I PRINCETON? N. J. Part of the ADDISON ALivXAXDKR LIURARY, which was pvostnted bj Messr.-. R. L .vNi> A. Stuart. >©©<; BX 7631 .LA77 Letters of Paul and Amicus 1 I Digitized by tine Internet Arcliive in 2015 littps://arcliive.org/details/lettersofpaulamiOOpaul ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED IX A WEEKLY PAPER, :PRIXT£D at WLLMIXGTOX, DELAWARE. — aff»€W^©CWWe?«»»- PUBLISHED AND SOLD BY ROBERT PORTER, WILMINGTON; AND JOSEPH RAKE STRAW, PHILADELPHIA. IT may he proper to inform the Reader, that this interest- ing discussion commenced so far back as the earlijpart of 1821, tvith an Essay over the signature of PJiUL,^^ (in the Christian Repository,) charging the Society of Friends with holding doctnnes and practices inimical to the pnnciples of the Gospel, as contained in the Scriptures of the Old and J^ew Testaments, These charges were ably met by another writer over the signature of MIICTJS*^^ Seldom have the productions of anonymous writers excited a more lively inter- ^t titan have these of " PaitZ" and Jimiais,'' especially among Presbytenans and Friends. As the Jiutlwrs have never been recognized, they only are responsible for the sentiments expressed in their Essays, THE PUBLISHERS. LETTERS, &e. I Sdturdajt May i2, 1821. LETTER 1. TO THIi SOCITITX 0¥ TUlTiXTiS. A SINCERE friend of your society, a lover of truth, and a well wisher to every individual of mankind desires to address you on some most important subjects. As you are a jilmn people, you will permit me to address you in a 'plain manner, without any meretricious ornament, or conformity to the taste of a fantastic world. If asked why I address you through this medium ? — because I know no other. Your careful absence from t!ie reli- gious assemblies of all other denominations, your objection to tlie perusal of their books, your unwillingness to take their periodical works, or join theii' Bible, Missionary and other public christian associations, and your habitual reservedness of intercourse, render it diflOicult and almost impossible to commu- nicate with you in the usual way ; — and even through the medi- um of the press, it will be difficult to attract your notice or en- gage your attention. Notwithstanding these discouragements, however, it is pro- posed to address to your consideration, a series of Letters on the several important subjects upon which we differ; letters which I hope candor will induce you to read and weigh ; if not, I trust they will not escape the attention of the rest of the com- munity. And here, I should do injustice both to myself and you, not to acknowledge my approbation of your general character. Of your morality and amability, your civil integrity, affectionate manners, exemplary simplicity, your prudence and economy, and I may add your efficient internal discipline, I have the highest admiration. In your opposition to war, slavery, and religious persecution I can join with all my heai-t. But in your neglect of religious newspapers, your opposition to Bible and Missionary Societies, your rejection of several Ordinances of 4 6 €lirist, your unsocial separation from all other denominations ; in short, in the characteristic notions and conduct of your socie- ty I cannot join ; — for reasons which shall hereafter he assigned. Whether any thing of mine shall draw forth an answer, is a matter of perfect indifference. Controversy is not wished, but is not feared. This only may he said, as I shall attack no one's person, arraign no one's motives, but simply oppose principles and doctrines, no one need expect me to notice personal invec- tive, hard names, suspected motives, nor any thing but sober ar- gument. Epithets, therefore, of impertinent," '* self-conceit- ed," proselytor," persecutor," or any names of the kind I give notice beforehand, will all be thrown away, as ^* I am arm- ed so strong in honesty, they'll pass me like the idle wind which I respect not." As I know you have the most erroneous notions of our doc- trines and principles, it is not impossible I may have imbibed erroneous views of yours. As I have no object in view but truth, my lieart shall be open to conviction, and every error I shall be happy to correct. The statement of your doctrines shall be given, not from the mouth of your enemies, but as far as possi- ble, in your own phrases, taken from your daily conversation^ and your most admired writers. A complete discussion of every topic, with all the arguments and objections, in the short compass of a newspaper essay is out of the question. A concise statement of truth and error, is all that will be attempted. And now, conscious that my motives are pure, my cause just, and the objects for which I contend of infinite moment, to tliis and every future essay I should have no objection to subscribe my name in full ; but as it would answer no good purpose, and might be ascribed by some to ostentation ; and as tlie truth or error of what I write has nothing to do with my personal cha- racter, I subscribe my sentiments by the name of an old and frequent combatant of yours, the Apostle PAUL. Saturday^ May 19, 1821, LETTER II. ON INTERNAX LIGHT. Though averse to creeds, you have a system of faith and doc- trinal bond of union. As a Society you tolerate a greater dif- ference of sentiment among youi'selves than any other sect j but yet in certain general and distinctive points you all agree, as is 7 tvident fi'om your conversation, conduct and books. These dis- tinctive or characteristic doctrines, I shall call your cr-eed or system of faith ; and these are the doctrines, which, from time to time, I intend to canvass. In all unscriptural systems of religion there is a radical er- ror; some fundamental principle, upon which, as on a corner stone, the whole system rests. To loosen this is to sap the whole building ; a blow here, is a blow at the root." That doctrine of yours, therefore, which I shall first call in question is this ; that there is a certain internal lights which is the source of all divine knowledge^ and the only sufficient guide and rule of conduct; and that this light is either innate, o?- given to all.'* That you set up this internal light as a standard superior to the sacred scriptures is the general understanding of other denomi- nations, and I think, evident from your conversation, preaching, and the books you patronize. In a summary of your doctrines stated to have been drawn up by one of your most respectable members," contained in the Encyclopedia, and in Buck's The- ological Dictionary, (article Quakers) it is stated, <*To Christ alone we give the title of the word of God, and not to the sa- cred scriptures ; although we highly esteem these sacred writings^ in SUBORDINATION to the spint.^' And in Kersey's Treatise, <^ we do not agree with those professors of Christianity, who say the sacred scriptures are the word of God." (p. 20.) Hence, your doctrines, 'we hear such language as this, — " We cannot help it, but we feel we are right." — " The same spirit which was given to Paul is given to us, his writings have been cor- rupted, and it is safer to trust the spirit tlian them — when we can drink at the fountain, why drink from the muddy stream !" ' — That was merely Paul's opinion, he was not always inspir- ed"— and many other phrases of like import, all calculated to reduce the authority of the Bible, and exalt the light within. Now, in opposition to this, I maintain that the sacred scrip- tures, (in their literal and logical sense) are the supreme and o?i- ly standard of religious truth. 1 . Because they were written by inspiration of God. If you deny their inspiration, what are you better than the Deists, ma- ny of whom admit the sacred writers were good men. If you admit their inspiration ; in other words, that these holy men spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," you must sub- mit to their decisions, or make yourselves wiser than God ! From the very circumstance, therefore, that they were dictated by infinite wisdom, (which you must admit, or profess deism,) Ave infer nothing can be a wiser or holier guide than they ; of course there can be no higher standard of right and wrong. in conversation, when particular 3 Too many of your society, I fear, deny the plenary inspim- tion of the sacred volume, and are deists in heai-t ; but I am willing to believe the majority agree with Jesse Kersey, that they were written under the guidance of the word or Spirit of God," and therefore are to be held in " high esteem." With such only have I controversy. Says the Apostle, 1 Cor. xiv^ 37 : If any man tliink himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that tlie things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord,^' Gal. i. 9 : If any man preach any other gospel, let him be accursed." 1 Thes. iv. 8 : He that despiseth, despisetli not man, but God, who hath given un- to us his holy spirit." He, therefore, that for the sake of any other standard, rejects what the apostle WTote, rejects " the commandments of God," and despises" his maker. Those * who in the face of the divine declarations, that all scrip- ture is given by inspiration ;" of the divine threatening to take his part from the book of life, who should take from the words of this book ;" and of Christ's promise to " guide his apostles into all truth, and bind in heaven what they should bind on earth" shall presume to reject or alter any part, have surely no claim to the title of christian. With such, at present, I have nothing to do. But whether those who regard the sacred scriptures as inspir- ed of God, and yet set up a higher standard of faith and practice, are consistent with themselves, or with the sacred scriptures is the present question. To the Bible, which you, as well as I, profess to reverence, I appeal. If it give countenance to such a standard, I submit. If not, if it uniformly sit as judge itself, and forbid all other trusts, condemn all other guides, your lead- ing doctrine must be given up. 2. Our Lord made the sacred scriptures his standard, and why should not rve make it ours ? '* What saith the scriptures ?" was a frequent appeal. It is written," was enough for him. ** The scriptures cannot be broken," was a fundamental principle. On questions of personal guilt or innocence, he sometimes appealed to conscience ; but in all disputes concerning doctrine and duty, when scri})ture could be quoted, it was quoted, and deemed deci- sive. He appealed to a standai'd of which all his hearers could judge. Had he appealed to his own internal light, who but him- self could liave ascertained the conformity of his words to truth ? 3. We are expressly commanded to try the spirits, 1 John iv. 1 : " Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God, for many false prophets are gone abroad into the world" It seems in tliat age, as in every age since, some were . for following internal impulses as their only rule. Against this the apostle guards, and enjoins to try all doctrines and conduct by scriptural rules. If they contradicted the apostle's doctriues, tlic spirits were false. How perfectly do you rexerse tliis oi Jer, and instead of ti-ying the spirits by the scriptures, yo^i try the scnp-' tures by the spirit ! PAUL. Saturday^ May s6, 1821. LETTER III. ox INTERNAL LIGHT. Ix my last I considered your doctrine of Internal Light, and showed its inconsistency with the inspiration of the Bible, that it was contrary to the example of Christ, and the command of the apostle John. Let me now offer a few further arguments for your consideration. 4. You expose your people to the delusions of an evil heart, I put this simple question. How shall a man know when he has the spirit? I can conceive of but two ways, from consciousness alone, or a comparison of our feelings with the scriptures. If the lat- ter, you make the Bible your standard, contrary to your doc- trine ; if the former, if you permit a man to judge in himself^ without reference to scinpture, when he has the spirit, you leave every man at the mercy of his w orst enemy, and under the guid- ance of ddceitfulness itself. For says the prophet, Jerem. xvii. 9: The heaii; is deceitful above all things and desperately wick- ed, who can know it." And is this the infallible standard by w^hich we are to estimate truth ! (You would have evei'y man make conscience a higher guide than the word of truth.) You make every thing of conscience, set it up as an infallible guide, an' unerring counsellor. Now, we admit conscience is good, as far as it goes, but unless guided by scripture, it will in many points go wrong ; scriptui e speaks of an evil conscience," of persons whose mind and conscience were defiled." The apos- tle Paul says he ** lived in all good conscience," while in his un- regenerate state, and that he verily thmighi *^ he ouglit to do ma- ny things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth :" Acts xxvi. 9» for which very acts he afterwards condemned himself as a blasphemer, persecutor and the chief of sinners : 1 Timo- thy i. 13, 15. Have we any hint that the scriptures arc so de- ceitful, defiled," deceptive as this standard of yours ! Can you wonder then that we prefer trusting, wliere the Lord and his apos- tles trusted, to the firm word of prophecy," rather than the ig^ nis fatuus of our own imaginations i The letter of scripture is plain, the heart is more delusive than a dream. That a way may 10 seem to us riglit and yet prove wrong is evident from Prov. xvi. 25 : There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but tlie end thereof are the ways of death." How then shall any one know whether a way w hich seems right, is right ! Vou have no stand- ard, 7ve have ; we go to the letter of scripture. He that trusts to any light independent of, or contrary to scripture, trusts to his own heart, and <* he who trusts his own heart is a fool." Prov. xxviii. 26, 5. Scripture projjoses itself as oiir standard^ Isaiah viii. 19. 20; " And when they shall say unto you seek unto them that have familiar spirits, should not a people seek unto their God ? To the Law and to the Testimony, if they speak not according to this word it is because tliere is no liglit in them." Can any di- rection be more plain ? The law and the testimony are to be our guide, and men professing divine light are to be tried by the plain letter of tlie law. If they contradict the scriptures, there is no light in them ; their light is darkness. Thus the apostle com- mends the Bereans, because they searched, (what? internal light? no,) the sacred scriptures whether the things which he preached, were so," Acts xvii. 1 1 . And the direction of our Lord, to the Jews \vas, not to consult some internal luminary, but search the ** sacred scriptures." Arguments on this head might be multiplied to an indefinite extent ; but conciseness is my object. To all this you will object. Obj, 1 The sacred scriptures are never called the word of God.^' Jlns, It is of little consequence what they are called, provided they represent his mind and will. But that they are called the word of God, instead of more, I will rest on two passages to prove, 1. Thess. ii. 13 : We thank God, because when ye received the word of God, v»hich ye heard of ns, ye received it not as the word of men, but as the word of God." Here the ** woi'd of God" means something Avhich might be heard, and is put in opposition to the tvord of men. The other is still more plain. Col. iii. 16: ** Let the wo?'(i o/ C/i?*isi dwell in you rich- ly," i. e. on your construction, let the Christ of Christ dwell richly in you ! But as I said before, the rejection of the name is nothing, did it not lead to the rejection of the thing. Ohj. 2. Christ is the light that lighteth every man that Com- eth into the worUV^ True ; he giveth to each, all the light he has ; but where is it said, how much ? and where that he htith furnished each with a guide superior to the Bible ? Those re- gions where tlie Bible is not known, are called tlie dark places of the earth," the ** places where no vision is." Obj. 3. The sacred Scriptures have been corrupted by trans- mission.'* *^ns. Tins is a bohl assertion, which you are bound to prove. But befor e you undertake the task, remember, 11 / 1, That in so doing you reflect on Providence, as if after tiikin,^ pains to give, lie would not take care to preserve. He liath said» not a jot or tittle of his law shall fail." Now suppose a word or clause in a prophecy he altered, it may falsify the whole. # 2. We have Manuscripts of the Bihle, known hy the form oi' the letter and manner of writinj^, to he 14 or 1600 years old, which in every material respect tally with our translation. Such are the Alexandrine Manuscript in the Bristish Museunv the Codex Beza, Camhridge, llie Codex Ephraim, Paris, and the Vatican at Rome, supposed to ha^ e heen Avritten hefore the lifth century. 3. We have versions and translations into the various langua- ges of the earth, made soon after the christian era, all of which agree with our English version. The Syriac version was made (say learned men) at the close of the firvSt, or commencement of the second century. Now these are so many unequivocal proofs that we have the sacred hooks as they were first penned. But, lest you should say, who knows whether all tliese agree : I add, 4. The different versions and manuscripts have heen collated and compared, and the extent of the *• various readings" asrei - tained. That the sacred scriptures were corrupted, and that different nations had different Bihles w as a very popular infidel objection urged during the last century. To meet the objection and to compose the anxiety of timid christians, learned men travelled over Europe and througliout Christendom, comparing the various Manuscripts in all their parts. Kennicott collated 594 Manuscripts. De Rossi, 927 Manuscripts and printed co- pies. Dr. Mill labored 30 years, and ascertained 30,000 various readings. Wetstein afterwards discovered more than a million f But to what did they amouiit ? to nothing ! The whole resulted in the blessed discovery that tlic objection was false, that God had most remarkably preserved the purity of his word, suffer- ing no material change to be effected, and only permitting such changes of letters and synonimous particles, and such other un- important errors as could not have been prevented without a con- stant miracle. Since then the sacred scriptures were given by inspiration of God — since Christ made them the subject of constant appeal — and the apostle brings all spirits to their bar — since they assume for themselves the judgment seat — since all other guides are de- ceitful and vain — and since we have no reason to doubt wc have them as at first given by the spirit of God, wc conclude, to re- ject, reduce, or alter any part, or to make the whole subordi- nate to some other standard, i*^ nnrcasonahle, ijirorrect and dah- gerous. VXl'h. LETTER I. AMICUS TO PAUL. I OB SERTE in the eiftii number of the Christian Repository,*' % that a correspondent has commenced a series of addresses to the Religious Society of Friends. As it is important that an author shouhl have a clear understanding of his subject, in order to be useful to tliose whom he wishes to instruct ; and as Paul" pro- fesses to be a lover of truth," I entertain a hope that I may be able to give him some information, that may add materially to bis stock of knowledge, relating to that people, and perhaps save him the trouble of much fuHher inquiry. Notwithstanding his first address bears the unkindly face of a challenge, and his attitude is that of a man strongly armed" for battle, yet it is not my intention to enter with him into the field of Religious Controversy; for thoug^i he may "not fear it," yet I confess I do. I 'save cherished from my youth up, a kindly feeling tow ards my fellow professors of the Christian name, under the various reli- gious denominations which distinguish them, and I am afraid of controversy, because in its course it often, if not always enlisis those passions which militate against charity, without which, all our professions, and even our other virtues are as the Apos- tle Paid affirms, but as sounding brass or a tinkling cym- - bal." My object is to state a few facts, and to make such ob- sei'vations as naturally arise out of the subject, and then to leave tlic candid and dispassionate enquirer to make such reflections as the statements may suggest. The first observation in his preliminary essay, that claims particular attention is, ** our careful absence from the religious as- semblies of all other denominations.'