writings of popular divines; nor did he ever trouble himself much about “divinity” of any kind, till about 1832, three years and a half ago, when he obeyed the gospel of our Divine Master. Since that time, he has addicted himself to the incessant study of the Scriptures. Not having had his mind perverted by human tradition, it just takes whatever impression the word may make upon it: like a blank sheet the impression of the printer’s types. This is the true cause of the difference between them – the teacher of the one is the word of God alone; the teacher of the other is compounded of popular divines and the word. You need not marvel then that they come to such different conclusions.
Alethes – What is your judgment concerning this conversation at Thomas Goodall’s?
Tomaso – In the general, I think that my friend of the Harbinger has not done his reputation as a reasoner justice. He has descended to gossip, instead of conversing, as a man of his superior attainments ought to have done, in an enlightened and dignified manner. He appears to me to have written for the unthinking multitude, rather than for those who think for themselves, and who can be swayed only by Scripture reasoning. In this design, no doubt, he will succeed. Indeed, he might have saved himself the trouble of writing at all, for he has their credulous assent to begin with. My friend of the Advocate has a very unequal battle to fight, and nothing but the sheer force of truth will enable him to overcome. He has not only a powerful opponent to contend with, whose hints are laws to hundreds – (though, this must be said, it is contrary to his wish that it should be so; nevertheless, such is the fact, to a great extent, within the range of my acquaintance and that of others) - but he has the prejudices of all Christendom, Mohametdom, and Pagandom against him. The Romanist to whom the Holy Scriptures are denied by his ghostly advisers, will condemn him; the Protestant, who contends that “the Bible alone is his religion,” and yet scarcely studies a chapter in twelve months, will condemn him; the Mohammedan, who believes in the instantaneous translation of the “spirit” to paradise, will condemn him; the worshippers of wood and stone, who have a paradise of their own peculiar formation, to which their spirits immediately depart on the extinction of life, will condemn him; the poor Indian of the forest, whose spirit goes, with the velocity of lightning, to a community of warriors, and to the fair hunting fields of his elysial abode, would tomahawk him, were he to question the sudden transfer of his ghost from the prairies and wilds of earth to the country of deer in heaven; and thus he would prove to him in a summary manner that he was not only unfit to be “admitted into Christian company,” but that he was unworthy of the society of the wildest Seminole. I say, all these my friend has to contend against, and all these enlightened religionists, my excellent friend of the Harbinger has to shout “Amen” at his back! Were I a caricaturist, I would sketch a “stripling”, with a sling and stone, on the one part, and I would have a giant, with a double-edged Spanish blade, encased in iron, having a huge crusader’s lance in rest, and followed, at full charge, with a rout of Italians, Hollanders, Turks, Chinese and Indians, honourable representatives of their respective faiths. You may easily guess what sort of chance my stripling would stand.
Alethes – It is, indeed, as you say; the believers in an instantaneous translation of what they call the “immortal soul” to heaven, are, with few exceptions – your friend of Bethany, one of these, of course – the unthinking world.
Philo – The immortality of the soul! Pray, Tomaso, shew me where this is taught in the Scriptures of truth. The multitude believe it; but I never yet had much faith in the soundness of the opinions of even the majority, much less of all the world. As far as I am informed, they have never been right yet on religious faith and practice.
Tomaso – I suppose you will except Noah’s family after the flood. As to the immortality of the soul, in the popular sense of that phrase, it is nowhere taught in the Bible. It is a dogma of the Pagan philosophers, especially of Plato. It was adopted by Origen, and other corrupters of the Christian church, as a revealed truth. The notion having been previously instilled into the minds of the Pagans by their priests and philosophers, when they became nominally Christian, they found the dogma in the Catholic church in a new dress. They took it for granted that it was all true, and so perpetuated it from generation to generation, until the reformation of Popery, or rather the breaking up of Popery, in certain countries, into new and adverse forms, called in the aggregate, Protestant Sectarianism. The sects forming this new ecclesiastical system adopted this tradition of their mother Pago-Christianism, alias Romanism: and thus we find it among us, at the present day, the almost universal belief of the Christian and anti-Christian worlds – to such an extent has the poison of Pagan philosophy diffused itself! The doctrine of the Bible, on the contrary, is THE CONDITIONAL IMMORTALITY OF MAN. This is easy to be understood by those whose minds have not been poisoned by human tradition, and who are content to learn the religion of the Holy Spirit, as He has taught it in the Word.