* Whether this feature of the Society of Friends is peculiar to tliem, I cannot say. I presume that most christian professors attend their own places of worsliip, and are consequently absent fj'om the religious meetings of others. But tliere are two causes w hich 1 apprehend operate with us to produce this effect, which I will endeavour to explain : And First. It is about 170 years since tlie Society of Friends were regularly oi'ganized as a religious body. They set out with a belief tliat tlie injunction of our Lord was binding on them, where he said to his disciples, Matthew x. 8 : " freely ye have received, freely give." This plain command, standing in con- ti'adiction to no other precept of the same or equal authority, tljey consider as conclusive, and in conformity with it their min- isters have ever preaclied without money and witliout price." Tiiey conceive that a mercenary ministry is unwarranted by thc' 13 precepts of the gospel, or the practice of the Apostles ; that it is derogatory to the dignity of a christian minister ; that it Ics- isens tlie practical influence of the office, by the imputation of self- ish views to those who receive pay for preaching ; that, it has a tendency to suppress reproof and other plain dealing towards those who pay, and begets a desire to please at the expense of ti'uth ; and finally, that it is subject to the grossest abuses, as the experience of ages abundantly demonstrates. It needs not that we be deeply read in ecclesiastical history, to discover proofs of this ; almost every page of it gives some incontrovert- ible evidence of the fact. Let us cast our eyes on Europe, and look back through the gloomy vista of a few centuries. What a melancholy picture do the effects, produced by a hireling priest- hood^ present to the contemplative mind ! and even at this day, in some parts of that country, what grievous burdens do this class of people bind upon the shoulders of their christian breth- ren, which they will not raise a finger to lighten or unloose. It is the connexion of pecuniary rewards with tlie ministry that has given rise to the word *' Friestci'aftf'' and other oppro- brious terms which go to lessen the influence of the professed ministers of Christ, terms which would never have been invent- ed, had they always imitated the noble example of the Apostle Paul, who, at Miletus, addressing those among whom he had laboured in the Gospel, told them in these memorable words. Acts XX. 33 : ** I have coveted no man's silver, or gold, or ap- parel, yea, ye yourselves know that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me. I have sJiewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord, how^ he said it is more blessed to give than to receive." Under impressions produced by reflections such as these, the Society of Friends have believed that they could not consistently with their principles, and views of Scripture truth, countenance a mercenary ministry, even so far, as to attend the ^^ orship of those who employed it. It is not from a belief that there are no sincere and virtuous men in the ministry amongst tiiem ; it is not from any personal dislike to these functionaries ; it is not from any disrepect to our fellow prefessors of the Christian name ; it is not from any shyness towards those who differ from us in opi- nion, that we do not join them in their forms of worship. We sincerely love and esteem those under whatever name, whose lives correspond with their profession, who evince by .their conduct that in essential points they are not hearers only, but doers of the •word. Secondly, As God is equally present every where, the Societ\ of Friends do not believe that the place of meeting for religious 14 purposes, has any ])eculiar sanctity, because of its use ; they do not believe that t)»e mere assembling together, in order to wor- ship, creates an obligation on those who meet to make a sign of adoration when they enter the house ; and having no scripture precept or example for it, they think that uncovering the head in a religious assembly (except when the divine being is address- ed in vocal prayer,) is rather a sign of superstition than a ne- cessary religious act. From the practice of other christian pro- fessors, generally, I presume they think differently, but as the Society of Friends see no reason to conform to this ceremony, and as the non-observance of it, might give offence to their so- ber neighbours, they find in this circumstance an additional rea- son for absenting themselves from the worship of those who practice it. Having given some reasons for the absence of Fnends from the worship of other professors, I shall proceed to notice ** Paul's" next observation : to wit, our alleged objection to the perusal of books, WTitten by members of other denomina- tions." By his publication of this sentiment, I shall endeavor to shew that it is not impossible that " Paul" may have imbib- ed erroneous view s." I was educated w ithin the precincts of the Society to whom ** Paul" addresses himself, and have had for many years free and extensive communication with the members of it, and I can safely say that this is the first time I have ever lieard such a sen- timent. I have perused their book of discipline, carefully, and find no allusion to tlie subject. Tiie yearly meeting recommends to heads of families and guardians of minors, to prevent as much as possible, their children and others under their care and tuition, from reading books tending to prejudice the profession of the christian religion, to create the least doubt concerning the authenticity of tlie holy scriptures, oi* of the saving truths declared in them ; and earnestly recommends that its members should discourage the reading of Plays, Romances, Novels and other pernicious books, as a practice inconsistent with the purity of the christian religion ;" but I no w here find a word against reading books of a religious nature, written by other christian professors : on the contrary, the writings of some of tliese are standard books in the private libraries of Friends. And, I give - it as my deliberate sentiment, that there is no society of people who are better versed in tlie doctrines and principles of other re- ligious professors than the members of the Society of Friends are. The writer of this article, although his library cannot be called a large one, has at least eighty volumes wholly devoted to religious subjects, all of which, w ere written by members of other religious professions ; amongst which, I find on examina- 15 tion, the productions of some of the principal professors dis- tinguished by different names, who call themselves christians ; and I have not the slightest idea that any of my fellow membei^s would, if they saw all the books of my library, consider me as heterodox, or in the least departing from the views or principles of the society to which I belong, on that account. Equally foreign from the fact, is the assertion, that we " are unwilling to take the periodical works, published by members of other denominations." It is true, that we consult our taste in tlie purchase of works of this kind ; we do not subscribe for books we cannot relish or approve ; but I cannot suppose reas- onable men will censure us much for this, as I apprehend few^ people do otherwise. I am perfectly satisfied on one point, that is, were I to take all the periodical religious publications in the world, no member of our society Avould blame me for it, nor would I incur, by so do- ing, the censure of any of its rules, provided the profits of such publication were not appropriated to support some establishment inconsistent with our religious principles, and also, provided 1 punctually paid the subscription money for them. The other charges of Paul, I propose to notice in future num- bers of the Repository. AMICUS. LETTER IV, ox BAPTISM. In the rth Number of the Repository, a friend of yours, under the signature of Amicus" has undertaken to defend your cause. >Vith the amiable and excellent spirit of his remarks I confess myself well pleased, and from hir introductory luldress, antici- pate candor and charity in all future oommunications. The top- ics he has touched, I will soon discuss ; but, at present, I cannot be diverted from what I deem infinitely more important subjects. To his essay I have the same objection, as to the society of which he is a member — he makes too much of little things^— -is employed, like the Pharisees of old, *• tithing mint, anise and cummin," to the neglect of the " weightier matters of the law." hether the ministry be supported by previous or subsequent, by express or implied contract, whether men imprison them- selves in their own churches, or occasionally visit other sanctua- ries to hear tUe other side of the question, whether they say yea or yeSf thcc or yon, wear a black coat or a drab one, a'/aree hat 16 or a svmll one, and worship with the head covered or naked, are surely matters of small moment, questions fit lor none but chil- dren ! But whether the word of God or the vagaries of a deceit- ful heai-t should be our rule of faith — whether we have a right to reject the seals of God's covenant and the badges of Christi- anity ; and whether we are to be justified by our own or by another's righteousness, are questions of high moment, and oi* eternal consequence — questions which I am willing to discuss. Until therefore your friend assail some important doctrine, start some important error, much as I respect his talents and his heart, he will excuse me, if I pursue my originally contemplat- ed course. I proceed to examine your doctrine on the Sacraments or seaL^ ing Ordinances; and first of Baptism. You teach that water baptism is not an ordinance of Christ — that the only baptism required is the baptism of the Spirit,'' That this is your doctrine, is too palpable from the universal practice of your society, and from all tiiat Barclay, Clarkson, and Kersey have witten on the subject, to need any formal proof. What expressions are more common in your discourse with us, than, 'Mt is right for you if \ou think it right, but then it is an uncommanded useless ceremony ; — if we have the thing signified, it is of little consequence whether we have the sign;'* — *'all such ceremonies are inconsistent with the spirit- uality of the present dispensation;" — *' watei* baptism will nev- er save without spiritual baptism" &c. &c. with much more, some of which is true, some false, and some nothing to the point. That baptism considered in itself will save its subjects, we do not pretend ; but as an act of obedience to God, it is an ap- pointed means of grace and salvation. That an act may be right for us and wrong for you, is readily granted, provided that act be of an indifferent, uncommanded kind. Modes of dress, forms of speech, kinds of food may be right or wrong, accord- ing to our notions : Rom. xiv. But what God by express prc- eept has made right, can never be made wrong ; and what he hasr made wrong, no notions of ours can make right. If God has not commanded water baptism, the use of it is left at our discre- tion ; but if he has made it a matter of positive injunction, it i& no longer a matter of indifference, we neglect it at our peril. As to llavitig the thing signified without the sign, it may be, but in general, it is not to be expected. And if we have obtained the baptism of the spirit, we ought, nevertheless, to submit to tlie baptism of water. Did not Abraham receive drcnmcision the seal of the faith which he had bcf are circumcision^ Rom. iv. 11. Were not tlie Ethiopian eunuch, the Roman (y'liturion, the Apostle I'aul and many others baptized with water after they 17 possessed an interest in Christ? Acts viii. ix, x. It is not enough, therefore, to have the thing signified. It is not enofisjh to be ill Christ, we ought also to wear the badge, make a public profession of his name, and openly put on Christ. As to the ** ceremonies hcing inconsistent with the present dis- pensation,"— this is begging t!ic question witliout an offer of an argument. Are you wiser than Grod ? — If he think them consist- ent, are you prepared to contradict ? If he, to assist our faith, and move our feelings, is pleased to address us througli our senses, **will you disannul his judgment, and condemn him, that ye may he righteous Job xl. 8. AVe are now prepared for the question, " Is water baptism an ordinance of God, at present binding on the church r" Let it be understoood, we are not now inquiring about the mode of bap- tism, whether it should be administered by sprinkling, pouring or immersion; — or about tlic subjects of baptism, whether adults only, or their children also : But is water baptism, in any shape^ obligatory on the church? We allirm, and you deny. — Consider^ 1. The express command of Jesus Christ, Mat. xxviii. 19, 20. Go ye, therefore, teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commaiided you ; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world.'* And Mark xvi. 16 : *' Whosoever belie vcth and is baptised shall be saved." — quoted soon after by the Apostle Peter Acts ii. 38. •* Repent and be baptised every one of you." — Now, when we re- collect the ordinary meaning of the word baptism, and especially the sense in which our Lord knew the Apo-ities understood it, one would think these texts alone would end the controversy. Some other spirit than the spirit of God. some otlier light than the light of scripture and reason must be called in to interpret these as not enjoining water baptism. Efforts however have been made to set the whole aside. First, it has been said, by baptising notlung more is meant than teaching J'^ But it is a sufficient answer to this construction, that the word baptise is never used in this sense in the whole of scriptui^e: — and that teaching is also commanded in the next verse. Teaching must accompany baptism ; but baptism is not teacliing. Again ; it is said baptism means conferring the Holy Spirit. It is granted the word is sometimes used in this sense, because purifying tlie soul by the Holy Spirit was the thing ^ig- niiied or represented by the rite of baptism. But this is not its signification here. Because it was an apostolic or human act which is here commanded. But to baptise with tlie Holy Ghost ii-as no more in tlie power of the Apostles than to create a world. Like John the Baptist they could only "baptise with Avater.'* Besides, as this commission was to last *'aMays eVen to the end of the world, it follows, some are commanded to baptise now. But wliat minister, either of yonr denomination or any other can baptise with the Holy Ghost ! **Paul may plant, 6cc.'' The truth is, tlie application of 7vater is the ordinary ^ conferring the ffoly Spirit the extraordinary meaning of the term. And thus it was understood by all the Apostles and writers of the New Testament, as will be ev ident if we consider, 2d. The Jipostles actually applied water to their converts. Wc have seen their Commission, let us now look at their Practice, 1. Philip, Acts viii. 36, 38, ^icc. Pliilip and the eunuch ** came to a certain water, and he said, see here is water, what doth hin- der me to be baptized? and they went down both into the water, and he baptised him." Was not this water baptism? 2. Peter, Acts X. 44 — 48 : While Peter yet spake, the Holy Gliost fell on all those that heard the word : then Peter said. Can any for- bid water ? and he commanded them to be baptised in the name of tlie Lord." Surely Peter thought the baptism of the Holy Ghost was not to set aside the baptism of water. 3. And so did Paul, 1 Cor. i. 14. 1 thank God that I Z>a;;i?sed none of you 1)ut Crispus and Gains ; and the household of Stephanas," (since they made it an occasion of party spirit.) What! thank God that he had communicated the Holy Ghost to only a few ! — Never; he must have referred to water baptism. When he afterwards says (v. 17.) Christ sent me not to baptize, but preach the Gospel," he evidently means notliing more than that preaching is more important than baptism, or that preaching was his chief business. That Luke also understood baptism as something dif- ferent from conferring the Holy Ghost is evident from the whole 'book of Acts, V. Acts viii. 16. xix. 5, 6. And here, for the present, I pause in my argument, and wait for your objections. In the mean time, let me beseech you, my dear friends weigh well tliis fact, — that the Commission of our Lord, if as you suppose, not express, was calculated to lead to Tvater baptism, — that all the apostles and primitive christians, so far as we can learn tlieir practice, observed an ordinance which you reject; — that tlie wliole christian world for 1600 years, (till "170 years ago,") and nine tentlis of professing christians now, are against you on this subject; — and then an- swer if there is not reason to doubt tlie correctness of your doc- ti'ine ; and will it not be a wiser plan to conform to an ordinance so easy and useful, lest peradventurc, you be found fighting aeainst God. PAUL. 19 Sit'e):th-day,6th Mn. 26, lazi, LETTER 11. Having in my former communication endeavoured to illus- ti'ato some of the views of the Society of Friends, and to state some facts which I deem important to a right understanding of their character as a religious hody, I shall proceed to notice some of the other remarks of Paul," contained in his first Es- say. Tlie suhject of his second address, I must leave for future consideration. From some cause I apprehend their character and view^s are misunderstood, what that cause is, I must leave, although I cannot believe it proceeds from habitual reserve." It is true, they are not fond of controversy, but I have never ob- served that they w ere averse to explanation. The period in which religious controversy w^as a favourite theme, with the generality of christian j)rofessors, I believe has long passed by. It has been succeeded by a day, either of in- difference to the subjects of it, or of calm investigation into the all-important concerns of salvation. With men of sound reflec- tion, the quiet end patient search after truth must be decidedly preferable to the hurried pursuit of it through the stOrmy and turbid region of controversy ; these do not willingly quit the serenity of the former, for the unsettled and tempestuous scenes of tlie latter : nor would I desire they should. If the sacred scriptures are the only adequate rule of faith and practice, they must be best understood in a state of retii'ement and private prayer. If tlie Holy Spirit, under whose influence they wei^ written, is the primary source of instruction, its language w ill be most intelligible w hen the mind is undisturbed by tlie clamour of debate. With these views I shall endeavour to keep the gi'ound of calm discussion, and to give a reason of the hope, aftd faith, and practice, of the pco])le w ith w hom I stand connect- ed, in a manner consistent with the dignity and solemnity of a re- ligious subject. Having premised these observations, I shall pro- ceed to Paul's" next remarks, ** That Friends are unwilling io join with others in their Bible and Missionary Societies. In order to understand the real state of the case, it may be necessary to mention a few^ facts. In the first place, a consider- able number of their members, both in England and America, have joined the Bible Associations, and rank amongst their ac- tive and liberal contributors ; of this, w ere it necessary, I could adduce ample proofs. In the next place, our Yearly Meeting have a book department, and otlicers appointed to distribute Bi- bles and other religious publications, as suitable occasions are presented : this is not a new establisliment, it is of veiy long standing. It makes no noise in the world, w as never publLsheil 20 in the newspapers. It is like a gentle stream fed from an un- failhiT spi iiii , spreading verdure and fertility tlirougli all its meariderH — silent in its course, and scarcely known but where its bencf ts are felt. It can scarcely have escaped general observation, that the So- ciety cf Friends have a very quiet way of doing their business, it is in fact tlie true ground of Paul's" complaint against them in the present instance. In their works of charity, they seem studiously to avoid every thing that might attract public attention. Many of their members are fed, and clothed, and e(>ucated, from the funds of the society, whilst tlieir fellow mem- bers rrenerally do not know them to be subjects of public bounty : thus tlie end of charity is answered in a two fold way ; poverty is relieved, without being exposed. i liave sometimes when viewing them as with the eye of an in- dilfcient observer, been struck with an idea that they laid par- ticular stress upon that injunction of our Lord, *'When thou docst thine alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand (■cc th, that thine alms may be in secret, and thy Father who seeth 171 secret himself shall reward thee openly." Matt. vi. 3. Be 11 at as it may, the noiseless tenor of their progress, has often been tl^c subject of remark ; but I can hardly su])pose that indif- ferent judges will consider them much behind their fellow chris- tians in **love and good works." \^ hen I have considei-ed the course pursued by members of other religious persuasions in their Bible Societies, Mission- ary Associations, Charity Schools, Tract Societies and other benevolent institutions, tlie innumerable pamphlets and news- papers tl'ey ])ublish, teeming with accounts of their good deeds, with; lists of their contributor's names, with the amount of their d( nfitions, as v ell as with the surprising effects of their labours, it has seemed to me that they must have forgotten the command of our Lord, where he says, ** \A hen thou doest thij?e alms do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in their s\ nr;gogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men:" Mf-tt. vi. 2. If they do not forget it, they must suppose the end justifie;^ the means, and warrants them to pursue a different course fron; that pointed out by the higlfest authority. The man that went up into the temple to pray, boasted of his good works be- fore those ^\ ho were assembled with him under the same roof, and stood reproved ; tlie walls of a single house, form two nav- rov a boundary for modern christians to tell of theirs in, and by a thousand heralds they proclaim them to the wide world. The inconsistency of this ])ractice, I think, must arrest the attention of ever^ r eilccting mind, and is, I have no doubt, one cause why f>omc do not join ^cm in tlieir labours. 21 On the subject of Mssions, the Society of Friends have never been indifferent ; for though they have not joined in the attempt, to convert the natives of Birniah or Hindostan, thousjh they have sent no Missionary to Java, China, or Japan, yet they have not been idle at Iwme, They are not opposed to missions. Under circumstances which are deemed warrantable or auspicious, they are friendly to them. And I think that Pail's'* benevolent mind ought not to be pained because they do not join with others in the work. So that they do their share of the business, the Christian Philanthropist will be satisfied. Friends have on this continent, at tlie present moment, at least four settlements among the Indian natives, which have been maintained at a vast expense^ Paul," I suppose, did not know of this : indeed how could he know it ? They have had no Missionary Herald to tell the world w hat they have been doing in the case : they have not been ask- ing charitable contributions through the towns and villages of tlie United States, for the support of their institutions, or 1 sup- pose their labours in this concern would have been known and duly appreciated. The Society has annually, I may say, hund- reds of Jlissimaries as the term is now used, who travel abroad in the service of the gospel, by which means the remotest settle- ments are visited and their brethren and others are ministered to as occasion requires. These, having received mercy at their Lord's hand, go forth under the sacred obligation oi gratitude to Him ; they minister freely, in the ability received, botli in spirit- ual and temporal things ; they invite people, not to come to them, but to come unto Christ, that divine fountain of living water, which God hath opened in the soul, and to drink of that heaven- ly stream without money and without price." Having shown that the Society of friends have not been un- mindful of the objects of Bible and Missionary Societies, I in- tend in my next essay to give some of the reasons why they have not extended their Missionary labours beyond the Cape of Good Hope. AMICUS. Salurday^ June 9, 1821. LETTER V. ON BIBLE AND MISSIONARY SOCIETIES. It would be truly gratifying to my feelings, from time to time, like *' Amicus," to make prefaces and apologies. But I have neither time nor room. If my expressions are sometimes harsh, so were those of my apostolic namesake, and I know that m\ 22 spirit is full of love. The Searcher of hearts is my witness liow pure are my motives in these letters, and how sincere is ray de- sire for your salvation. And does " Amicus" really suppose, he has proved that your body, as a body, are the friends of Bible and Missionary Socie- ties! Or does he from his heart, believe that such is the fact ? A few (a very few) of your society, in England and America, have stood up as the vindicators and promoters of this cause. 