Alethes – Mr Payne is but a lame defender of your Richmond friend, Tomaso! He does not seem to understand the matter at all. I would advise him, as well as the rest of the company, to make themselves better acquainted with both sides of the question before they set up for critics, or presume to be so lavish of their unfledged opinions. Mr Payne says, absurdly enough, that the Advocate “distinctly affirms that soul, body, and spirit all go down to the grave, and sleep there to the resurrection.” This, I undertake to say, must be a most unfounded assertion, for, as I understand him, it is man’s inanimate material that goes to the grave; to say that he went there body, soul, and spirit, would be to affirm that men are buried alive! There are but two conditions in which a man can be in relation to this matter – either dead or alive. And this is what he seems to contend for. Am I right, Tomaso?
Tomaso – You are; and as to the rest, I must say I incline very much to the same judgment. The spirit of the family circle is to seize hold of the most vulnerable sentence, and, by an unfavourable construction, to prejudice all to whom their sentiments may come. The proper course for these good folks to have adopted would have been to let the author of the obnoxious articles speak for himself. They have plenty of room in the vehicle of their opinions. They have devoted ample space to criticise, satirise, and to hold him up to public reprobation. The least, therefore, they could have done in equity would have said nothing at all. If they proceed in the way they have begun, they will cause their hearers to judge an unrighteous judgment concerning my friend at Richmond. My motto is, let justice be done though the heavens fall.

CHAPTER 12
The next stage in the conflict is marked by the appearance of the following in Mr Campbell’s paper: “As well might they charge us with the doctrine of Anabaptism or Materialism, because one of our brethren has avowed these sentiments. And I must be permitted to express my regret that it is so. I am sorry, truly sorry, that any one who can wield as able a pen as our brother of the A- A- will turn away from the good work of pulling down the Babel of Sectarianism and building up the temple of the Most High to any speculations.
Again: “Our beloved brother Dr T- has lately given some views which I think are calculated to remove both the torment of fear and the fear of torment; for if they should not be wholly relieved from their alarm by re-immersion for the remission of sins, he has by means of opinions effectually barricaded all the avenues to the unseen world, whether by the pons asinorum, or through the air on angels wings; and can by an extra dose of heterodoxy (an old fashioned antidote for orthodoxy), make all who are nervous or uneasy sleep so sound that they shall not even dream of purgatory. But I am doubtful whether you would like church dormant any more than church patient; and in the meantime, lest I should cause you to imagine either doctrine true, and put you to sleep, or ‘torment you before the time’ by too long a letter, I will close for the present.
Again Mr Campbell tells his readers, in commenting upon an extract from the letter of ‘a man of business’, that it is ‘more worthy of being embalmed than ever was the body of an Egyptian king’. This extract is said to be composed of certain ‘apposite and practical reflections’. They are the following:- ‘I have read your conversation at Father Goodall’s, and approve it. I am no Sadducee. I believe in both angel and spirit. I think that God is the Father of the spirits of His saints, and earth the mother of their bodies. I am therefore agreed to give to my mother earth all she can rightfully claim – namely, all that is corruptible; and having done so, I stand ready to be clothed upon with my house from heaven – namely, my spiritual body; and in the meantime, I have no idea of remaining torpid or asleep. I am contented to go to Paradise or Abraham’s bosom. I am willing to be with Christ wherever he is; if in the grave, why well. But we know that he is not there; and therefore I feel a deep repugnance against being confined in the grave. If the grave has charms for any one, I can assure you it has none for me. I wish not to be reserved in chains of darkness. I wish to live, and I feel confident that while Christ lives those who trust in him shall live also. I have no idea of dying – Jesus has died for me, and therefore death has no claims upon my life.”