1 admit, and rejoice to admit the interesting fact. But in this they were never imitated by the mass of their brethren. So sin- gular was the sight of a professed Friend, taking an active pub- lic part in these societies, that the names of the individuals have been frequently and honorably mentioned in their published Re- ports. A Reynolds, a Pole, an Allen, and others, have done themselves much honor, and the cause much serv ice ; but what have you done as a Society ? I am bold to say, that while a few individuals have pursued a different course, as a body you have condemned and opposed these institutions, and do, to this hour, disapprove of them as dangerous schemes. In proof, I ask what have you ever done for the Bible Society in this State? Wliile hundreds of families down the Peninsula are destitute of the Scriptures, and while all other denomina- tions, except the Roman Catholic, have joined in circulating the w ord of life, only three or four individuals of your numerous and wealthy community have ever contributed to its funds, and not one (I believe) has ever honored its meetings with his presence. Individuals, when asked the reasons of their refusal, have inti- mated tlieir reluctance to associate with those from whom, in other things, they so widely differed," their fear that the Bible would "encourage wars," &c. How often do your public speak- ers denounce these institutions ? How long is it since Elias Hicks, a very popular " public Friend," — of whom, one of your mem- bers says, tliat " he could write as good scripture as the Apostle Paul" — how long is it since he, before a large assembly in your Borough, made an open attack on all Bible, Missionary, Tract, and other Associations, to the great grief of other denomina- tions, (whom you had been careful to invite,) but manifest grati- fication of your own ? Shall I add, there is at this time, in Philadelphia, a publica- tion, which, according to the statement of the editor, has a sub- scription amounting to more than eight hundred, whose avowed and steadily pursued ob ject, is to oppose all those benevolent in- stitutions which characterize the present age; a publication written principally by Friends (as is evident from their doc- trines, their " plain language," and other circumstances,) Avhicb is circulated in Wilmington to considerable extent, and is 2,3 patronized almost entirely by friends and — infidels I This pub- lication, which, as assiduously as a bee, sucks poison from thp lips of slander; and with letters from the Indian Red Jackei;, from General Wilkinson, and other pagans and infidels, pre- pares a monthly treat for the enemies of Missions, a leading Friend in your town, said, *'if he had fifty cliildren, it should be the first book he would put into their hands!" In the last number of the above work, the first page, William Allen, of England, is condemned for taking part in anniversary meetings, and the hope is expressed, tliat the censure " will have its use in checking a disposition now too prevalent, to take a part and be distinguislied in some of the specious institutions, wliich at this time so much abound." And in page 138, Elias Hicks says, ^* It is my unshaken belief, that Bible and Missionary Societies, are viore pernicicnis to the real spread of the true gospel of Christ, and more oppressive than all the gambling and horse racing in the country." And yet the Friends are in favor of Bible societies! With just as much propriety may we say, the Roman Catholics are patrons of the same, because Leander Van Ess, and a few others, in defiance of the Pope's bulls, in opposition to nine tenths of their body, and in direct contradiction to their creed, join with Prutestants in tliis glorious work : or that the Jews w ere friendly to Christianity, because the twelve Apostles belong- ed to their nation ! No, the Friends, as a body, are the enemies and opposers of one of the noblest and grandest institutions ever organized. Your distribution of Bibles and other publications among your members, like your missions among yourselves, is very well ; but in this, what do you more than other denominations do for themselves ? The Society which does not provide for itself, like the man that does not provide for his own house, is worse than an infidel." The Methodists have a large Book Depaitment," and annually circulate through their churches, especially m the Western country, great numbers of books and bibles;* but do they call tliis a Bible Society ! by no means ; they never con- sider this as superseding the necessity of benevolent exertions to benefit strangers and the heathen. The Bible Societies of which I spoke, and which I charge you as opposing, are estab- lishments for the general and nniversal good, w ithout reference, to sect or party. As the object is to circulate the Bible without note or amiment, in it all denominations ought to join, and in it all other denominations have joined. And I still think it an act of " unsocial separation" in you, not to assist in this miglity work, and very unkind and unchristian to oppose others because ^hey do not work in your way ! As to missions— .You employ ^• hundreds of missionaries to ^4. Ii-avel abroad and minister to your brethren and others.'* The methodists employ thousands in the same way but can any one suppose these are the "Missionary societies" to which I refer- red in my first Letter? If so, they are mistaken. I value as higlily as any man missions at home; but I know no reason to condemn missions abroad. It is right to love our friends and acquaintances; but where is the sin of embracing stranf;ers also in the arms of our affection? On the contrary, I think the spirit of missions the very spirit which brought a Saviour to our world, the very spirit which brought tlie gospel from Judea to the Gentile nations, and the spirit without which the present heathen world will never be evangelized. That charity which V ends at home is not the charity which I admire, — nor the charity of those whom you condemn. But you have, also, missionaries abroad. No less than ** four settlements among the natives have been maintained at a vast expense.^' Ah ! here is some mistake ! What ! do you employ hirelings ! ! do you " maintain" ministers and missionaries, and that too " at a vast expense." Will it not be very wrong in the natives to attend meetings, and thus " countenance" these mercenary" men t Has that statute of our Lord, ever been re- pealed, Freely ye have received, freely give ?" Cannot your missionaries, as well as ours live on air? — Of this, another time- After all, where are these missions ? what have they accom- plished? Amicus" is right, I never heard of them; at any rate, if I have heard of o?ie in Canada, I never heard of its suc- eess ; and I fear the reason was not for want of a '* Herald," but of something to fill a herald with. I fear, unlike the apostle Paul, and other ancient missionaries who went every wher& preaching the word, in season and out of season," they have held too many silent meetings." and made more use of tlic plough Mud harrow in christianizing the natives, than of tlie gos- pel of Christ ! I mean not to jidicidef I am truly serious, in sup- posing the weapons you use, are not the weapons which the^ Apostles used ; not those which ever have prospered, or ever will prosper in the conversion of tlie Pagan world. You do not preach those plain, pungent, soul-humbling doctrines which the Apostles i)reached, nor use those ordinances which bind the soul to duty. However, in what you have done, either in the Bible ®r Missionary cause, I sincerely rejoice ; and only wish you would do more; and without censure, suffer others to do some- thing too. If your labors have been great, and tliose labors blessed, why not glorify God by publishing what he has done? why hide your light under a bushel," why not set it on a c?andlestick," that your light may shine" and all '*sceyoi(r good works ?" There is no need of blowing a trumpet before 23 you," nor of Pharisaical boasting, but do something to " pro- voke others to love and good works." In some future Letter, I will show that collections in churches, and the most earnest be^gin^ for donations, hath both rational and apostolic sanction. PAUL. ^'vertli'dajyCth Mo. g. iS2t. LETTER III. From the intentions expressed in my last communication, it will now be expected that I should give some reasons why the society of Friends do not extend their missionary labours beyond the Cape of Good Hope. Our charity, it may be said, should be as extensive as the exigencies that demand it, why then con- fine it on this side of the Atlantic ? As friends in a collective capacity have never expressed their sentiments on this point, I can only give my particular views in the case, in doing w hich I shall undoubtedly express the opini- on of a large number of my fellow professors. The conversion of the Heathen to pure Christianity is certain- ly very desii*able : and I believe consistently with the divine prediction in the second chapter of Daniel, that the stone which was cut out of the mountain without hands^ that smote the im- age and broke it in pieces, so that it became like the chaff of the summer threshing floor, shall itself in due time become a great mountain and fill the whole earth. But I also believe that ill timed measures, or unqualified instruments instead of hasten- ing that great day may tend to retard it. It is not only essen- tial to the successful prosecution of a charitable work that the object be desirable and even feasible — it is absolutely necessary that at least three important circumstances should concur to warrant the undertaking. — First, it should be well timed — se- condly, the instruments of its accomplishment should be adapted to the service — and thirdly, the subject of our bounty should be prepared to receive it. If either of these requisites should be wanting the enterprise must fail. Now in the first place I think the measures ill timed. The blood of the natives of India shed by tlte hands of professed Christians has hardly had time to dry on the soil of their an- cestors, now under the control of their rapacious invaders. It is computed that more than a million of the natives since the British invaded Hindostan have been cruelly sacrificed by the professed followers of that meek and lowly Saviour, who is now held up to their view as the great object of their faith. The 4 56 jCliristiau character is always most indelibly impressed by thfe weight of example — And what kind of example has been ex- hibited to the poor Hindoo since the invasion of his country by the professors of Christianity ? Those who are in the least ac- quainted with the history of that country need not be told ! Can any one believe that with scenes of violence and oppression con- stantly before him — with burning towns and hamlets passing in review before the eye of memory — his butchei'ed and famished relatives and friends pressing with deadly weight on his recol- lection— I say can any one believe under these circumstances that the natives of India can now be prepared to receive favour- able impressions of our holy religion ? In general they must view the name of Christian as the representative of every thing that is cruel and savage and unjust — it can hardly have on« amiable and lovely trait to recommend it to their favourable attention — tliey must as instinctively shudder at the name of Christ" as the philanthropic missionary does at the name oi Juggernaut. In the next place I think the instruments sent for the conver- sion of India are not adapted to the service. The ambassador of Christ must necessarily go under the character of a Chris- tian. It was men under this character who invaded the Hindoo ten^tory, and spread desolation among their towns and hamlets ^ — it was men under this character wiio butchered and starved hundreds of thousands of their innocent men, women and chil- dren, whose pale phaiitoms haunted the imagination of the in- famous lord Clive to the grave. It is men uiuler this character who still hold them under, their domination, and wlio by num- berless taxes and impositions of various kinds, wrest from them the hard earned produce of their labour ! Can we believe tliat under such circumstances the missionaries sent amongst them will make a favourable impression on the minds of the Hindoos ? He who can believe they will, must have more sanguine hopes than mine. I can hardly believe that the Jpostle Faul himself, could we send him there under such disadvantages would be a successful missionary. We can scarcely suppose that our mis- sionaries are qualified to work miracles — and without a miracle tliey cannot succeed. And lastly, under these circumstances I cannot suppose the inhabitants of India are prepai-ed to receive the intended boun- ty. An insurmountable weight of prejudice must exist against us —a secret detestation of tiie Christian character, which many years will not remove. These views arc strengthened by authen- tic statements of the situation of religious concerns in Hindos- tan and the Birman Empii*e. At Rangoon where all religious Bocieties^'c freely tolerated ; a missionary establishment has tixitjted about twelve years, on which large sums liave been ex- pended— and wliat have been the fruits I More, certainly, than could reasonably liave been expected. In these twelve years three natives were baptized — one professed to believe the i^ospel —and another had advanced so far in opposition to hi^ well founded prejudices against us as to become an inquirer^ but final- ly rejected our religion. From Hindostan we have more flat- tering accounts than this, but we must recollect that those Hin- doos wliose conversion we sometimes hear of, are very little removed from a state of slavery or vassalage — they have other and more powerful reasons for professing to be Christians than the love tliey bear to Christ. — SVere they as free to choose or refuse — were they as comfortably circumstanced nnder their rulers as the Birmans — and had no more temporal inducements" to cliange their religion than they, I believe the result would b<^ jQO better. They would soon return to the worship of their country's idols, less terrible to them tlian the object of Chris- tian adoration. We have heard much of the human sacrifices offered to Jug- gernaut, and have read some of the pathetic accounts of the sickly, miserable self-devoted victims who expire under his car-. But what are these to the millions, I say millions of human sa- crifices which within the last fifty years in India and Europe and America have been offered up to the idol of War, or rather to the demon of Avarice and Ambition by the professed folio w^- ers of a non-resisting Saviour ! What are these in the scale of intellect, or in comparison of numbers, to the innumerable mul- titude, whose bones lie bleaching on the plains of Europe and Amei'ica ! Really when I view the Christian cliaracter as ex- tiibited on the page of history, or as practically delineated by living example, I think it should make us pause and solemnly consider whether we are Christians. XwA if we can seriously believe we are so, whether our hands are sufficiently clean to bear to the Hindoo, the Birman and Chinese the pure Gospel of a spotless Saviour ! If they are not, tlien shall we by attempts in this way only rivet their prejudices against Christianity, and thus extend tlie reign of dai'kne »s and confusion. We shall make converts, not to the religion of the blessed Messiah, but to the dark state of the formalist and tlie hypocrite, — we shall compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, we shall make him two fold more the child of hell than he was." If the natives of India are capable of reflection, if they have minds to discriminate between the nature of the gospel ])recepts and our pi'acticc, they must see our inconsistency and abhor it — if they are not capable of reflection they are not fit subjects 2» of Christian insti^uction : in either case they cannot t)e prepar- ed to receive us as the Ministers of our sublime and holy religion. If Christians wish to be serviceable to the natives of India^ let them begin by setting a consistent example ; let them demon- strate by works the blessed efficacy of Christian Faith ; let them return to tlie inhabitants their civil and political rights ; let them abolish their taxes and imposts of all kinds — even the revenues raised from the worsliip of the detestable Juggernaut — instead of wTCsting from them the hard earned fruits of their labour to the annual amount of four million, two hundred and ten thou- sand pounds sterling, (a sum surpassing the whole revenue of the United States) let them demonstrate to the objects of their concern, that they understand and practice upon that benign precept of their Lord when he said ^* It is- more blessed to give than to receive let them give such solid proofs of their sinceri- ty and benevolence, and then if the Society of Friends do not join in the good work of enlightening the benighted inhabitants of India it ^^ ill be time enough to demand of them a reason of their inactivity. AMICUS. Saturday y June j6, 1827. LETTER VL ON THE lord's SUPPEiS. As tilcre are many subjects of superior importance, which 1 wisli to bring before your minds, and as I have already devoted one letter to the subject of Missions and Bible Societies, I shall defer a full ansAver to tlie late remarks of Amicus," to some future number. It is sufficient, for the present, to observe that all his objections, on the score of difficulties^ drawn from tlie un- favourableness of tlie time, the character of the instmments, and the prejudices of the lieathen, are fully answered by the actual success of missions among the Hottentots, the Ebo Nation, our Western Indians, the Greenlaiiders, the South Sea Islanders, and his own unconvertible Hindoos, — by the unusual willingness of many nations to receive tlie gospel — by the success of twelve despised Jews of old, — and by the consideration that our hope of success is not in the preacher^ but the gospel, not in man, but God, With these remarks, let me now call your attention to another ordinance of Christ, which, to your own and the church's in- jury, you neglect. That the Saviour never intended that the outward ordinance of the Ijord's Supper should be perpetuated in his Church, ih'M: 29 the Evangelists and Apostles, never enjoined this institution, and that there is neither profit nor propriety in the ordinance, as now observed, your writers and -preachers continually teach, and your universal practice unequivocally proclaims. The objections to this ordinance you have too often heard to need a repetition ; the arguments in its favour, I feai^ some of you have never weighed. Whether you have or not, on such an important subject, let me entreat you, weigh them once more. How can you answer the argument drawTi : — First, From the Institution and express command of Jesus Christ ? The authority of any one of the Evangelists, to all who believe their inspiration, is a sufficient voucher for any fact. But on this subject, three have given their decided testimony, see Matt. xxvi. 26. Mark xiv. 22. and Luke xxii. 19. The passages are too long to quote, but too plain and too well known to need quoting. That the Saviour really took material bread and material wine, and said Take, eat, this is my body; — this is my' blood, drink ye all of it" this do inremembrance ofmCf'^ you can- not but admit. Here then w e have the institution and a command to obsei'^ e it. If you prefer the term request'' to <^ command," I have no objection ! for a request from a dying Redeemer, to all who love him, will equal a command. Object. He only request- ed them to do it that time, and not to continue it after his death." Ans. Where then is the force of the word " Remembrance ?" Does it not refer to things past, and imply that, according to the form he now^ gave, they should keep it with deep interest a/- ter his death ? At present they could not remember" his death (which was the chief thing represented by the feast) as that death had not yet taken place. If you say, ** it was a mere spiritual remembrance he required," you neglect the force of an- other word in this command : Do " ?Ais" — what I now do — take material bread and wine, and eat and drink corporeally, while in spirit you remember the things signified by the broken bread and poured out wine. He does not merely say, " Remember me ;" but do this in remembrance of me." If here is not a command to observe an outward ordinance, I know not in what words it could have been expressed. Again, if the Lord Jesus did not intend to continue, and did not attach much importance to this ordinance, account, if you can — Secondly. For his revelation and repetition of it, some years after, to the Apostle Paul. The Apostle declares. Gal. 1. 12 : that he received all his docti'ines ** not from man, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." And in 1 Cor. xi. 23. he says he received this very ordinance, in the very words and form given in the Evangelists, from the same divine authority. ** For 1 received of the Lord Jesus, that which I delivered unto, you. tStc/' Here is sanction upon sanction to authorize our celebra- tion, and condemn your neglect of this solemn feast. How do you account — Thirdly, For its ohsei^ance hy the primitive Church ? We have every reason to believe that the first converts to Christiani- ty, especially the Gentiles, took tbeir ordinances as well as their doctrines immediately from Apostolic lips* Now we find Chris- tians every where observing this feast. At Jerusalem we find them bi'eaking bread from house to house." (Acts ii. 46.) .Iso at Troas, (Acts xx. 7.) •* On the first day of the week the dis- ciples came together to break bread, and Paul preached" — and (v. 11.) " broke bread." Can any one suppose that the Xiord's day would be appointed for any common meal ; or that the holy Apostle, ready to depart on the morrow," would spend his time in eating and dnnking in any other than a sacra^ mental way ? But in the Epistle to the Corinthians we have de- cisive proof.' More than twenty years after the death of Christ, Tve find the Corinthians celebrating and the Apostle regulating this feast : 1 Cor. xi. 23 — 34. He here says expressly, that he had delivered'^ it unto tlieni. And in 1 Cor. x. 16. he speaks as if it was. the common practice of the whole church, the cup which we bless, the bread which we break, is it not the commu- ^nion of the blood and body of Christ ?" — in contradistinction from idolaters, who drank "the cup" and partook of "the table of devils." Here then we have the practice of the primi-. live Christians and the sanction, of the Apostles many years after our Saviour's death. Do your teachers better know the will of God than the Apostle Paul ? — or have } ou received some new„ additional and contradictory revelation ? He " received of the Lord Jesus" to " deliver" this ordinance unto us : have you received of the Lord Jesus" to set it aside ? If not, we in-: treat you, keep this feast : — for Fourthly, It must be continued till Christ come again. If Christ had not told us it should be perpetual, since his blood was shed and his body bruised for us as well as for the primitive church, reason would teach the propriety of our using the symbols of his death as well as they. But he has not left us in any doubt or darkness on the subject. The Apostle hath expressly told us, 1 Cor. xi. 26. to keep this feast until he come," I am not ig- norant of your interpretations — " until he come to destroy Jeru- salem— until he come by his Holy Spirit — until he come with full illumination and establishment in the faith ;" but to these con-^ structions I never can assent. Not to the first, because the de- struction of Jerusalem had nothing to do with the repeal of cer- emonies, all such having been repealed at the death of Christ : — riot to the second, because he had come in this sense, on the day 31 of Pentecost, twenty years before ; — nor to the third (wliidi iai your main defence,) because the phrase is never thus used else- where in scripture, and it is a mere gratuitous assertion, to say that it is so used here, and because th' apostle Paul v, as certain- ly an established christian, and hiid fidl illumination, and yet he observed and delivered this ordinance. Besides, suppose Christ does come to a christian with as full illumination as he e\ er came to man, or comes to any of yoit, why should this supersede the ordinance. Our distinct knawLedge and ardent love of Christ would supersede the necessity of memorials.'' — And the views of any lovers of Christ be more distinct, their love more ardent, than were those of the twelve Apostles, who heard him, saw him, handled him for years, and loved him more than life r And yet to these very twelve, he gave these memorials ! If need- ful and useful to them, are they not needful to you? So long as. he withholds his -cisiUe bodily presence, so long these striking emblems of himself will never cease to be of use to his holiest followei-s. The " coming," therefore, of which he speaks, is not his coming by his spirit, but his visible appearance at the last day, to call the world to judgment, and take all his chosen to himself. The ordinance therefore, was intended to be perpetual. or to the end of the world. In conclusion, I would draw an argument — Fifthly, From the utility of this ordinance. This appears from its nature and design. First, it is a sign and seal of the divine covenant. ^' This cup is the Testament {or cove- nant) in my blood ;" just as he said of dramcision, (Gen. xvii. 10, 13 :) This is my covenant" which shall be in your flesh," as if he had said, This is the sign and seal of my covenant." The Lord's supper is a seal on the part of God, to fulfil all the promises, and on ours to perform all the duties of the covenant of which it is a seal. Thus it operates as a powerful stimulus to duty toward ourselves, and faith towards God. Again, it is useful as an exhibition of the doctrine of atonement^ (as baptism is of the doctrine of the Trinity.) " So often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do sJiow forth the Lord's death." And I cannot but agree with Doddridge, that, <'so long as an ordinance which has so plain a reference to the sat- isfaction of Christ, and does such honour to ihis fundamental doc- trine of the gospel, is continued in the church, so long it will be impossible to root that doctrine out of the minds of plain humble christians by any little artifices" or Socinian criticisms. And I cannot but think, if yon administered and explained this ordi- nance to your people, the now almost banished doctnne of the cross and of imputed rightemisness would soon be honored and restoi^d. 32 Lastly, this ordinance, as well as baptism, is useful as a badgs of Christianity, One object of these ordinances, was to sepa- ^ rate Christ's followers from the woj*ld, to make them visible. and compel them to profess the essential doctrines of his gos- pel. And though I have no do^ibt there are many saints in hea- ven and earth who never wore these badges, 1 have my doubts whether such form any part of the visible christian church. If the mere acknowledgment of a God, and some vague profession . of religion constitute a social body a church, why not give this title iK^ihe Masonic Lodge? (I mean nothing invidious to you, or disrespectful to them.) They make a general profession of re- ligion, reject atheists and sometimes deists from their institution^ < — have a strictly moral and even religious code of discipline — are bound by the strongest ties to mutual love, — are very charit- able to their own, and even other poor — ^they sometimes pray, exhort, and what you do not, they sing ; in short, when they have members present, whom the spirit moves, they haye as ma- ny religions exercises as yourselves. Why not call them a chris- tian church ? Suppose again a set of sober deists should be or- ganized and agree to meet on the first day of the week, (not be- cause it was holy time, but because it was the custom of the country,) should pray and praise, and preach, and perform oth- er duties of natural religion^\\\\y not call them a christian church ? Because, in admitting to membership, they do not make it essential to believe or profess a single doctrine peculiar to Christianity. Now, what you require your members to pro- fess, I do not know ; but this I know, you could not properly observe these ordinances without requiring faith in the doctrines of the trinity, the divinity of Christ, and his vicarious atmemeni for tiie sins of the world— doctrines found in only one religious system upon earth, PAUL. Seventh-dag tOth Afo. 23,1821. LETTER IV. AVhen I commenced writing for the Reposit(Try, I hoped that the parties engaged in the present discussion might perhaps give such explanations, of their respective views and sentiments, as would promote the harmony of different religious professors, that they might by exhibiting sufficient ground for mutual for- bearance, increase a spirit of amity and benevolence. Harsh expressions," I have detci'!nine can do no good^ and may do much hann. Innuendo and invective in religious discussions, always hurt the cause they are intended to su{)|)ort\ Truth needs no such weapons. A spirit full of love," would not use them. Tliey excite the passions and disqualify eitlier for calm reflection or deep investigation. In my preceding Essays, I have endeavoured to sustain the character of a can- did and dispassionate writer — with ** Paul" I have no quarrel — my aim is to elucidate our views. In the pursuit of tliis ohject, if my observations should sometimes assume the form of a ** pre- face," at others of an apology," I cannot see in such a cir- cumstance any cause of offence. In my last number, I gave some of my reasons for believing that the zeal which has been excited on the subject of foreign missions, is unseasonable; as the subject is important, I will pursue it a little further, and endeavour to show that it is also misdirected. When our Lord was about to introduce the Gospel dispensa- tion, it pleased Divine wisdom to send a messenger before him. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight." The doctrine he preach- ed to the people, even to those who were to be the instruments of spreading the gospel among the heathen, was, Repent ye for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." I have thought that this circumstance might indicate to all future generations the neces- sity of outward and inward purity in those who undertake to spread the Messiah's kingdom. Purity of life, and innocence of deportment, a practical conformity to tlie precepts of our Lord are the most efficient means of raising the low expectations of the visited, and removing the most obstinate prejudices. Without these the vallies cannot be exalted, the mountains be brought low, the crooked things made straight, or the rough places smooth, Luke iii. 5. Now let us pause a little and contemplate our actual state.' — Let us see how far we are governed by the lavvS of that very kingdom we are engaged to extend — how far we are willing to do justice at home, and to extend this divine government through our own land. Here we see One million Jive hundred thousand of our fellow creatures unjustly held in a degrading bondage, which is entailed on their innocent posterity. Here we see those who appear to be anxious to spread the Bible among the heathen, ten or fifteen thousand miles from us, pronouncing fine and imprisonment on those who have dared to instruct this be* nighted branch of the human family in our own land. We are manifesting great anxiety for the welfare of immortal soiils be- yond the Atlantic, but great indifference about those within our own shores — Strenuous efforts are making to send help abroad, whilst the most important field that can possibly engage our at^ tontion remains a dark howling wUdei'ness at homq. 34 1 am not ignorant of the excuses made for these inronsisten- cics, nor can I be blind to the real cause of them. 1 ai.: also aware of the difticulties that lie in the way to the emancipation and instruction of the African race in our own country ; yet I tliink they are not greater than those which must be encountered in converting the inhabitants of West Africa, Hindostan, the Birman Empire, China, the South Sea Islands or Jerusalem, and I have no doubt our success would be greater and the ex- pense much less at home than abroad. Here is a poor afflicted people, borne down with grief — friendless and unpitied. How sweet to their ears would be the voice of kindness, how beauti- ful the feet of those who should bring to them the glad tidings of the gospel. An immortal soul is as valuable in one part of the world as m another. With God there is no respect of persons, neitlier should there be Avith men. I know we cannot force our way to the accomplishment of this great domestice object, yet the combined influence of all religious societies in the United States, would go a great way toward effecting it. Were all the zeal, talent, and industry which is exerted in promoting foreign missions, bent to this important subject — were all the means of missionary heralds, bible societies, and associations of various kinds, devoted to this cause, on the gr ound of religious princi- ple, I cannot doubt, that we should soon see measures pursued that would convince all, of the policy, expediency and necessity of such reformation at home, as would gradually remove from our national escutcheon one of the darkest spots tliat disgrace it; as would finally shake this callossal iiii([uity to the ground, and open to the christian patriot a door of hope for the real and permanent prosperity of his country. But until such an expe- riment is made, until we have fairly ])roved tl.at this measure is impracticable, I cannot see why^ we should neglect our own busi- ness to go and labour in a foreign country. Let us set the cau- dle on our own candlestick, bef m c wc attempt to enlighten oth- ers ; let us ** preach the plain, pungent, soul humbling doctrines of Christ and his apostles" at home, and put our own family in order before we spend our strength in attempting to rectify the family of a distant neighbour — let us labour faithfully in the do- mestic department, and make our own house clean before we busy ourselves to sweep that of another. Thus others seeing our good works," without hearing our trnmpet, may have sub- stantial and grateful cause to glorify our Father who is in Hea- ven. I remember to have read many years ago of a missionary who was sent into our westei-n country to ])reac!i to the Indiaft na- tives ; he was accompanfed by a very resjiectable member of the society who sent him. When they arrived at the place where 35 the locatiou was to have been made, they opened to the Indians their benevolent concern : the natives called a council to consid- er the subject, and after long deliberation, they sent a de])utatiow to their visitors, to inquire if the white men did not hold theii- black brothers in slavery — the reply being in the aftirniative ; they told them to go home, set their brothers free, preach to them and malve them cliristians first — then come back io the Indians and they would listen to them. There was so much good sense and justice in the Indian proposition, tliat the person who was with the missionary, and who at tliat time held slaves, immedi- ately liberated them all — an example worthy of universal imita- tion. Why (said our Lord.) hcholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, and considerest not the beam that is thine own eye! Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull the mote out of tliine eye, and behold a beam is in thine own eye ! Tliou hypocrite ; first cast the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to cast the mote out of thy brother's eye." The force of this truly divine ad.nonition is irresistible — how^ far it is applicable to our state, I willingly leave the serious rea- der to deternjine. AMICUS. Sevenlh-day, 6th Mo. 13, I8;ix. • LETTER I. TO '^paul" and his fellow professors. As Paul has taken upon himself the task of instructing us in the doctrines of the New Testament, and detecting, as he im- agines, the errors of our Christian profession, it must surely be of importance to us that we should rightly understand him, on a subject of such magnitude, especially if his lectures are ex- pected tQ have any influence upon our conduct. For this pur- pose, I wish to propound a few questions to this champion of or- thodox opinions, which if he w ill be so obliging as to answer effeduallyf may tend to lighten the burden of his labours, by carrying conviction to our understandings. And first, we are told that the Bible or the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the w ord of God, and the only standard of religious truth." Then how comes it to pass that every sect into which the Christian world has been divided, however various and contradictory their doctrines may be to eacli other, have all proved them truef from this infallible rule, tliis supreme standard of faith ? If these different sects be a arioUs I and contradictory in their interpretations of the Scriptures, they must i presume, be all ivraug^ or some one only right. For Christ is not divided. And which is that sect who have attain- ed to the true interpretation ? Not that I believe tliere is any inconsistency in the Bible — but the question is, wliat causes these various and contradicto- ry interpretations ? And how is the ti-ue knowledge of this supreme standard^' to be arrived at — seeing it is construed so difi\ rently ? Not by the light of man's conscience, for this is the creature of habit — it is formed by education, and Friends never set it up as their guide in these cases. — Not by the vagaries of a deceitful heart," for these have led the Christian world into endless disputes, and even into wars **/or Christ's sakeJ^ Not by any interpretation which tl»e Scriptures give of themselves, for this is liable to be misconstrued, as we see from the example of all Christendom. But arc not the seals to be opened ? are not the scales to be; ren:oved from our e^ es before we can attain to a true and saving knowledge of the truths, revealed in the Scriptures ? — and if so, by what ? Asism, we are told that we ought to be baptized with water, becai f-e it is coiiimanaea by Christ and his Apostles, as a star ding ordinance in the Church, and that we may be found fi gifting against God, if we do not conform. Now we would like to know which is the right way of conforming to this stand- ing ordinance ; whether by immersion, or by sprinkling. If we are all enjoined to be baptized with water, we ought to know^ hov ? All thii:gs necessai y to be observed by the Jews were well defined in their law so that no ambiguity was to be found in their statutes of standing obligation : — and it would seem to me that all essential duties of a Christian are well defined ; but I am not able exactly to understand, how sprinkling a little wat- er in the face can be called baptizing. And as we do not see any binding obligation either to dip or to sprinkle, until we are better informed, which is the right w ay, and until professors of Christianity w lio deem it essential are agreed about the manner of ('Oing it, we slnill be content to omit tlie ceremony altogether. John indeed baptized with water unto repcntanre, but One tliat is mightier than John baptizeth witli the Holy Ghost and with fire. Again, we would like to know^ what is meant by that article in your confession of faith, which says, *' to the officers of the church tlie keys of Heaven are committed, by virtue where- of, they have power respectively ^ to retain and remit sins, t6 shut tjiat kingdom against the impenitent, by word and censures; and to open it unte penitent sinners, &c. as occasion may rcc ^luii'e.'' Now to which of your ofliccrs is this tremeiirous pow- er intrusted ? if to FauW we must he in a dcplorahle sit- uation indeed. For he has fairly ranked us with deists and infidels, and aliens from the visihle church of Christ. Hence I conclude, if he^ or such Orthodox Divines, are to hold the keys of heaven, we shall knock in vain for admission. How can you presume to call the Pope of Rome, Tliat anti- christ, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth him- self in the Church against Christ and all that is called God,'* when you assume as your authority to open and shut up Heaven, the same text of Matthew, which the Pope claims as the evidence ef his power to retain and remit sins, and which constitutes him Christ's Vicar and vicegerent upon earth ? — And was not the assumed right in the Pope to exercise this self same power, which you give to your officers, the principal cause of the separation of Luther from the Romish Churcli ? I will now as Paul has done, take the name of an Apostle^ one whose evangelical purity, was not exceeded hy any of the followei^ of Christ. JOHN. Saturdajt yunc 30, iSar. LETTER VH. 03JECTI0XS ANSWERED. A NEW defender has appeared. Whether to answer him, or not, I am really at a loss. Not from terror at his arguments, for with truth upon my side, I do not fear ten thousand such ; but because I am doubtful whether you will not disown his senti- ments and decline his aid. That the \STiter is a deist is most palpable. The substance, and almost the words of his objec- tions, may be found in every ^^Titer of a cei-tain class, from lord Herbeii; down to Thomas Paine. Yet, as I sincerely believe his sentiments, however displeasing to a few, are the sentiments of many who are full members in your society ; as I believe many of your doctrines lead directly to such sentiments ; and as the style and expression give some reason to believe him a professed Friend, until he be disowned, in answering him, I shall consider myself as answering ijau. In reply to his objection against a certain Confession of Faith, 1 would observe, that with any other Confession of Faith than yours, I have nothing to do. And though he should every week, by omitting words and clauses, metamorphose an inno- cent scriptural doctrine ihto a Popish monster, I shall not ihm 38 be diverted from my determination to examine your leading doctrines by the light of truth, and, if possible, expose to you and to the woi'ld, the danger of your system. And I hope that in this, I have no other view but the glory of God and the good ©f mankind. Let us now canvass the sentiments of your new defender. First, He denies (as usual) that the Scriptures are the word of God. We are told the Bible is the word of God, then how, &c." This from any but a Fnend w ould be barefaced deism j and why from your lips should it be justified ? If you mean merely to say that the Bible is not the Spirit, or Christ, we ad- mit it as readily as that it is not Peter or Paul. We do not look upon the Bible as a person, or a spirit, but a book ! and if this is all you mean to say, you are welcome to the wonderful discovery ! But if you mean to say, tliat the Bible is not a plain literal declaration of the mind and will of God, entitled to as much reverence and as implicit credit as though the whole had been or w^ere now delivered by an audible voice from the Mmigh- ty himself; I appeal to the whole christian world, if you are not deists. If you admit that it is his declaration of truth, his speech, his epistle, his message to us, — to refuse to call it his word, what is it but a quibble ! A good part of the Books of Moses was spoken by the Lord from Mount Sinai and other places; the greater part of the gospels consists of our Lord's discourses ; and the inspired Apostle says, (1 Cor. xiv. 37.) *'the things which I WTite unto you are tiie commandments of the Lord and yet it is incorrect to call these very scriptures the word of God! Because this phrase is once or twice used fguratively to signify Christ, therefore it can never be used in a literal sense The names Son of man," *^ Prophet," Priest," King," are all applied to Christ, but do they therefore always signify the Saviour? I am confident, my dear friends whether you intend it or not, there is much deism conveyed to your hearers under this doctrine. By the rejection of an innocent, an expressive, and a scriptural term, you do lessen the reverence of your children and others for the Book of God. And if you wished to propa- gate deistical principles, you could not take a more effectual wav. Open deism, like a naked Satan, frightens people; but veiled in a specious garb, like Satan robed as an angel of light, it seduces thousands. Secondly. He denies that the Bible is ^* the only standard of religious truth.^^ Why? because different christian sects pro- fessing to follow^ it, derive from it, and defend by it, various contradictory doctrines." Now I a])peal to any one acquainted with infidel works, if this is not one of the first objections which a deist brings to invalidate the inspiration of the scriptures. S9 *^The scripturei? are obscure and incomprehensible," "no two sects agree as to their doctrines," we, need a new revelation to tell us what the old one means," are favourite expressions. Ob- jections of this kind, however, arise from a shameful ignorance of the scriptures, and of the doctrines of different sects. Let in- fidels say what they will, nine-tenths of the churches in Christen- dom, hold doctrines essentially the same. By consulting the Confessions of Faith of the Methodists, Baptists^ Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and other leading denominations, you will find, in the doctrines of the Trinity, tbe Divinity of Christ, the ple- nary Inspiration of the sciuptures, the vicarious Atonement,^ man's Inability to save himself. Justification only through the merits of Christ, the observance of the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, the necessity of repentance, faith and holiness ; in short, in every important doctrine peculiar to Chris- tianity, they all essentially agree. No sect which rejects any one of these doctrines is generally acknow ledged as a christian church. No sect which rejects^ o?ie of them (unless we except the necessity of repentance," which is not peculiar to Chris- tianity) but rejects the whole. And no sect rejects one of these, but avowedly rejects the scriptures as a standard. The Soci- nians follow, what they call. Reason; Swedenborgians, the dreams of their leader ; the Jews and Papists, spurious tradi- tions ; the Shakers, Ann Lee ; and the Friends, who are un- sound on all the above points, (except the last, and here they fail in part) professedly make the scriptures subordinate" to something else. And I cannot but belie vp, the reason why those w^ho reject the above doctrines also reject the scripture as a standard, is, that these doctrines are written in tliat holy book as witJi a sunbeam, so that ** he who runs may read." But all who profess to make the scriptures their sole standard, harmo- nize on all these points. The objection of * John,' therefore, has no foundation : on minor points, it is to be lamented, christians too widely and too warmly differ. But predestination, election, perseverance, modes of Baptism, forms of government, forms of worship, however important, are not, in my opinion, essential doctrines. Only agree with us in tliose doctrines and ordinan- ces in which all christians agree, and you shall never be troubled by me about minor differences, but be regarded and loved as christian brethren. Thirdly. Another infidel doctrine is this, that, '^Conscience is the creature of habit, formed by education.'