On these, the Dr makes the following remarks:
“It will be seen from these ‘obviously practical, useful, and apposite reflections’, that the Harbinger represents me to its readers (without affording them an opportunity of judging for themselves, or doing me the justice of self-defence) as a heretic of the deepest dye. If I believe and teach the things insinuated against me in the foregoing documents, the brethren who edit and write for that able work, are culpable and truant to the cause of truth in fellowshipping me as their beloved brother. I am accused of Anabaptism, of Materialism, of having turned away to speculation, of having ceased from the good work of pulling down the apostacy, of forsaking the building-up of the temple of the Most High, of teaching re-immersion for the remission of sins, of barricading the avenues to the unseen world, of being a Sadducee, of affirming that the grave is the only Paradise, and I know not what else beside. I need not say to those who read the Advocate unbiassedly, or who hear me speak, that these insinuations are founded only in the distempered views of my dissentient friends. When I obeyed the gospel, I knew nothing of the ‘Reformation’, or the topics of conversation between it and its numerous opponents. Having been thoroughly disgusted with Sectarianism in England, I determined to maintain my independence of all religious sects in America; and in this resolution I find myself this day. Christ, and not the Reformation, is my Lord. The spirit of liberty, based upon the law of faith, is the spirit of Christ; and this Spirit all the sons of God are privileged to possess, and having it, to breathe. I claim the right of exercising this privilege, as well as my contemporaries; and I require of them that they should do to me as once they loudly required others to do to them. If I have turned away from the faith, as some of the insinuations charge me, I am amenable to the law of Christ, and to the congregation in this city. I ought not to be represented to the brethren at large as guilty until proved so; and this proof can be received only as a matter of fact, and not as matter of opinion. Having purified my soul (life) by obeying the truth, I assumed the truth as my sole instructor. By the truth, I understand the Holy Spirit speaking in the writings of the apostles and prophets. All other writings are subordinate to these. None are infallible save the Scriptures. The opinions of the world, that is of mankind, whether readers, writers, or Editors, are none of them so sacred but they may be examined and discarded or retained, as evidence may determine. For some time, I thought this was the golden attribute of the Reformation, but I must confess myself deceived. I find that liberty is granted to discuss everything under certain conditions, which, in truth, nullify the privilege, or rather right, in toto. You may discuss all topics, except some, and these are called speculative, if they happen not to have come within the range of popular view. A thing is speculative in a bad sense when it happens to jeopardize the integrity of my opinions! You may ‘prove all things’, but you may not ‘hold fast that which is good’, unless we say so: You may have more light than all men, but not more than we! The zig-zag of our belief is to be the bound of your liberty! You may do and say what you please, only don’t condemn us. This is the spurious liberty with which Christ did not make his people free; I fear it is the liberty of this reformation to a considerable extent. The treatment I have experienced from various sources, satisfies me that this is true. I once thought that the errorist was to be silenced by argument: Paul acted thus, but not so my brethren. The Harbinger seems to act as though it thought that its opinion was the authority by which all controversies among us were to be resolved; and subscribers to our periodicals who succumb to this, deign not to convince us of our error, but summarily attempt to put us down by withdrawing their subscriptions. This is the argument of force, not the force of argument. One instance of this we put on record, another occurred in which we received a letter notifying the discontinuance of twenty-seven subscribers, and assigning as the cause, the agitation of the ‘sleeping question’, ie, the state of the dead. Now, if I loved my subscribers’ money better than what I believe to be the truth, I should be afraid even to allude to that or any other unpopular subject, lest I should lose a subscriber. Have I found the key to rule 1? Would it be of ‘practical utility’ to silence the Advocate? If it would, certainly the most ‘obvious’ way would be to do as the Harbinger is doing – prejudice the minds of its readers so that they shall be deterred from yielding it their support. This would be a short way, and save the trouble of much argumentation. But I can assure my brethren none of these things move me. The ‘sleeping question’, as it is called, is not disproved by the loss of twenty-seven subscribers, nor can the Advocate be silenced by authority. Our subscription is increasing; our paper is read with avidity; and if we succeed in our proposed arrangements, we shall go on more vigorously and securely than heretofore. While I regret that justice to myself and to truth requires me to speak thus of some of the brethren, it affords me pleasure to bear testimony to the free and noble spirit of liberty breathed by other brethren, who are for free inquiry on every subject relating to the destiny of man, come good come evil from the Church or world. Many of these brethren were once Baptists, and have not been re-immersed. They prefer eccentric truth to consistent error and expediency. May it be my happiness to have my lot always cast with brethren of such principle.
To say a man is a Materialist is to pronounce him as worthy of death at once in the estimation of some wise people. To give him a name that few know the meaning of, is an ingenious device to prejudice the world against him. I affirm that I have never read a single page of a book, except the Bible, on the subject called Materialism. I once assented to the traditions of men on the spirit, the soul, the state, and the destiny of the dead, simply because I was nurtured in these absurdities; but the truth has made me free, and I believe with the Apostles that the dead are truly dead, asleep, and will so remain until THE RESURRECTION AND THE LIFE shall call them forth from their graves to enjoy life or to suffer punishment. Is this doctrine ‘calculated to remove the fear of torment’; is this ‘blocking up the avenue to the unseen world’, Bro Richardson?
My time is as much devoted as ever to the pulling down of Babel and to the building up of the temple of the Most High. Many can bear testimony that I labour more than any in these parts at this very work. I have neglected my own affairs to a considerable extent, since I submitted to the government of Jesus Christ, that I might attend to those very things. But I expect no thanks from the many; my reward is reserved in heaven. God is the judge – it is not true that I am turned to speculation in a bad sense. It is the church and the world that are speculating about ghosts and airy heavens. I am endeavouring to bring them back from these serial conceits to the grave and substantial matters (materialism, if you will have it so) taught by the Holy Spirit in the Bible.”
We next learn from the Advocate that a series of articles were published in the Harbinger, by Mr Campbell, on “Materialism”, with the object of checking the influence of the Dr’s arguments, but without directly debating with the Dr. The articles attacked Dr Priestley, making only occasional reference to Dr Thomas. While these articles were in progress, we find the following editorial notice in the Advocate for November 1836.
“As the reader is already informed, I am at present much engaged in settling my family in a new abode. The setting-up of a printing establishment, in addition to this, consumes much additional time. I am therefore, prevented, for the time being, giving that attention to things published concerning me and my views, which the respect due to the writer, if not to his sayings, demands. My regard for brother Campbell, as a man and a brother, is undiminished, notwithstanding his proceedings against me. He has done and is doing himself more harm than me. The only impression his pieces have made upon my mind, is to make me indifferent to his hard speeches hereafter. I was at first a little sensitive; but sensitiveness has yielded to indifference. He has denounced me as ‘unfit for Christian society’. He can do no worse. The hardest speech hereafter is oil and balsam compared to this. If I have hurt his feelings, in self-defence, I am sorry for it, and sincerely regret it. The injury has been done unintentionally. My feelings are hurt only by the truth contained in the sayings against me. He has not hurt my feelings, though some may think his remarks severe. They may be in the estimation of our friends; but I can assure them, I am still whole, skin, wind, and limb. If they think me tortured, let them bear me witness that I bear it patiently.
“These remarks are elicited, by way of notice, by the last Harbinger. Brother C is still monstrous busy ‘wiping the escutcheons of the Reformation’. Somehow or other they seem to have become wonderfully unclean; for the wiping process seems to take a mighty long time. When he has done, they will no doubt be singularly pure from all material contamination. We shall not hereafter interrupt his labours until he has finished, when we shall inspect his work and see of what excellence it is.
“Will some king-at-arms be pleased to describe to us these heraldic devices? What are these escutcheons of the Reformation? We should like to know.”