* Tliis is almost Athe- ism ! Only add ** all difference between right and wrong is fac- titious, the effect of education," and you ar on a par with Hobbes and Hume. Sober deists acknowledge conscience to be universj^l and independent of circumstances. I have much to say <4a upon this subject, but at present, for want of room, can add no more. Fmrthly. Anotlier proof of your friend's infidelity is, the mode in which he sets aside Baptism and the hordes Supper. I have no doubt many of your society conscientimisly neglect tbe.se ordinances from a sincere belief that they are not commanded. But this writer does not deny they are commanded, but rejects them simply because christians differ about the mode and cir- cumstances. An humble christian would have first examined wiiether they were enjoined of God ; next, w hether any particulai* mode w as fixed ; and lastly, whether this mode was made essen- tial.** If any particular mode be essential, (as some christians think,) I will answer for it, you will find it ;;/ai?ii?/ taught in Scripture. If you find different modes were practised, and no particular one enjoined, you are allowed the liberty of choice. But that wafer should be applied in some way to the body, in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, almost all Chris- tendom holds to bean express command. But, no; Chris- tians differ about the mode, and therefore I will reject the thing itself; I will make God pay for the folly of his creatures!'* This is making short work! At this rate you would reject every thing. Christians differ as much about prayer^ as about bap- tism ; w hether it should be with a form, or extempore ; wheth- er in a kneeling, standing or sitting posture; whether vocal or mental, &c. and yet does this w riter never pray / Why not wait until an imessential form is settled? People differ about religimi itself. There are at least 3000 different sects in the woi'ld, worshipping the Deity under different modes and circumstan- ces; will this writer never serve God until all the professors are agreed PAUL. SeZ'cnth-dajfy jth Mo. 7, i82i» LETTER II. TO ^^^PAUL," AND HIS FELLOW PROFESSORS. Knowledge and Wisdom, far from being" one, Have oft times no coimexion. Knowledge dwells In heads, replete with thoughts of other men; Wisdom, in minds attentive to their own, COWPER. Lv my last, I did not present myself as the " defender'** of the Society of Friends, and their doctrine. They do not need any defence from me. The foundation of our faith stands sure, and can never be shaken. It is that rock, upon which our Saviour 41 aadd he would build his church, agaiust which, *^ the gates of hell can never prevaiU^ And that rock is the revelation of the knowledge of the Father through the Son, in the souls of the children of men, (Matt. xvi. 18 :) However deficient many of us may be in practice, our principles are in no danger from ••Paul." We have a witness in the hearts of thousands of pious christians, who do not belong to our Society, that the leading doctrines of our christian profession are true. And the efforts of '*Paul*' cannot arrest the progress of this light in the earth. His declamation, and denunciations, contain nothing which bear the smallest resemblance to argument. In my last, with one or two exceptions, I affirmed nothing but what he ad- mits ; and the questions put to him are not answered in any oth- er why, than by the cry of Deism," Infidelity," " Atheism," &c. This is the Alpha and Omega of his essay ; the sum and substance of all he has said, or pretended to say in his professed reply to my questions. This method of liandling an argument, is perfectly in accordance with the spirit and manner of his former essays. Thus the Scribes and Pharisees of old called our Saviour a blasphemer, and a deceiver ; and when they found that his pre- cepts and example, struck at the root of their pride and self- righteousness, and tended to lessen their unhallowed influence over the people, they set to woi^k to prevent the world from going after him." *'He hath a devil and is mad, why hear ye liim" — again, he is a Samaritan and hath a devil." Indeed I have been forcibly struck from the beginning, with the resem- blance w hich this writer bears, in some particulars, to the Apos- tle Paul, before his conversion. Brought up at the feet of Ga- maliel, a doctor of the Jewish law; — his manner of life was in conformity to the strictest forms of the Jewish religion : " he verily thought he ouglit to do many tilings contrary to the name (which implies power) of Jesus of Nazareth.*' — And he doubt- less believed, that wiien attempting to extirpate the heresy of Christianity, he was advancing ** the glory of God, and the good of mankind." But the delusion vanished when he was met by the way, and the Sun of Righteousness shone around him : he then saw that in a state of darkness and unbelief, he had possessed a zeal for God which was " not according to knowledge." One of the exceptions alluded to above, is where, in my lastj I call conscience the •' creature of habit, the effect of education; which Paul," in his usual manner pronounces to be " almost Atheism." Then if it be almost Atheism, to call conscience the creature of habit, it must be almost a deity. How does this ac- cord witli what he has said of conscience in his Sd Letter? 6 45 Page 9th. Scmi-ileity as he now makes it, he there calls it deceitful, defiled, deceptive," kc. Such incongruities men fall into when groping in the dark. I need not add much on this subject now, as every reflecting man must be sensible on a little examination, tliat what I have said of conscience is true. If an infidel has said the same thing before, that does not alter the truth of the proposition. By admitting what we cannot deny, and what common observation will convince us is time, we disarm the Infidel of one of his most powerful weapons. ^'Paui." has more to say on this subject; probably as much to the purpose as what he has said. I will now take my lea\ e of Paul" for the present, with observing, tliat we do not wish to turn him aside from his de- termination to examine our leading doctrines by the liglit of* truth, and expose to us, and to the world the danger of our sys- tem." But let him tak' heed that this examination he by the light of truth," otherwise, he may ''stumble and fall, and his place may not be found." I regret that the Editor^ should have misconstrued my mean- ing, in the questions I asked. He will observe I did not express any decided opinion of the scriptures, in my last. But as 1 be- lieve there are many pious christians among you, whose views of the scriptures seem to differ from mine, and whose integrity and uprightness of heart, command my esteem and love ; on ac- count of such as these, and to show that we consider tlie Bible the best of books, I will as briefly as possible give some of our views of those writings. We value the scriptures, as containing the testimony of in- spired men, which testimony is true, and is profitable for *'re- ])roof, for doctrine, for instruction :" The account there given of the creation of the world, aiid the fall of man; the prophecies, types and shadows, of the old dispensation, all foretelling, pre- figuring and centering in Christ the Redeemer ; — his birth, life, example and preccjyts. death, resurrection, ascension and me- diation ; all these are recorded there in a style of simplicity, and grandeur, so happily blended and combined, that it has never been equaled. And these records are of more value to mankind than all the books that ever were written. But we dare not place the written testimony of inspired men in the Judgment seat which Christ alone should fill. For we believe, that we have need of the same light, the same spirit of truth, which was to guide into all truth, and to abide witli the disciples, or true believers, for ever, to shine upon our understandings, to qualify us rightly to understand the scriptures and to see the beauty, and harmony, and spirituality of their testimonies : and we also believe that this same si)irit which was # Alluding to some editorial remarks in tlieC. Repository', 43 t<>bfi poui'ed out upon all flesh under tlie gospel, is still contim- ued, and that by it sons and daughters now prophecy. You call the Bible " the word of God." We use that term as it is used in Scripture, to apply to Christ, an eternal, uncreated spiritual essence. And because we do not call it the word, many honest men think it is lightly esteemed by us. Take the first verses of John's Gospel, and substitute Bible for WORD, and how will it read ? The following texts will show that the 7cord of God is used in the same sense by the other Apostles. Take the sword of the spirit which is the word of God."' (Eph. \i. 17.) **By the word of God, the heavens were of old," (2 Peter iii. 5.) "The worlds were made by the word of God,'" (Heb. xi. 3.) "John bare record of the word of God, and the testimony of Jesus," (Rev. i. 2.) which testimony, he says, "is the Spirit of Prophecy." (Rev. xix. 10.) and in this last chap- ter he tells us that he who is called the Word of God, is " Lord OF LORDS, AXD KiXG OF KixGs." Brevity forbids that I should multiply quotations — what I have adduced are sufficient for my purpose. That the Bible is not here meant is evident. Procter qmd unumqiiodqne est tale, illud ipsum est magis tale, or that which causes, is greater than tlie thing caused. That the text quoted by the editor from Peter, does not refer to any written testimony of Christ known to the Jews, I think is evident from the context. Peter had been speaking of the vision they had seen on the Mount where our Saviour was trans- figured before them, and they had heard a ^oice from Heaven, saying *• tliis is my beloved Son," 6cc. what stronger outward testimony of the divinity of Christ, could possibly have been given to Peter than this ? It \a as in no respect inferior in point of evidence to the promulgation of the law from Mount Sinai. — Yet in contradistinction from this, he says, " but we have a more sure word of pro]>hecy," 6cc. meaning the internal evidence — that kind of evidence, by which he was enabled to say on another occasion, "thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God," and which "flesh and blood had not rcA ealed to him." For none other than this kind of evidence could be " more sure"' than that with which it is compared. Again, the concluding part of Jolnfs Revelation cannot be intended to mean any thing more than a command, not to add to, or take from the Book of Reve- lations, which he was then about to finish ; for he expressly says "tlie prophecy of this book," else this same John would have sub jected himself to the denunciation there mentioned ; for it is admitted that he wrote his Gospel and Epistles after he wrote the book of Revelations. I will now quote a paragraph from the book of discipline of « 44 the Society of Friends, printed in 1806, page 23, to show their views in relation to the Scriptures and the Divinity of Christ. ** If any in memhership shall blaspheme, or speak profanely of Almighty God, Jesus Christ, or the Holy Spirit, he or she ought early to be tenderly treated with for their instruction, an(i the convincement of their understanding, that they may ex- perience repentance and forgiveness ; but should any, notwith- standing this brotherly labour, persist in their error, or deny the Divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the immediate revelation of the Holy Spirit, or the authenticity of the Scrip- tures ; as it is manifest they are not one in the faith with us, the monthly meeting where the party belongs, having extended due care for the help and benefit of the individual without effect, ought to declare the same, and issue their testimony (that is dis- own them) accordingly." What becomes of our ' Deism, Infidelity,' &c. JOHN. NOTES, Inserted in the Repository July Tth, and Hth, 1821. (Xj^"' John" authorises us to say that it was not his intention now to enter fully into the discussion g'oing' on in the Repository— but from the manner in which his last was understood, he is desirous of giving his views a little more at large — he is however disposed to give pl^ce to Amicus, after the publication of the number inserted to day ; reserving to himself the privdege of taking up the argument at any future period, if circumstances should render it ne- cessary or proper. O:;^'" Amicus" asks the favour of his friend "Paul," to let him occupy a few numbers of the Repository, until he shall have advanced as far ir the dis- cussion as his opponent, when they can sta. t on even ground, which he thinks will make their communications much more mterestmg to their readers, and tend to bring the discussion to a speedier close. We thmk the request of "Amicus" so reasonable that " Paul" cannot ob- ject to it, and therefore shall expect a number from him next week. xd. (I^Paul agrees with Amicus that their "communications would be much more interesting to their readers, and their discussion brought to a speedier close," were they to start on "even ground," and continue at the same point in tlie discussion ; and therefore is willing to grant the " reasonable" request 45 *f Amicus to any reasonahle extent. If Amicus will come directly to the point, and meet Paul fairly on the leading sul>jects he has broached, it shall not be his fault if Amicus be not heard till ''e is satisfied. But sho ild he take the same circuitous rout, dwell as long on litlle thmgs, and introduce as much irrelevant matter, (however important) in answering each particular letter, as he has in commenting on the Introtluction, after hearing him a reasonable time, Paul will be compelled to interfere and claim his right. On the whole, Paul is willing to make no account of John, but suffer Ami- cus to occupy as many numbers as himself ; after which he hopes his friend, for his own credit, will not make his own dij'tiseness a plea for any farther pri- vilege. From John, whether he be a Deist, Friend or both, Paul takes his leave with some reluctance ; not because he admires his candour, but because he has one trait seldom found among Friends, a •iviili7i^ness to come to the point-^nw this account Paul regrets he should be under any restraint and hopes to hear from him again when circumstances will permit. Seventh-day^ 1th Mo. 4.1, i8ir, LETTER V. Whether tliere is any weight in the sentiments I have ad- Tanced to show why the society I advocate, should pursue their present course, I leave the candid reader to determine. I Iiavc given my particular views on the subject of Missionary con- cerns, which I have no doubt are in coincidence with those taken by a large number of my fellow professors. There is however one view of the case which may be stated as the great point which governs the Society in this and every other religious en- gagement. They hold tlie doctrine that without Divine assist- ance, no work of a religious nature can either be rightly un- dertaken or properly conducted. That we have no right to enter on any religious concern however plausibly presented without the call and qualification of the Holy Spirit for the service. With respect to foreign Missions, I believe it may be safely as- serted, that hitherto the Society as a Body have not apprehend- ed it a religious duty to engage in them ; and that until they are so called and qualified, it would be contrary to their own prin- ciples, and very unsafe for them to meddle with them, lest in so doing they should incur that Divine rebuke, Isaiah i. 12 : " who hath required this at your hands ?" Paul in his 4th number, objects to my first communication, that like the Society of which I am a member, I make too much of little things. But if these little things arc beneath his notice, why did he make them a cause of complaint against us ? — I have discussed no subject to which he had not first given sufficient 4& importance by making it a topic of censure.-— But the truth is that those testimonies which he calls little, are only so in the yievv of corrupt human nature — they are neither little in their causes nor their con sequences^ the j have Divine wisdom for their author, Apostolic precept and example for their confirmation, and human happiness for their end. Our Lord, who knew the im])ortance of faithfulness in little things, lias left us this truly divine aphorism, whicli should be deeply engraven on the heart of every Christian — ^* He that is faithful in that which is least, is faithful also in much : and he tliat is unjust in the least is un-. just also in much." Lukexvi. 10. I will now briefly advert to some of those little things'^ which ** Paul" considers as matters of small moment, ^* ques- tions fit for none but children" — And first — of the ministry. Christ declared to tlie ministers commissioned by himself "Freely ye have received ;"your qualifications for the ministry have not been derived from colleges, theological schools or universities, but from the foimtain of free Grace, and I command you " free- ly give." Now we have demonstrative evidence that the Apos- tles did not mistake the nature and intention of their Lord's command. Their precepts and practice afterwards bear testi- mony beyond the power of sophistry to invalidate, that they un- derstood him to institute a ministry independent of any pecuni- ary consideration. And yet Paul" considers an infraction of our Lord's command, a disregard to the precepts and example of the Apostles a childish consideration. Secondly, of dress and address. The Apostle commanded the believers in his day not to be " conformed to this world,'- and that their adorning should not be the outward, but the in- ward, " adorning of a meek and quiet spirit." And our Sa- viour told his disciples to call no man master, for one was their master even Christ, and ** all ye," says he, " are brethren." " How" says he, can ye believe who receive honor, one of another, and seek not the honor, that cometh from God only." Shall it then be deemed a matter of indifFei-ence whether a Christian professing to be redeemed from the spii-it of the world shall stand an example of simplicity and non-conformity to its customs, or w hether he shall enter with the giddy multitude in- to the changeable fantastic fashions of the times, into the use of false and flattering and often disgusting compliments ? Little indeed must he be acquainted with the important consequences of a life of true self-denial, who would pronounce M^^his a trifling consideration. Tlie shape and colour of a garment considered abstractedly from the disposition which adopts them, and from the effects they may have on others are indifferent. Friends never thought otherwise. But whether the professors of the 47 Christian religion, the Disciples of him who said "Learn of mc, for I am meek and lowly in heart," shall in the true spirit of the world adopt its vain fashions, its frivolous customs, its cor- rupt language, its dissipating amusements, its flattering compli- mentary address — or whether they shall hold up a steady testi- mony, against them all, we do indeed consider a matter of great importance ! and in this sentiment we are ahundantly confirm- ed by most satisfactory experience. Many of us know and feel the happy effects of an emancipation from the slavery of fashion, and are concerned that others may en joy this great privilege. We sincerely lament to see so many of our younger members so blind to the high privileges of their education, as willingly to be chained to the car of Fashion, to be dragged about in the insipid circle of worldly pleasures, to see them rejecting the liberty purchased by the blood and suffering of their predecessors, for those effeminate and trifling gratifications which cannot satisfy an immortal spirit, and which are so inconsistent with the purity and divine excellence of true religion — to see them adopting a course which instead of confering real dignity of character, draws their attention to ex- terior ornament — makes them triflers — bars the avenues to the improvement of the understanding, and renders them objects of pity or contempt to all those whose opinions are worth consult- ing. " Paul" may call these little things," may stamp the standard we have raised against them with the epithet of " child- ish"— but with the most unequivocal evidence of experience, with the clear, plain precepts of the gospel in our favour, I hope and trust the Society of Friends may never let this excellent testimony fall to the ground, never consider that a little thing'* which draws after it a train of consequences so import- ant and innnerous that a volume might be profitably and inter- estingly filled in pointing them out. I will now turn to some of those great things which Paul" deems of high moment and of eternal consequence." And first : Of sprinkling a little water in the face, which he terms " baptism ;" and of taking bread and wine, both of which he dignifies with the appellation of Seals of God's covenant and badges of Christianity." That water baptism cr the sacrament of the supper, as it is termed, are the " seals of God's Covenant or the badges of Christianity," we have no better evidence than " Paul's" bare assertion. That they should ever have been so called, 1 deem the work of the busy system builder unsupported by one plain text, and directly contrary to the express language and general ten- or of Scripture doctrine, as I shall endeavor to show. They are both mei'e types at best. By some they are termed " outward 4a and visible signs of inward and spiritual Grace." Now all will aclvnowledge that inward and spiritual Grace may be and is largely known in the absence of these signs, otherwise thou- sands could experience the blessings of Divine Grace but once a month, and millions never at all. That these signs may be used in a state of gross pollution none will deny : that there is no necessary connexion between them and the things signified must be admitted. How then can they be seals of God's cov- enant and badges of Christianity ?" Such the Scriptures never call them — such in the nature of things they cannot be. They may sometimes be used by the unregenerate and wicked ! Of what then are they seals ? Surely not of God's covenant, but rather of hypocrisy. Indeed it may be safely asserted that Divine perfection never ordained such uncertain, such equivocal symbols to be badges or seals of grace to the Christian ; and I cannot conceive how any who delight not to dwell in tlie dark and misty region of shadows should be willing to give them such high sounding appellations. I w ill now undertake to show from plain scripture testimony. First, What is the covenant or god with his children under tlie gospel dispensation, — and secondly, to demonstrate from the same authority what is the seal of that covenant, and First, — From the Epistle to the Hebrews, chap. 8th. — where the Apostle is engaged at large to show the difference between the typical dispensation of the law, and the spiritual nature of the gospel, and where for this purpose he quotes the Prophecy of Jeremiah whicli describes the new covenant dispensation in remarkably clear terms, *' Behold the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judali, not according to the covenant tljat I made with their fathers in the day when 1 1 >ok them by the Iiand to lead them out of the land of Egypt ; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded tliem not saith the Lord. — For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord — / tvill put mij taws into their minds, and write them in their hearts ; and I will be to them a God, and thetj shall be to me a people, — and they shall not teach every man his neighbour and every man his brother, saying know the Lord; for all shall know me from the least to the greatest,'^ — See also Isaiah lix. 20, 21, quoted by the Apostle to the Ro- mans xi. 26, 27. These passages exhibit in so striking a man- ner the nature of the Gospel Covenant, an^ and sharply rebuked him for compel- ling the Gentiles to live as do the Jews ;" but what was very singular the Apostle Paul himself, two years after he had thus severely blamed Peter for his dissimulation, went to Jerusalem and fell into the same snare, by conforming io Jewish ceremonies^ at the request of the Apostle James and the church, and was near losing his life iii consequence. See Acts xxi. 31. Gal. ii. 11. From tliis view of the subject, it is evident that the practice of the Ai)ostles, with respect to outward ceremonies and the use carnal ordinances in the early periods of the church, is no infal- lible criterion of their evangelical nature. They had been edu- cated in them, were strongly attached to them. These ceremo- nies had been divinely instituted and reverently regarded. It is not therefore reasonable to suppose they could be instantane- ously abandoned. It fully appears from the scriptures, that the primitive ministers of the church were slow to perceive their in- consistency with the gospel dispensation, and that after this was discovered they were cautious of alarming the prejudices of their new converts by preaching against them ; that they therefore not only indulged them in the use of Water Baptism, but of 4 many other ceremonies wliicli were instituted by tlie Law of Moses, as we see by the foregoing quotations. It is said tiie Apostles actually baptized their converts in water," and the inference drawn from this fact is tliat ministers tiow ought to do so too. Now if this is sound reasoning in one case, it must be sound in another. The Apostles actually cu*- cumcised their converts, therefore we ought to circumcise ours. The Apostles compelled their converts to live as do the Jews, therefore we ought to compel ours to observe the Laws of Moses. These conclusions though fairly made from the premises, I ap- prehend few will admit. The argument drawn from the practice of the Apostles, if it prove any thing, proves too much, and therefore the whole conclusion falls to the ground. We find however in tlie later periods of the church when the Apostles had fully experienced the inefficacy of Water Baptism, and the powerful nature of the baptism of Christ, that according to the prediction of John the Baptist, the use of -water decreased, Paul speaking of Water Baptism expressly tells the Corin- thians he thanked God that he had baptized so few of them, for Christ sent him not to baptize, but to preach the gospel ; which could not be true if our Lord in that commission. Matt, xxviii. 