On the same subject is a short article headed, “Matter and Manner”, appearing in the Advocate, for September 1836, reading as follows:-
“As to the matter and manner of the ten pages and a half of typography, published in the last Millenial Harbinger concerning me, I have, this month, time only to observe that never did one poor mortal more egregiously misrepresent the sentiments of another, than has Brother Campbell mine in that portion of his paper. I do not intend to insinuate that he has wilfully misrepresented me; I merely state the fact: and I take this opportunity of disclaiming his inferences, and the version he has given of my sentiments. Those who read my paper and his, well know that his version and my views themselves are not one and the same; those who read his exclusively are incapable of giving a correct judgment in the case. As to the manner in which our worthy brother has treated me, it is obvious to more than myself that it is not only unbrotherly, but unfriendly, and calculated to place me in an odious and ridiculous light before his readers, which is an unjust and false position. Till now, we had supposed, that as far as ‘this reformation’ was concerned, opinions were free, and that we were free to discuss all principles to whatever religious subject they might appertain. But we discover our mistake. Bro C says No! and has assumed the unenviable office of an arbitrator as to what may and may not be discussed; as to what is taught and not taught in the word; as to what is speculative and what not. But Brother C may thank himself for all the trouble brought upon him by me and many others. He has taught us to call no man master, and has directed us to search the Scriptures independently for ourselves. He has given an impulse to our minds (and we thank him for it) which neither he, nor any other man, however superior to us in age, experience, character, learning, or renown, can control. I have always studied to treat Bro C with respect; the least return I expected was that he would use me civilly. If he has called me a stripling, I took it in good part, supposing I was so named in the spirit of good humour; and, in the same spirit, I took up the allusion, and named him the giant. The primary allusion was his, not mine. I do not wish to deprecate our brother’s opposition to what we have published. It is public property, and as such he may do with it as he pleases. As opposing counsel we court the antagonism since he is opposed) of all his superior talent, (and we most readily admit his superiority); but we decidedly object to him as a judge in the case at issue. The brethren must judge

between us, and give their verdict according to the evidence as set forth in the Advocate as well as in the Millenial Harbinger. To enable his readers to do this, Bro C must cease to substitute his versions and inferences for my own connected essays. He must either (to do me justice, forbear to oppose, or concede me the same privilege (not to say right) that he has granted to aliens from the commonwealth of Israel. Our brother has devoted whole pages of his work to the republication of the speculations of a Waterman; of Brougham, a worldly philosopher; and of the abusive declamation of a Meredith and others. If I am worthy of being opposed, am I not, as a brother, worthy of equal privileges with them? Why should our brother conduct himself with more impartiality to aliens than to me, whom he recognises as a brother? Let him remember the royal precept – Do unto others as you would they should do to you. Had I attacked Bro C as he has me, I would have republished all he had said that I intended to controvert. Would Bro C like me to treat him in this respect as he has treated me? I think not. But enough for the present.”
In due time, Mr Campbell’s articles completed their appearance, and then the Dr made them the subject of exhaustive replies. We make the following

EXTRACTS
“The close of the year has at length arrived; and, with its demise, the Harbinger has finished his work of washing, scouring and wiping the escutcheon’ of ‘the present reformation’ from the foul stain with which the Advocate has sought to offuscate and contaminate it. The clogs are at length dissevered that ‘oppressed’ it, and caused its chariot wheels heavily to drive. How fair, how beautiful, how clean must ‘the present reformation’ appear, in the eyes of its patrons, now that its heraldic ‘quarterings’ stand ‘in bold relief’, upon an œtherial ‘field’, without a ‘material’ spec or spot. All sprite no substance, then, is the wretched motto of ‘reform!’ If true, so let it be; but if, perchance, hereafter it appear, that body, substance, matter, be the substratum of all God’s Institutions, then, adieu to the dogmas of our friend; God’s will and way are best.
“`Materialism!’ So the Harbinger terms the doctrine, that he only who has the Son hath eternal life; in other words, that man is not naturally and, therefore, necessarily immortal; but, that the immortality of his life is a gift of God to that portion of the race who obey His Institutions. This is the true point at issue; a proposition which the Harbinger in all the thirty pages of typography he has appropriated to ‘Materialism’, has not ventured to encounter. If immortality be conditional, which the Advocate affirms, then the dogma of abstract human spirits or ghosts vanishes into air, thin air. If it be unconditional as the abstract spiritualist maintains, then eternal life and immortality or incorruptibility is not the gift of God by Jesus Christ; for abstract spiritualism maintains that man ever since his creation has possessed an immortal spirit or soul, capable of existence separately and independently of his matter or body.
“The Advocate calls upon the Harbinger to meet this intelligible proposition, or all his labour of ‘wiping off the escutcheon of the present reformation’ will be lost, irretrievably lost.
“But, what a singular course has the Harbinger taken in maintaining his own traditions, and in opposing the ‘dogmatism’ of the Advocate. How unlike his wonted cautiousness and sagacity – how unlike himself! What polemic would think of encountering an opponent before he had the subject at issue fairly and fully before him? And who would dream of confuting one heretic by arguing against the traditions of another entirely different one? And yet, such has been the unfortunate tactics of the Harbinger in combating what he terms ‘materialism!’ Would it be believed that so dexterous a polemic has been for many moons past practising the cuts of literary warfare against the Advocate, by attacking Dr Priestley and the materialism taught by him! The Advocate studiously avoided the consultation of the work of any author upon ‘materialism’, in order that what he believed on the Constitution of Man, on the external world, and on the ultimate destiny of both, might be the result of an unbiased study of the book of Revelation.* He has affirmed this again and again; yet the Harbinger,

waywardly bent on his own policy, continued his pursuit of a phantom, as if determined to listen to nothing tending to disenchant his cerebrum of the gratifying hallucination!