19. to his ministers meant Water Baptism. And Peter speaking of the baptism that saxes the soul, says it is not the putting away the filth of the flesh, which is the only property of the watery institution, but the answer of a good conscience to- wards God, which is the express design and true effect of the baptism of Christ. See 1 Cor. i. 14. and 1 Peter iii. 21. The Apostle to the Ephesians, Chapter iv. declares there is one Lord, one faitli, one Baptism, one God, and Father of all, who is above all, and through you all, and in you all." This one Baptism is the baptism of that one Lord, and not the carnal baptism oione of his creatures, else we must exclude the baptism of the one Spirit by which all true christians are baptized into the one body: for saith the Apostle, 1 Cor. xii. 13. By one Spirit we are all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free, and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.^' It is clear from many plain texts of Scripture, that Water Baptism" is not the baptism of Christ. It is expressly assert- ed, John iv. 2. that Christ did not practice it, and there is not the least proof that he ever commanded it. It is contrary to the nature and design of the gospel, which was not intended to institute signs sind symbols, but to bring in everlasting righteous- ness in their stead. And therefore, the Society of Friends, in conformity with what they deem plain scripture doctrine, dare not *• turn again to the weak and beggarly elements," Ga!. iv. 50 9. but direct tlieir attention and the attention of their hearers, to Chi ist the anomted teacher ot the New Covenant Dispensa- tion, that ** word of grace" in the soul which is able to huild it up in the most holy faitli, and give it an inheritance amongst all them that are sanctified. In my next, I intend to treat of the Passover Supper, com- nionlv called the Eucharist. AMICUS. Seventh-day, -jth Mo. 28, iBit LETTER VIL Ix my last Essay, I treated of AVater Baptism, and proved by many j lain Scripture Testimonies that it is no ** Ordinance of Christ," — tliat our Lord never practised it, nor gave any pre- cept or command to his disciples to use or administer it in any way whatever. I now come to give my view s of what has been emphatically termed Jlugiistissimum Eucharistiae Sacramen- tiimf^' the ceremony of taking Bread and Wine, from which, an •eminent christian and scholar of the seventeenth century has said, ** not only the greatest and fiercest and most hurtful con- tests, both among the professors of Christianity, in general, and among Protestants in pailicular have aiisen, but, also such ab- surdities, irrational and blasphemous consef|uences have ensued, as make the christian religion odious and hateful to Jews, Turk^ and Heathens. I shall first attempt to shew that this is no institution of Christ. Secondly, that it never was practised by the Apostles ; and thirdly, that it is contrary to the nature of the Gospel dispensa- tion. And First, That this is no institution of Christ, is I think, evident from the language of all the four Gospels. Matthew and John were the only Evangelists who were present at the Feast which has given rise to this ceremony. John it appears tliought the circumstance so immaterial, that he has given no account of it, although he relates some remarkable occurrences which took place when the Supper was over, and wliich I shall have occa- sion to notice hereafter. In order that the reader may judge how far tlie text will support my present position, I will quote the passage as it stands in Matt. xxvi. 17, 18, 19. "Now the first day of the Feast of unleavened bread the disci- ples came to Jesus, saying unto him, wliere wilt thou .that we^ propare for thee to eat f/.e Passover ? And he said, go intr. ♦iie rity to suck a man and say unto him, the Master saith my time 57 is at hand, I will keep the Passover at thy house with my disci- ples. And the discijiies did as Jesus liad commanded them, and inade ready the Passover/' In these tlirce short verses the Supper" is three times called the ** Passover,^' and once the Feast of unleavened bread.'' I tliink that this passage clearly proves that this was no new In- stitution. It \vas the " Feast of the Passover" instituted fifteen hundred and eighty years before that time. 1 am not ignorant of the attempts which have been made by College made christians to prove that this was not tlie Jewisk Passover wliich our Lord celebrated — they saw tliat this view of the subject militated against the high character they had stamped on this ceremony. Such weak elTorts can however have no oiher effect than wholly to invalidate the sacred text, since no proposition can be more clearly demonstrated by scripture, no fact better established than this can be. Matthew three times writes it " the Passover." Mark writes it five times ** the Pass- over," Mark xiv. Luke writes it six times ** the Passover,'* Luke xxii, and John the Evangelist calls it the Feast of tht Passover " John xiii. These authorities establish my first posi- tion beyond a doubi. I could bring to its support the opinions of many eminent writers of different religious persuasions who acknowledge that our Lord was celebrating ^^the Passover'* when he distributed the bread and wine at Supper, but I wish to be brief, and think it needless. I will now attempt to shew tliat our Lord on that occasion not only celebrated an ancient Jewish Festival, but that he instituted no new ceremony at that time. The breaking of Bread and dis- tribution of Wine with the blessing on both, were tlie common rites of tliis Feast, as Cradock, in liis Harmony of the Four Evangelists assures us on the authority of Jewish writers. As the account is interesting and pertinent to my purpose, I will miike an extract from it. 1. ** Wlien ail things appertaining to the Feast were prepar- ed, and all persons belonging to that company were ready, the chief man of the company takes a cup of wine ami blesseth it in some such w^ords as these — Blessed be thou O Lord, who hast created the fruit of the Vine,*' &:c. 2. *' Tlie table w^as then furnished with provisions of several sorts, viz. bitter herbs, unleavened bread, the body of the pas- chal lamb roasted whole. The later Jews added a dish of thick sauce, called Ch.vrosett, made of dates, figs, rasins and vinegar mingled together, (which was not commanded in the Law) as a memorial to them of the clay in wiiich their fathers laboured in the land of Egypt." "i. ** The chief man of the company takes the sour herbs and a 3« blesses them, fee. and eats thereof the quantity of an Olive, and distributes to the rest." 4. ^*Then he takes the dish or charger, which held the un- leavened bread or cakes, and laying by a piece of the unleaven- ed bread to be taken afterwai'ds with the paschal lamb at the close of the supper, he blesses the bread in such words as these — • Blessed art thou, O Lord, who bringest forth bread out of the earth, &c. Then he breaks it and eats of it." 5. When this is finished, he begins the second cup of wine, and the rest follow him. Then children used to be brought in, and were made to ask, what is the reason this night differs so much from other nights — instancing many particulars of the festival solemnities. Then the master of the feast begins a nar- rative, telling how tliey were all servants in Egypt, and that night God redeemed them, kc, this kind of declaration or shew- ing forth the occasion of the Passover, and God's wonderful goodness to them in their deliverance, they call Haggadah, This annunciation or shewing forth to their children the Lord's w onderful goodness and mercy, we find commanded in Exodous iii. 8, k xii. 26, 27." 6. **Then he takes that part of the unleavened rake which w^as laid aside before, and blessing it and giving thanks for it as before, he distributes to every one a piece to eat with the paschal lamb, of which each person was bound to eat as much as the quantity- of an Olive at least." 7. All ■ 's done, tliey drink the third cup, called the cup of Blessing or uianksgiving, after meat. And this third cup which was after supper, was the cup which our Saviour (as it seemeth) applied to a new spiritual signification." 8. After tliis they sung the ' Hallel' or Hymn, and so con- cluded the supper." So says Cradock. Thus it appeal's that our Lord did not then institute any new ordinance, and that he attended to those rites only, which were universally observed by the Jews at the Feast of the Passover. As chief man of the feast he only performed those ceremonies which the chief man of this feast always performed at the cele- bration of it; though as Cradock says '*he applied them to a new spiritual signification." He endi^avoured to turn their at- tention to the mystical import of this solemn ^.stival. The words ** This do in remembrance of me," are in the present tense, they allude to a present act, and simply mean as I conceive, "eat this bread in remembrance of its great antitype, the Spint of Christy who is able to deliver you from a harder bondage than Pharaoh's, a deeper darkness than the darkness of Egypt." If those who differ from us in opinion, do not hold the doctrine of Transubstantiation, I cannot see how they can fairly put a 59 different construction on our Saviour s words — He says. " tiiiti is my body which is given for you — this is my blood of the New Testament," — here he calls the bread and wine his body and blood. Now I cannot see more than two ways of interpi-eting^ these expressions — the one literally, the otlier spiritually. If we take them literally, we fall into downrii^iit popery, we em- brace the dark doctrine of Transubstantiation — if wc take them spiritually, they must refer to his spiritual body and blood. The Society of Friends prefer the latter mode of interpretation, for which preference, I will quote some plain passages of Scrip- ture, exactly pertinent to this subject, in which the interpreta- tion we have adopted, is sanctioned by the highest authority, that of Christ himself. Then Jesus said unto them, verily, verily, I say unto you, ex- cept ye eat the fiesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my Hood hatli eternal life, and I will raise \nm up at the last day : for my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by tlie Father, so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven, not as your fathers did eat Manna, and are dead ; he that eateth this bread shall live forever." John vi. 53. At these expressions the disciples of our Lord murmured ; they did not perceive tlieir mystical meaning — - their views were yet carnal. He, when he knew they murmured, said to them, Doth this offend you r" He seemed surprised that they who had so often heard him deliver divine truths in pa- rables and allegories, should be offended at this mode of speech — and then added, **It is the Spirit that quickeneth (that giveth life) the fliesh profiteth nothing. The words that I speak unto you they are spint and they are life,^* Here he unravels the mystery ! Shews them that under the figures of bread flesh ?.nd blood he was speaking of that divine Spirit which only can give life to the soul — a participation in which is the true Supper of our Lord Jesus Christ. See Rev. iii. 20. Had the church of Rome taken Christ as his own interpreter, we should never have heard of the monstrous doctrine of Tran- substantiation, they would not have disgraced the profession of the christian religion by faggot and fire, torture and bloodshed to enforce their carnal views. If the I'eformed churches had clearly perceived the meaning of this text, '* my words they are spirit and they are life," we should not sec them at this day per- petuating the Je^vish Passover under the appellation of a sacra- ment,^^ under the title of a Romish military otLth, a word having no synonym in the sacred volume, neither should we hear them 66 calling it a Seal of God^s Govenant^^ contrary to the express language of scripture, and without one solitary text to support its title to such a distinction. When the reformation from Popery was carried on by Lutlier and Calvin., they differed widely on the subject of this " sacra- ment" as it is termed. Luther held the doctrine of Consubstan- tiation, that is, that the very body and blood of Christ, the same that was born of the Virgin IMary and suffered under Pontius Pilate is after consecration by the priest, substantially present to- gether with the substance of* bread and wine, and that the wor- thy receiver partakes of both. Calvin taught that the outward body and blood of Christ are not there corporeally or substan- tially, but yet that it is really and sacramen tally received by the faithful in the use of bread and wine ; but how this outward body and blood could be corporeally absent and yet really present, Calvin confessed he could not explain, and indeed it is impos- sible to explain it. In such absurdities, such inextricable dif- ficulties do men involve themselves by leaving the plain path marked out by our blessed Lord, to wander in the confused ki- byrintli of human contrivance. Modern Calvinists and others, seeing many insurmountable difficulties in both these schemes, have I believe, lowered their views of this " ordinance" as they call it, and now consider it *'2L commemoration of Christ's death." I will now offer a few remarks on the latter view of this subject. If my leader will consult the accounts given by the three Evangelists, ^^ lio relate the circumstances of this supper, he will find that Luke is the only one who adds any words importing a remembiance o? Christ — This do in remembrance of me." Our Lord does not say, do this in remembrance of my death — literally it con- veys no such meaning, but taken in connexion with the context appears clearly to mean, that as the bread and iviiie were sym- bols of his s})iritual body and blood, so they should at that time eat of that bread and drink of that cup in remembrance of that Divine Spirit which should shortly be poured out upon all flesh in a more eminent degree than it then was under the Jewish dis- pensation. I think the unprejudiced reader must be satisfied with the proofs I have adduced to show that the use of bread and wine as a religious ceremony is no institution of Christ's." The lim- its of my essay will not permit me to pursue the subject further at this time — in my next I shall endeavour to show — that the Apostles never used them as a religious rite, for this purpose I shall as heretofore rely on plain Scripture evidence, an autliori- ty that I am fully persuaded will confirm such a position. AMICUS. * See h)^ Institute lib. iv. chap. 17, sect. 32 61 St^enth'day,-;th Ma. ai.igi:. NOTES. AMICUS TO PAUL.* $ "Amicus'* acknowledges Paul's" condescension in permitting him to take even ground with him, and will endea- vour " to come to the point," in the discussion now pending, as directly as the nature of his concern will admit. It ought how- ever to he remembered, that the view of ** Amicus," as express- ed in his first nunHier, was not to enter into a controversy. He knew that the Society of which he was a member, was grossly misrepresented, he believed that many pious persons of other religious persuasions, had been made to suppose tliat we held doctrines inimical to the christian religion. It was for tlie sake of these, principally, that he took up his pen. To appear on the Arena, in the character of a religious gladiator, was not hi3 design. Such a character might amuse the thoughtless multi- tude, but could not advance the Redeemer's kingdom in th© earth, neither did he suppose tliat he could produce any effect on those whose interest it is to traduce us, or on those who are so bigotted as to suppose there are no christians beside the subscri- bers to their own creed. With these views, he has abstained from the use of abusive epithets. He has not called his adversa- ry a Deist," an Atheist," an Infidel" or a Heathen." He is aware that such a course might suit a vulgar taste, but must offend the sober candid christian of all denominations. He remembers that to "be courteous," is a precept of the gos- pel. 1 Peter iii. 8 : and has not forgotten the scripture admoni- tion. Let not him that girdeth on the harness, boast himself as he that putteth it off." A man may vindicate his opinions with- out being rude, may sustain the character of a christian, without laying aside the gentleman. "Amicus" still means to pursue his original plan, and asks no more than a fair hearing, and he may add, from the candid conduct of the Editor so far, he con- fidently expects it. He will be as brief as tlie design of convey- ing information, to the candid inquirer will admit. And though he thinks he ought to have room to answer objections already made against us, before any more are brought before the public, yet if the Editor thinks otherwise, *he will cheerfully submit. • This note should have been Inserted previous to the last, or 7th Letter of Atwicvs. * id's. 0 65 Saturday^ yuly 28, iSai- PAVL TO AMICUS, ^ense of common sense, would induce a writer to quote such passages for tliis purpose— that because men broke bread together, and afterwards were engaged in prayers — that becaiise they broke bread from liouse to house and did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart — or because when they came together to break bread, and when one of them had taken it and broken it and eaten and talked a long vhile with the rest — or be- cause a minister of the Gospel after being tossed many (lays in a stt)rm at sea, rmdiug a favorable opportunity to satisfy the calls of exhausted nature, and desiring to encourage the dispirited weather-beaten mariners to take necessary food, had taken bread, and with thanks to a merciful Providence who had perserved their lives, had broken it and did cat — I say, that because of these facts we should infer a celebration nf the Eucharist, is certainly one of the most extraordinary conclusions upon record. But those who contend for such a conclusion have other insur- mountable didiculties to encounter. I think my readers must have noticed as they attended to the texts I havequ >ted, that nei- ther the wine nor the aip were once mentioned or alluded to. Now if they had been celebrating a meinorial of the death of their Lord, could they have oinLtted so important a part of the cere- mony ? And if they did omit it, did they not (according to the views of our opponents) break their hordes express command^ when he said Drink ye all of it." The cup," says Dr, Clarke, (the great champion of the Eucharist) ** pointed out fheverif essence of the institution" — ** the cup is essential to the sacrament of the Lord's Supper." All who are in t-ie least ac- quainted with theological controversy, kfiow how severely the Protestants have castigated the Roman Catholics for refusing the fup to the laity. The author last referred to, says *' there is not a Popish priest under heaven, who denies the cup to tiie people (and they all do this) that can be said t') celebrate the Lord's Supper at all. Now if this be true, what conclusion must we draw from the practice of the primitive Christians, as recorded by Luke, who we see neitiier administered the cup, nor used it themselves ? I leave the reader to answer tlie question to him- self. But it may be said, that perliaps Luke forgot to mention it." Ah ! no that cannot be. I a n very sure that if tho Evan- gelist had been ono in sentiment with some modern Clii'ist- ms, he never could have forg.jttenit — ^llc would iiave written it a wn in very con^^picuous cliaracti^rs. He wlio was so very nr n 't" in his history as to relate tiie hoisting of a mainsail, the weighing 66 of an anchor, the loosing of the rudder bands, would not have omitted to mention the memorial of his Lord's ^'predom hloodJ^ Let tlie serious reader maturely consider this subject, and I think lie cannot avoid the conclusion that the primitive Chrig- rians were neither celebrating tlie Passover nor any other reli- gious ceremony on these occasions. The words breaking bread from house to house^ eating their meat with gladness and single- ness of heart, breaking bread and eating it, and talking a long tvhile — with the other 1 have quoted, certainly do not indicate a celebration of the Eucharist; they rather convey the idea that these good men were tliankfully accepting the food which a bountiful Providence had afforded for the sustenance of their lives. But happily for the more perfect illustration of this subject, Luke himself gives us a key to unlock the meaning of these ex- pressions. He leaves us not to rest upon the basis of conjec- tui-e. AVe are informed that in the early period of the church the believers had all things in common." See Acts iv. 32. &c. for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the Apostles' feet, and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need." Here we see the old system, the private exclusive appropriation of property was abandoned, for the purpose of creating a common stock. He afterwards, Acts chap. vi. describes the difficulties which arose out of this new system. ^' For when the number of disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God to serve tables." Upon which sca en men whose names arc mentioned, were appointed to the particular duty of serving the tables. From these views it appears evident that their common fund was appropriated to furnish common tables, where the dis- ciples ate in companies in the private dwellings of the believers. This affords a satisfactory explanation of the terms '* breaking bread from house to house," where " they eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart" — in a thankful remembrance of the author of every blessing, with prayer and supplication for the continuance of his mercy. I shall now advert to the only remaining passages in the New Testament on wliich our opponents rely for the support of the ceremony of taking bread and wine as a memorial of the death of Christ. They are found in the xth and xith chapters of the Epistle to the Corinthians. In the tenth chapter tlie Apostle is engaged to shew the Co'r- 67 iiithians that to eat at the tahle of idols and thereby to encouiv age idolatry, is utterly incompatible with a spiritual commu- nion of a believer with his Lord, as from a perusal of the whole passage plainly appears, and which I can clearly demonstrate if it should appear necessary. Before I enter on the discussion of the subjects contained in the eleventh chapter of this Epistle, it will be necessary to give a short view of the state of the Cor- inthians : first, generally, and then of the church in particular. Ancient Corinth was one of the most opulent cities of Greece. Voluptuousness and Idolatry the general concomitants of wealth, were its characteristics. An incredible number of heathen dei- ties were there worshipped, to enumerate which would swell my Essay beyond its due limits. Venus was however the pre- eminent object of their devotions. Her splendid temple was furnished with a statue of the goddess, clad in bright armour — another of the god of love, and a third of the sun which had been adored at Corinth before the worship of Venus was intro- duced. Strabo informs us that the temple was so rich that it maintained more than one thousand harlots who were devoted to her service and ministered her unhallowed rites. We are in- formed by Athenseus, that the festivals of the Aphrodosia in honour of Venus were celebrated in the city by women of infa- mous character, and with the most abominable ceremonies. Erasmus in his Adagia," says that Corinth was filled with courtezans. The men were distinguished for their licentious- ness, luxury and idolatry. Such is the character of the Corin^ thians as recorded on the page of history. How strikingly does this character correspond with that given by tlie Apostle, even of many of the professors of Cliristianity in communion with the church of Corinth. From Paul's Epistle it plainly appears that they were in a most disorderly state. The first chapter shews that divisions and contentions existed among them. In the third, he tells tliem they were yet carnal^ and in proof of it, mentions that " envying, and strife, and divisions" were preva- lent in their church. In the fourth, we are informed that some were ** puffed up," and the Apostle threatens to come to them with a rod, Ji crime that was not so mucli as named among the lascivious Gentiles is laid to tlieir charge in the fifth chapter, and instead of mourning for it they gloried in it, for which the Apostle rebukes them. In the next they are accused of a liti- gious disposition. I speak it to your shame," says the Apos- tle, ** brother goetli to law with brother, and that before the un- believers; now tlierefore there is utterly a fault among you, be- cause ye go to law with one another" — ** Yc do wrong and de- fraud and that your brethren. Then after alluding to other ubom- ihations existing amongst tlicm, the Apostle refers to their man- tier of using bread and wine as a religimis ceremony, and this is tlie only case of the kind, recorded of the professors of Christian- ity in the whole New Testament. It appears then that these contentious, immoral, litigians, frau- dulent, carnal Corinthians were some how in the habit of eating bread and drinking wine as a religious ceremony. Their man- ner of doing it furnishes the Apostle with a topic of censure, and he rebukes them for it in a strain of severity, little usual with him, I w ill quote his words as they give us a striking memento of the degenerate state of the Corinthian church. ** Now in tliis I declare unto you, I praise you not, that you come together, not Jor the better but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the cliurc! , I hear that there be divisions among you, and 1 partly believe it: for there must also be heresies ammg you, that they which are api)roved may be manifest among you. When ye come together, therefore, into one place, tliis is not to eat the Lord's supper, for in eating everyone taketh before other his own supper and one is hungry and anotlier is drunken — What! have ye not houses to eat and to drink in, or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not f What shall 1 say to you ? Sliall I praise you in this I I praise you not. But it is said, tliat ** it was tlie abuse of this ceremony that the Apostle reproved : his directions afterw ards, how to use it right- ly, proves that he did not mean they should lay it aside." I grant he did not — this same Apostle in condescension to the pre- judices of the early cliristians and regarding their low state in the experience of vital Christianity suftered tiiem to use the car- nal ordinances of Moses, w hich w ere abolisiied by Christ, long before, and in this case of the Corinthians, he manifested tlie same indulgence until they should be further enlightened to re- ceive the Gospel in its divine purity. In this very Epistle he gives us a strong reason for his condescension. " And I brethren," says he, *' could not speak unto you as unto spintual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk and not rvith meat, for hitlierto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet are ye norv able, for ye are yet car- nal," 1 Cor. iii. 1, 2, 3. Is it not a pity that those who contend for the use of bread and wine, as ^.religious rite, should have no better example in all the scriptures, than the Jewish **feastof the Passover," and the prac- tice of these carnal Corinthians ? the most distracted, conten- tious, immoral church then existing in all Christendom.* Yet so it is, rather than lay aside the use of this carnal ordinance * For a further, illustration of this fact, let my readers consult "a Paraphrase the Bpistles of St. Paul," b> the celebiateU John Locke. 09 which was never practised by the Jlpesiles, they will plead the ubservance of it fro n tiie uiost objectionable exa.nples. My seconil position, that this cercinony *• never was practised by the Apostles," is I think clearly proved. In my next nam- be*', 1 intend to shew **tiiat it is contrary to the nature of the gospel dispensation. AMICUS. Seventh'day^ Zth Mo. ii, leui. LETTER IX. The third position stated in my first Essay, on the subject of *'The Eucharist," comes now to be proved. In my last I shewed by plain scripture testimony, that the Apostles never used bread and wine as a ** religimis ceremony/^ I now propose to sliew from the same autliority, that tlie use of these symbols as a religious rite, is contrary to the nature of the gospel dis- pensation. In Older to illustrate my subject, I will first give my views of the nature of tlie Law as a dispensation of God to the children of Israel. In the next, I will endeavour to give a scriptural de- scription of the gospel dispensation, and conclude with some general observations on the whole subject. Jlnd First. The Laws of Moses were an outward code, a set of external rules for the government of tlie Israelites in religion, morals and civil life. They were adapted in divine wisdom to the state of a dark and benighted people. They were intended gradually to lead them from a state of gross superstition and idolatry to the worship of the one true God. For this pur- pose various outward ordinances were instituted, all having a typical meaning, and pointing with clearness to the great anti- type, in whom all these figures finally had their accomplish- ment; in short, they pointed to Christ," who is "the end of tlie law for righteousness to every one that believeth," Rom. X. 4. This code of laws, or as it is emphatically termed the Law,*^ pi'escribed timeSf places and external ntes in and through wliich tlieir worship was to be performed. Their tem- ple had an outward glory — a worldly sanctuary — its ordinances of divine service — its tabernacle wherein was the candlestick and the table and the shew bread, and after the second veil the taber- nacle, which was called the holiest of all, and over it the cheru" bims of glory, shadowing the mercy seat, "which" saith the Apostle, ileb. ix. 9. ^c. *' wars a figure for the time then present in which was offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not 70 make him who did the service perfect, as pertaining to the coui- science — which stood only in meats and drinks and divers wash- ings and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the timeof rer formation. Now this first covenant" as the Apostle terms it, (how glo- rious soever in its season) was defective in the most important point. It was an external rule of actioii. Although instituted by divine authority, and attested hy the most awful sanctions, it had not that internaU efficient energy which is necessary to pro- duce a radical change of character. A man might live blame- less concerning the righteousness of the law, Phil. iii. 6. and yet be a mad persecutoi* of good men — be destitute of charity or Gompassion for the innocent dissenter from his own creed, see Acts xxxvi. 11. Now this defect of the Mosaic code is not to be attributed to any oversight or imperfection in the Law Giver — it is a defect which in the very nature of things is attached to ercery external code of laws, let them be derived from what source they may ; it is the sine qua non of all outward ordinances. Christ the divine author of our religion, '*in whom were hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge," Col. ii. 3, who per- fectly knew the weakness and inefficiency of every external sys- tem of religion, did not come into the world to abolish the cere- monial laws of the Jewish Legislator, in order to institute a new set of outward ceremonies in their stea . He did not come to blot out the hand writing of ordinances,^' Col. ii. 13, which were weak as pertaining to the conscience, and to substitute others equally impotent in their room. Neither did he find fault with the first covenant, because its " meats and drinks and di- vers washings and carnal ordinances" were not significant fig- ures of heavenly things : — The sacrifices under the law, the sprinkling of blood, and the various legal purifications Avere far more lively emblems of the death of Christ, and pointed more distinctly to the means of salvation under the new covenant, than the use of bread and wine, can possible do. Let the veil of prejudice be effectually drawn aside, and all must see and ac- knowledge that the struggling dying lamb, its streaming blood, tlie altar prepared for tlie sacrifices, with all the solemn accom- paniments of the occasion, are far more striking symbols of our Lord's death, and would make a much deeper impression on the spectators of such a scene, than the ceremonies of the Eu- charist." Secondly. I will now attempt to shew from scri})ture author- ity, that the gospel dispensation was intended to remedy the de- ficiency of the dispensation which preceded it, by introducing a poTverful, internal, efficient rule of action, perfectly adapted to the lowest, as well as the highest intellectual capacities, equally suited to all ages and to every people under heaven. 71 For this purpose, I will introduce to the attention of my rea- der, that passage in Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews, where with inspired energy and clearness, he describes to tlie Jews the dif- ference between the old and new covenants. S])eaking of our Lord, the Apostle says, chap. viii. *' He is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises (than that of the law.) For if that /rsf covenant had been found faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. But finding fault with them, he saith. Behold the days come saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah : not according to the cove- nant I made with their Fathers in the day when 1 took them by tlie hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord, I will piit my laws INTO THEIR MIND and xvrite them ix their hearts : And I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people. And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, know ye the Lord, for all shall know me from the least to the greatest Here the Apostle quoting the prophecy of Jeremiah xxxi. 31, 32, 33, 34, not only tells the Hebrews that the new covenant was not to be according to the covenant made with their Fathei^^ which stood only in meats and drinks and divers washings and carnal ordinances^ imposed on them till the time of reformation." See Heb. ix. 9. but he shows what was to be the nature of this new covenant — a law wntten in the mind and in the heart — a law by which all should know him from the least to the greatest, — in fine, a spiritual covenant — the gift of the Holy Spirit. I could cori*oborate this view of the subject by a very numer- ous collection of scripture authorities, but desiring to be brief, I will only bring to the attention of my readers a few texts, which I apprehend will be sufficient to show that it is not to car- nal ordinances the christian is indebted for any gospel benefit, but that the true memorial of our Lord as well as every other spiritu- al blessing is the product of the Holy Spirit in the soul. •* To this efficient cause (says a remarkably lucid wTiter of the last century) all the good that is done, all the virtue that is wrought in the church in general, or in any of its members," is to be ascribed. The Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit, shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, John xvi. 13. The letter killcth but the Spirit givdh life, 2 Cor. iii. 6. By one Spirit we are all baptized into one body, 1 Cor. xii. 13. But ye are ivashed^hut ye are sanctified — but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God, 7£ 1 Cor. Ti. 11. The law of the Spikit of life in Christ Jesus, hath made me free from the law of sin and death, Rom. viii. 2, If ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live ; for as many as are led by the Spirit of God tliey are the sons of God, and if children then heirs, heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ," Rom. viii. 13, 14, 17. Thus we see that under the glorious gospel dispensation, it is to this Divine Spirit that the soul of man is indebted for every christian grace. It is the remembrancer— the teacher — the guide — the baptizer — the purifier — the sanctifer — the justifier, — It makes free from sin — it mortifies the deeds of the bodij — it gives life to the soul, makes us children of God, and joint heirs with Christ in his kingdom of divine glory. He therefore, who has known a conversion from sin, and has been made a partaker of this Holy Spirit, and afterwards goes into the ceremonial observance of carnal ordinances turns back from the new into the nature of the old covenant and falls direct- ly under the Apostolic rebuke. Gal. iv. 9 : ** But now after ♦that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements whereunto ye again de- sire to be in bondage ? Ye observe days and months and tivies and years. ** I am afraid of you lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain." *' Wherefore, if ye be dead with Clirist from the rudiments of the world, why as though living in the world are ye subject to ordinances after the commandments and doc- trines of men. ** Touch not, taste not, handle not — which all are to perish with the using," Col. ii. 20, 21, 22. How they who toiich, taste, and handle, the elementary bread and wine, both of which perish with the using — how they who call it an ordinance and oh^evYe it daily or monthly or yearly, can avoid the rebuke of the Apostle, I know not ; but let any of lay readers who are seriously seeking after the truth, as it relates to this subject, turn to the fourth chapter of the Epistle to the Ga- latians, and the second chapter of that to tlie Colossians, and I think he will clearly perceive that the Apostle and our opponents are not of the same mind. There is hardly a weaker argument advanced to support the observance of the Eucharist," than its importance as a memo- rial of our Lord. *' He" saith the Apostle 1 Cor. vi. 17. **that is joined to the Lord is one Spirit." The union of the soul and body is not more intimate than the soul of the real cliristian is with Christ. The branch of the vine is not more closely unit- ed to its parent stem, the arm is not connected with the body in a more vital union, than the member of Christ is with tlie head of the church. — A woman may more easily forget her sucking child, a man more easily forget himself, than the truly spiritual 73 cliri:itian can forget the fountain of his happiness, the spring of his purest delights. It argues a very low state of religious ex- perience, to say, that a monthly memorial of the death of Christ is a necessary memento to a true heliever. Carnal ordinances may suit a carnal state. He that uses bread and wine as a mt morial of our Lord, tells us how easily he can forget the hand that feeds him, how weak arc his recollections of him who is a perpetual stream of bounty and goodness, who gives fertility to the earth, and happiness to the devoted soul. Meats and drinks and divers washings and carnal ordinan- ces'* were only to continue till the time of reformation — this time of reformation was the institution of the iiew covenant dispen- sation.— Tlie arguments in favour of outward ordinances, drawn from the practice of some of the believers in tlie early periods of the christian church are very weak — the work of reformation is not always sudden ; it is generally gradual, tlie man whose eyes our Lord opened, at first saw men as trees walking, Mark viii. 24. Many of tlie early conAertsto Christianity, both Jews and Gentiles, had from their infancy been taught to reverence the forms of exterior worship. It is not to be supposed they could instantaneously abandon them. Wc are not to expect the meridian splendor of the gospel sun when it first emerges from the misty horizon of types and shadows ; but as the evangelical morning advanced, theii* views of divine truth, became clearer and clearer — spiritual objects more and more distinct, and the new and living way, which is through tlie veil, was at length })lainly marked out : so tliat thirty years after the conversion of the Apostle Paul, we find him in the Epistle to tlie Hebrews, de- lineating as with a pencil of liglit the bo mciary line between the dispensation of carnal ordinances and that of the new covenant, which stands wholly independent of them all and is to endure to the end of time. The sub ject is copious. I have constantly felt, in penning my sentiments on it, the narrowness of my limits, but iiaving shown that the use of bread and wine as a religions act was never insti- tuted by Chiist — that it was never practised by the Apostles , and that it is contrary to the natnre of the gospel dispensation, I will for the present close the subject with the expression of a wish, that the enquirer after truth, who has felt sufficiently interested to fol- low me through the present discussion, would at his leisure take down his Bible and refer to the passages I have quoted, where I am persuaded he will find much interesting matter, further il- lustrative of the subject, and which 1 have neither time nor room to insert in my Essays. I intend in my next, to give some of my views on the subject af the scriptures. AMICUS. 10 74 Se-venth-day, %th Mo. ii, i84x. NOTES. Amicus-^ hi liis former communication for the Repository, j*as distinctly stated, that his labours in the present discussion, are principally intended for the information of the sober, can- did, enquirer. To his readers of this class he is perfectly wil- ling to submit tlie question, whether he has ** insinuated" any thing of an " ungenerous nature against his opponent. Ami- cus" did tliink, and he does still think, that the free use of de- grading epithets, gratuitously applied to us, and unsupported by reasonable proof, was uncourteous." If our adversaries sin- cerely believe tliat we are Infidels" or Deists," let them state their views of the pnnciples of Deism^ and then shew in what res])ect our doctrines, taken from our acknowledged writers, coincide with such principles. This course would be fair and honourable, and the public after hearing both parties would be able to decide liow far such epithets were applicable to us. But instead of this, our opponent seldom puts his pen to paper with- out leaving it stained with some epitliet calculated to defame us. Only last week after acknowledging his obligation to suspect himself of some error on this head," aher promising' ' to be more w atchful of his spirit," and careful of his language" in future, he directly falls into his usual course. He tells us that he and some others ''believe^'' that ** Friendism" (as he is pleased to term our principles, (*' is a specious kind of Infidelity, a spurious kind of Cliristianity, a grait of Deism upon the gospel stock." Now, is this fair ? is it candid ? is it the legitimate fruit of that heaven-born charity which desires the highest welfare of all mankind ?" To say nothing of charity, is it common justice to lay upon us charges of the most degrading character, upon the slender ground of a beiicf." Such a course must and will be reprobated by every reader wisose opinions are entitled to re- spect. If ** Amicus" were to pursue such a course towards his opponent, the society whose principles he advocates, would be amongst the first to condemn his conduct. In the 13th number of the Repository Amicus courteously ask- ed the favour to be permitted to occu])y a few successive num- bers, for the purpose of answering charges already before the public, previous to the exibition of any others. Tlie Editor in the same number, declared tliis request to be so reasonable that it could not be objected to ; and in the succeeding number, ^'Paul" acquiesced in the proposition, at the same time, ad- mitting that the request w as reasonable. After all this, " Ami- <'us" is charged with crowding Paul" out of Ais place /I What Paul's place is, " Amicus" is at some loss to understand. Is 75 his place, under a digiiised name, to attack an innocent and un- offending people, and w eek after week, to load thoin with oppi o- brious epitliets — to hold them up to public view as Infidels^ Athe- ists, Deists and spurious Christians ; and then to complain be- cause tliey ask as a favour what was obviously a natural riglit, to be heard befoiM? any fuither matter of a degrading character should be presented againstthemr Ifthis is '•Paul's*' ];/flce, *'Ami- cns" assures him that he has no wish ** to crowd him ouV^ — It is such a -place as Amicus" has no ambition to occupy. '• Amicus" will close this note, with the observation that lie has no wish *• to fire" at **Paul," neither has he any **tort" but truth and reason — tliat to make such remarks as are con- tained in this note, is far the most unpleasant part of his duty ; and he will venture to express a hope, tliat in future, the parties to the pi-esent discussion, may evince by the language and spi- rit of their respective communications, that the understand the nature of that blessed religion which teacheth, that •• though we speak with the tongue of men or angels, and have not charity w e ai*e nothing.'