“The opinion of the Advocate on a review of all the articles penned by the Harbinger on ‘Materialism’ is, that they have done more damage to his reputation as a defender of the faith, than all the attacks he has had to sustain from the most practised and skilful opponents in the ranks of the Apostacy. The labour of confutation will be light to the ‘dogmatical’ Advocate, inasmuch as the dogmata of the Harbinger, in the estimation of the discerning wayfarer, are amply sufficient to confute themselves. Instead of reasoning with the Advocate, as Paul did with the Jews, ‘out of the Scriptures’, he has carped at him out of the vain and speculative philosophy of Ex-Chancellor Brougham, and of the author of the ‘Natural History of Enthusiasm; as if the opinion of these gigantic aliens were anything but vanity, when the conditionality or unconditionality of eternal life was the subject in debate! Look at their practice, and what are their opinions worth on the question before us? They have neither wisdom nor knowledge enough to take the first step to immortality. They are of the gods of this world, whose minds are blinded by the Master of Evil. And yet such are the aids brought into the help of the Harbinger against ‘a stripling’, and ‘a very young man!’ Mighty are the powers brought to bear against a feeble object truly! Unworthy allies of a worthy man.
“The Advocate considers that a seriatim reply to the Harbinger is irrelevant and uncalled for. Indeed, were he to follow the advice of many friends to both parties, he would pass over the whole matter unnoticed. This he would do, but for certain considerations. Misrepresentations must be corrected, justice must be vindicated, and perversions of Scripture exposed. And this the Advocate will do, time and opportunity fitting. It is irrelevant, and would be uncalled for, were he to enter upon a defence of Priestleyism. He cannot defend the Dr, being ignorant of his doctrine, knowing neither his strong nor his weak points. The Harbinger seems to know all about the matter: he will, therefore, leave ‘the bold ghost’ of Priestley to defend his, her, or its (I know not the gender of a ghost) opinions against the Harbinger, or his abstract spirit, when they shall both meet in the doubtful ‘region prepared for abstract spirits, good or evil.’
“When the Advocate penned his first article, having allusion to the things debated, he had a controversy with no individual. The Harbinger became the voluntary champion of the human opinions he opposed. This was mighty kind; and doubtless much to the gratification of all spiritualists. Could Plato’s ghost but re-enter its mortal tenement, it would probably move a vote of thanks to the Harbinger for his able mystification. But this cannot be. However, to proceed, the Advocate neither desires nor labours to add any doctrines to ‘present reformation’. The Harbinger affirms that this is his desire – page 399, vol vii. It is a mistake. He labours for no denomination; it is for the truth as he believes it, independent of all sects or parties, he pleads, whether by writing, speaking, or acting. The party he belongs to is a church of Christ composed of but few persons, who assemble every first day of the week in a little village in Virginia, that they may worship God in spirit and in truth according to His word, and not according to the dogmas of this or that reformation or denomination. Can an advocate for the truth upon such independent principles as these, be sustained by those who profess to acknowledge no Lord but Jesus, and no sect or party but his? The experiment is making; we have yet to see.
“Well, then, the Advocate labours according to the light he has, to show to his readers what the Scriptures teach; he desires neither to add to, nor to take from the things they reveal. His labours may not please contemporary labourers, but he cannot help it. He does not wish wantonly to offend them. They labour according to their opinions of what is right; but he would observe that their opinions may be a rule for them, but not for him. The Advocate must judge for himself, and leave others to do as they please.”
“`He’, that is, the Advocate, says the Harbinger ‘complains of my not re-publishing almost the last volume of the Apostolic Advocate in the pages of the Harbinger… This is censuring me for my kindness – for my not injuring him! I positively affirm that I was actuated by kindness and personal esteem for him, as much as by a due regard to the edification of my readers, in not transferring his speculations to my pages, and obtruding them on the attention of those who were comparatively uninterested, and never to be edified by them; and who, in my opinion, would think more of the author the less they read of his writings.’
“About the beginning of the sixteenth century, there lived a man whom the Scriptures term ‘The Man of Sin’, but whose name, on the pages of history, is recorded as Leo X. He was considered, in the estimation of his friends, as ‘superior in age, learning, character, and general attainments’, to all the world. Contemporary with him, there lived a monk, named Martin; more notorious, albeit, by the name of Luther. He was a mere ‘stripling’ and ‘a very young man’, in the Catholic life, compared to ‘His Holiness’, who is said to be the great father of the faithful. Father Leo had a wonderful affection for his son Martin, who of all the sons of his mother, the Church, turned out to be a very naughty and unruly boy. As he grew apace, the insubordinate and rebellious Martin, had the presumption, among other things equally wicked, to deny the existence of purgatory and its pains, or as Protestants term it, an intermediate state. Father Leo, or as we would call him, Father Goodall (for he professed to be good to all), believed all these things, and pleaded for them very sincerely, by opinionative assertion, perversion of Scripture, and ecclesiastical thunders. These were all brought to bear upon poor Martin, out of ‘kindness’ to him, in order to save him from the pains of the purgatory he denied, and the worse ordeal of fire and faggot in reserve for all heretical sons who persist in living and dying contumacious. Father Leo invited him to Rome; but Martin refused to go. Finding that all the inducements he could offer failed in bringing him thither, he determined to proscribe him as unworthy of Christian society, being almost, if no altogether, worse than an infidel. Now, Martin had written a good many things which Father Leo thought ought not to have been written, inasmuch as he conceived them calculated to ‘unsettle the minds of the brethren’, who ‘were comparatively uninterested and never to be edified by them.’ Accordingly, out of great ‘kindness and personal esteem’ for Martin, as well as out of a ‘due regard to the edification’ of the faithful, he determined to prevent ‘his speculations’ being ‘obtruded on their attention’; being also convinced in his own mind, that all good and orthodox Catholics ‘would think more’ of son Martin and himself, ‘the less they read of his writings’. To this end, he prohibited the reading of his books, as the Harbinger has in effect done those of his ‘dogmatical’ friend, the Advocate.
‘It will be remembered by the readers of the Harbinger, that in one of its replies to Mr Jones, of London, it styled the Advocate ‘a chosen vessel’. Down to this period, nothing, we believe, had appeared in the Advocate which the Harbinger calls ‘re-baptism’ and ‘materialism’. It was not then his opinion that people would ‘think more of the author the less they read of his writings.’ Why was the Advocate at that time a ‘chosen vessel?’ Was it because he was thought to be the echo only of the voices that issued from Bethany, and reverberated among its hills? Has it since been discovered that man-worship is no trait in his character, and that, though he may respect a brother, he will obey none, however learned or accomplished, as a master? If this be not the reason of the change in the Harbinger’s opinion, we are at a loss to conceive the cause: for the style of the Advocate is the same now as it was then. It is concluded, then, that an independent examination of truth, and a free discussion of the ‘whys’ and ‘wherefores’ of Scripture topics, if that examination and discussion transcend the bounds prescribed by the Harbinger, is displeasing to him, and, if practised, obnoxious to his ecclesiastical thunder. But, as Harry VIII said of the Pope and himself, ‘Verily, he hath the wrong sow by the tether.’ Be it known to the Harbinger, that if he approve not of ‘re-baptism’ or Materialism, or any other subject, and he want to retain his well-earned reputation and influence, and he determine to oppose said topics, he must be less personal and vituperative – employ ad captandum vulgus policy less – and use arguments to the point more. If an angel were to argue with Satan, he would not attempt to expose his errors by calling him nicknames, as the Harbinger has the Advocate. The Advocate, as he has often said, asks no favours; he supplicates his opponents in argument for no verbal demonstrations of ‘kindness and person esteem’. Let it be forgotten who the writer is; and if what he writes be ridiculous or heretical, let these properties be displayed for the benefit of the reader. But, if the Harbinger, in designating the Advocate a chosen vessel, be admitted to have had the gift of discerning spirits, and to have spoken truly, may not the Advocate in having written so much on ‘re-baptism’ and ‘materialism’ be doing the very work his ‘earthen vessel’ was ‘chosen’ to do? Let the Harbinger ponder well on this singular illustration of his own vaticination.”