* As Paul has now been silent for six successive weeks — as Amicus has written nine numbers, and with John, eleven num- bers to his seven: — as he has written /our on Paul's short intro- duction, tivo to his one on Baptism, and three to his one on the Lord's Supper; and as Amicus is not so inferior in talents as to need so much longer time than Paul to express his sentiments ; — Paul is not aw are of any claim Amicus may have to farther indulgence, and therefore hopes he will have no objection to Paul's appearing next w eek. Zaiurday, Aug. i8, I8ii. LETTER MIL OBJECTIOXS TO BAPTISM ANSWERED. *' Go teach f disciple J all nations, baptizing them in tlie name of the Father, tlie Son, and the Holy Ghost,'' Matt, xxviii. 19, In my former number on Baptism, to commence the discus- sion, I introduced only two arguments, in favour of our prac- lice, drawn from the Command of Christ and the Practice of the Apostles. On the same subject I have many more aigu- inents to urge. But as Amicus has in the mean time appeared with man;, plausible objections to our scheme ; before pr? cteding farther, 1 will answer him. After reading and studying your 76 most admired wTiters on this subject, I must pronounce this Es- say of Amicus, the most able and ingenious I have evei' read; and it* it were possible to support your doctrines, you could hard- ly commit your cause to safer hands. But, until mysticism tri- umphs over Scripture, history, and common sense, all attempts to justify your doctrine Avill be vam. John the Baptist, (of whom you make so much) we acknow- ledge to have been the morning star of the Gospel dispensation. He came to announce the speedy rising of the Sun of Righte- ousness. As that Sun arose, he gradually disappeared. As Christ increased, he decreased." Baptism with water was in those days, the necessary badge of discipleship. The Jews had used it with their Gentile proselytes ; John applied it to his converts : and when Jesus began to make disciples," he took the same course, as we are expressly told John iii. 22, 26. and iv. 1. After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judea : and there he tarried with them, and baptized. And they came unto John, and said unto him. Rabbi, he that was with tliee beyond Jordan, to whom thou bearest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to bim. When, therefore, the Lord knew how the Pharisees had beard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John." These passages pi*ove that if he did not baptize himself, he ordered it to be done. The baptism which he used, however, was John's baptism, adminis- tered not in the name of the Tnnity, nor in the name of Jesus, but '* in the name of Him who was to come." John instead of be- ing grieAed that Jesus * baptized and all men came unto him," (iii. 26.) rejoiced, as does tlie friend 'of the bridegroom when he succeeds in procuring for the bridegroom, numerous guests. " From the whole tenor of the New Testament," says Ami- cus, two kinds of baptism are distinctly understood." He might have said four: as, 1. The Baptism of ^afer. 2. The Baptism of the Spirit, or with the ordinary influences of grace ; a baptism given to every saint since the fall of Adam. 3. The Baptism of Blood, or Suffering, mentioned Matt. xx. 22. *• But Jesus answered and said. Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I sliall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with ? They said unto him ^e are able. Mark x. 38. But Jesus said unto them. Ye know not what ye ask : can ye drink of the cup that I drink of and be baptized with the baptism that 1 am baptized with ? Luke xii. 50. But I have a baptism to be baptized with ; how am I straightened till it be accomplished." — a baptism peculiar to Christ and the Martyrs : and, 4. The Baptism of Miraculous (rij^s, commonly called in Scripture, tlie Baptism of the Holy Ghost" or " fire ^" a Baptism never bestowed before nor since 77 the (lays of the Apostles. It is this last to which John the Bap- tist pai-ticularly alhules, when he says, " I indeed baptize witli water, but he (Christ) shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost,''^ For John's own disciples, we have no reason to doubt, were some of them already sincere converts, of course had been bap- tized with the common baptism of the spirit ; as well as tliou- sands o{'the Old Testament saints. The Apostles were undoubt- edly Christians, when our Lord, after his resurrection, alluding to this very passage, says, '* John indeed baptized you with water, but ye sJiall he baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days lience." Acts i. 5. The Baptism of the Holy Ghost here manifestly refers to tlie Miraculmis Gifts, bestowed on and alter the day of Pentecost. When, therefore, John says, He shall baptize you witli the Holy Ghost," he no more sets aside the baptism of water, than the baptism of blood, or the common baptism of the spint. He simply means to say ** Christ shall bestow upon his followers an Extraordinary Injiuence of the Holy Spirit." He did not mean to say, that Christ sJionld not baptize with water, because we have seen already tliat he did baptize with water. John iii. 22. But, after all, what if Jolin had said m so many words, that Christ, would not baptize with water," (though he has said no such thing,) I know not what support it could bring to the cause of Amicus, since he has set aside the testimony of the inspired Apostles wlio certainly had more light than John. For if ** the least in the kingdom of hea\ en, is greater thaii John the Baptist," as our Lord affirms, I cannot see why he, an individual, should be always infallibly right, and they a large body instructed from our Lord's own lips, and gifted moreover with Inspiration, should be unanimously wrong ! Indeed, I do think Amicus has cut himself off from any farther quotations fi*om the preachers or writers of the New Testament. He has decided that they are fallible on the plainest points ! He has taught us that tliey were fallible through tlie greater part if not the whole of their lives ; and if he iiohls that they became infallible before they died, he is bound to show before quoting any text, that this text was written after they passed the line of fallibility ! — Of this hereafter. But whetlier fallible or infallible, John gives no testimony against, while all the Apostles and early preachers and early Chris- tians, give their testimony for Water Baptism. I now proceed to notice what he says on the subject of our Lord's commission or command, Matt, xxviii. 19. '* Go dis- ciple all nations baptizing them," &c. Amicus denies that here is any pr<'cept for water baptism. Why ? because I myself have admitted, the comraaml w as " not express." I acknow- 78 ledge my %ords are capable of such ^construction, but such ^ thought was never in niy heart. I did, and do still consider the command sufficiently express. You must acknowledge " it w as calculated to lead," as it did lead the Apostles to water bap- tism. I spoke of ymir admissions, not mine. But says Amicus, again, the word Water is not used." Such an objection, if I did not think you serious in offering it, I would pi'onounce ridi- culous I Suppose our Lord had said, Go dip all nations" — ^' immerse all nations" — *^ spnnkle all nations" — would not common sense have led every person to the idea of water ? But the word water is not mentioned. Now the word ''Baptize,'^ in its literal and ordinary sense, as certainly implies water, as either of the expressions abovementioned. It is only in a figu- rative and uncommon sense, that it signifies to purify or cleanse. If you say the word is sometimes used for spiritual cleansing, so is the word circumcision," more frequently than baptism, nsed for the renewal of tlie heart. But if under the Old Testa- ment, the command had been given go circumcise all nations," would not all have understood it, as referring to an outward ceremony ? • Again ; our Lord says, in the same connexion, Go teacH all nations, go preach the gospel to every creature." Suppose I should turn mystic, and object that neither writing nor talking were here commanded, but that the gospel should be preached by silence ? w ould not a child laugh at me, and tell me preach- ing implied talking and wnting, 6cc. So we say of the word baptize. Again ; if you will admit nothing but what is express- ed in so many letters, here is nothing said about the spirit : of course Christ did not command to baptize with the spirit ! The question then is what was the usual^ and acknowledged sense of tlie word at the time it was used ? In its literal sense, it always referred to water. This all the Lexicons in the world will testify ; this Amicus himself acknowledges, when he says, it not only refers to water, but to a particular mode of using water, to wit, immersion. This then is its literal sense. Now, says ^* an eminent christian and scholar of the seventeenth cen- tury," a college made christian" too, in his Apology, p. 446. It is a maxim yielded to by all, that we ought not to go from the literal signification of a text, unless some urgent necessity forces us thereunto." Now I ask, what " urgent necessity** forces us here from the literal sense? Is the word '* baptize" generally used in scripture in a figurative sense? This you will not pretend. The word in its various forms occurs in the New Testament about 80 times, in more than 60 of which you \\ ill not deny, if }'0u look at the passages by a Concon ance, that it signifies the use er application of water. Again ; did not the 79 Jlimtles understand it in a literal sense ? If not, why did they all, without exception practise it in a literal sense ? Did not the primi- live chnstians understand it in a literal sense? and the xvliole christian wmid, till ** 170 years ago ?" Amicus is pleased to say, that, in the latter period of the church, tlie use of water decreased." But where is his proof? He may be challenged to show from scripture or from the histo- ry of the first fifteen centuries, that a single individual was ever admitted to tfie visible christian church without water baptism. If the Apostles had inculcated, in their latter years, the abolition of this ordinance, or had even omitted its celebration, among a people so disposed in all things to follow the example of the Apostles, we should certainly have heard of some churches or individuals objecting to this ceremony. That Peter ever chang- ed his mind on this subject, you bring only one text to prove; when lie says that the baptism which saves " is not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience." 1 Pet. iii. 31. But this very text implies that the word baptism refers to water, and that the outward rite was then in use ; and only declares (what we all believe) that water baptism will not save without spiritual baptism. That Paul changed his opinion you have as little ground to assert from 1 Cor. i. 14. His thanking God that he baptized only a few of the Corinthians does not prove that they were not baptized by others — by Timothy, Titus, Silas and his other companions. Peter might have said, he did not baptize Corne- lius and his household, for he only *' commanded them to be baptized" by his attendants. Acts. x. 43. In fact, Paul gives us three reasons for his conduct. Not that water Baptism was wrong, but, 1. They made it an occa- sion of party Spirit, (see v. 12.) 2. That he mi^ht be free from the suspicion of wishing to make a party : ^'lest any should saij I had baptized in my own name'^ (15) or to make Paulites. 3. Because he had a more important business, for w hich he w as better qualified than his companions, while they were equally qualified to baptize. Christ sent me not to baptize, but preach the gos|>el," i. e. I view this as my principal duty. This is the simple meaning of a passage of which you make so much. Take away these two passages, and you have not a sentence to show that these Apostles ever changed their earliest views. We know moreover, that Paul and Peter left tiieir respective regions in the use of this ordinance. We know also, that the other Apos- tles and Evangelists left every country where they laboured, and where they died^ in the use of water baptism. In short, it docs not apjiear there was ever a doubt on the minds of the Apostles, Evangelists, or Preachers, or Christians 80 for more than a thousand y^ars, until George Fox arose and discovered that all were wrong! — Now, Amicus thinks me very presumptuous for saying, our Lord knew his disciples would understand him to mean water baptism — as if I would doubt his omniscience ! Again ; that our Lord intended literal baptism in this com- mand, is evid.^nt from the words which precede and follow the word " baptize." ** Go teach all nations baptizing them," kc. It is well Miown to all acquainted with the original Greek, that the word here rendered teach," literally signifies make dis- ciples." When therefore, our Lord commanded, " Go make disciples baptizing them," he in the language of the day, des- cribed the well known and universal mode of making proselytes. As if he had said, You well know what is meant by making disciples, and the manner of baptizing them ; I therefore without any unnecessary explanation, tell you. Go and do as the Jews are in the habit of doing, as John the Baptist did, and as I my- self have done, ( John iv. 1.) baptize all who shall profess their repentance and faith, and thus admit them to the number of my disciples." If our Lord had intended to set aside the old, or point out some new way, he would not have used language that Exactly described the old and common mode of making disciples. The only nxrcelty or change he intended to introduce, he was careful distinctly to express, as he did in regard to the J\*ame ih which they were to baptize. Had he said nothing on this sub- ject, they would have used the old form. We have reason to think, he changed the language, just so far as he wished to change the thing, and no farther. And as he changed nothing but the name in which they were to baprtize, we have no right to suppose he intended they should make any alterations in the mode of baptizing. Once more, that our Lord, in this command, and the similar one, Mark xvi. 16. intended water baptism, is evident from his omitting to make it essential to Salvation. He that believetb and is baptized shall be saved y but he that believeth not, shall be damned." Now I ask why is Baptism omitted in the lattei' clause. If our Lord meant the Baptism of the Spint, he might have inserted it with perfect safety, since it is certain he that is not baptized with the spirit will be lost. But if he was speak- ing of the baptism o^ water, the reason of its omission is evident : — though highly important as a profession and evidence of faith, it is not essential to salvation. Rom. x. 9, 11. On the whole, tlierefore, from the /i^e?*a^ meaning of the term ; — from its usual meaning in the New Testament; — from the defirntion of all Lexicographers ; — from the interpretation and practice of the Apostles ; — from the words connected with it by 81 our Lord ; — from its being a baptism not essential to salvation ; — and, from the unanimous understanding of the w hole chri'^ti an church for more than a thousand years, we infer, there is no rea- son to doubt that our Lord intended to enjoin Water Baptism. PAUL. Se'ventli-dajffSth Mo. 25, igir. LETTER X. Ix my former Essay on the subject of Baptism, the great lead- ing features of the two administrations were marked out; first, that of John the forerunner, <*the baptism of Water;" and se- condly, tliat of Christ the great antitype in whom all the sliadowy Ceremonies of former dispensations had their accomplishment, •*the Baptism of the Holy Spirit,'* In tracing the outlines of the two dispensations I endeavoured to shew that John's baptism was typical — elementary — carnal — Christ's spiritual and (livine — John's the weak unessential baptism of water — Christ's the powerful essential baptism of the Holy Spirit, without which no man can ever see the kingdom of God. Now if this point be established, and it has not been denied, I consider the strongest position gained, and, as the successful commander, who having captured the main body of his eneuiy's army, has nothing to do but pick up the stragglers, niy only business is to answer the little arguments founded in verbal criticism or palpable misun- derstanding. The readers of " Paul's" last address to us must have ob- (M'wl that this ground remains untouched by him — his plea for iirna! ordinances is not founded on their conformity to the na- ture of the Gospel dispensation — this he well knew he could not sustain — he knows they are one in nature with the meats and tlrinks and divers washings" of the Mosaic code, and equally impotent in their operation with the legal pui ifications of the law, and until he can shew that the law of a carnal Com- mandment" Is to supercede the power of an endless life," all attempts to justify his doctrine upon Evangelical principles will be in vain. ** As '*Paul" in his last address to us has expressed an opin- ion, that because Amicus" admits the fallibility of the Apos- tles he has consequently **cut himself oif from any farther quota- tions from the preachers or writers of the New Testament" — I think it proper before I attempt to answer his objections tiiat I should endeavour to remove this dilticulty. ** Amicus" would be very sorry to lose the advantage of Scripture testimony in 11 the cause he has espoused, because on that testimony he princi- pally relies for the confii mation of every opinion he has advanc- ed or shall advance in the present discussion. Now I freely confess that I never had an idea that the Apos- tles were infallible, and I give Paul" the credit of being the first writer who ever offered such a sentiment for my considera- tion. I always thought that they were men of like passions with us, according to their own testimony, Acts xiv. 15. I had no idea that like the Pope of Rome, they had ever pretended to be infallible, I remembered that when the Apostle Paul met Peter at Antioch he withstood him to the face because he was to be blam- ed— because he dissembled — because he walked not uprightly ac- cording to the truth of the Gospel — because he compelled the Gen- tiles to live as do the Jews — see Gal. ii. 11, 13, 14. — I remembered that the Apostles Paul and James, together with the Church at Jerusalem, twenty seven years after Christ had abolished the ceremonial ordinances of Moses, were found the abettors of those ceremonies : see Acts xxi. 26. — I remembered that Paul and Barnabas, two of our Lord's Apostles had so .sharp a con- tention at Antioch that they could no longer travel together in the ministry of the Gospel : See Acts. xv. 39. From all these recollections I had admitted the idea that the Apostles were fal- lible men — ^men of like passions with ourselves — having the same infirmities with their brethren — liable to the same preju- dices, and only infallible when under the immediate guidance and instruction of the Holy Spirit — Nevertheless I cannot understand why such an opinion must invalidate their writings — because I freely admit that they wrote under tlie immediate influence of Divine inspiration, which I acknowledge is perfectly infallible in all its operations^ I will now advert to the arguments used by Paul" to main- tain the expediency of perpetuating John's Baptism — for the ne- cessity of it he does not contend — he grants that it is not essen- tial to salvation — so that the whole sum of all his arguments td induce us to be sprinkled, amounts to no more than that we ought to submit to an unnecessary form. Now as water Baptism is confessedly nonessential in its nature, it should have been shewn that our Lord by some ** express Command" enjoined it on his Church — this our 0])ponent has failed to do and ever will fail to do. This great point he is forc- ed to rest upon the ground of conjecture ; the improbability of which I will now attempt to demonstrate. For this purpose I will quote the tv/o cori'esponding p»ssages of Matthew xx\ iii. 18, 19. and Mark xvi. 15, 16, wherein they give some acccount of the last interview of our Lord w ith his disci])les and the con- versation he then had with them. These passages eminently il- 83 lustrate each other, and establish our doctrine beyond the rcacii of a doubt — Matthew says, ^* And Jesus came and spake unto them saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth, go ye therefore and teach all nations Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have command- ed you, and lo I am with you always even unto tlie end of the w6rld.'* — Mark says And he said unto them. Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He that be* lieveth ami is baptized shall be saved ; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Now it is evident from these passages that the Baptism which Christ commanded was a Baptism absolnfelij essential to salva- tion— ** He that believeth and is Baptized shall be saved" — by con- necting belief and Baptism together and making Salvation to de- pend equally on the two, he plainly declares that this Baptism was the essential saving Baptism of the Holy Spirit — Paul" in commenting on this passage has profanely attempted to wrest a plain Scripture text — to put asunder what God has joined — in the face of the strongest Scripture language he has declared that our Lord ** omitted to make the Baptism iiere spoken of es- sential to Salvation." The text however stands firm, an unim- peachable >yitness, whose evidence corresponds with tha testi- mony of holy men in all ages — with the experience of every re- al Christian — that they and only they who believe and are Bap- tized with the Holy Spirit can be the heirs of Salvation. In answer to Paul's" query •* Why is the word Baptism omitted in the latter clause" of the 16th verse above quoted — i. e. ** he that believeth not shall be damned" — I answer, for this very obvious reason, that as belief must precede Baptism by tlie Holy Spirit — so he that docs not believe cannot be bap- tized by it, and consequently damnation fellows upon unbelief alone. There is one circumstance which remains to be noticed, and which goes to prove that the Apostles never understood our Lord to intend that they should, by virtue of the aforesaid commis- sion. Baptize their converts with water. In all the cases of Avater Baptism that occurred afterwards there is not a single instance of any one being Baptized ** in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." Now if the Apostles had understood their Lord as modern Christians do, I cannot conceive how they dared to omit so important a part of the Ce- i*emony. This view of the case brings our opponents into a seri- ous dileinma — either the Apostles did not understand him to mean Water Baptism, or else they disobeyed the positive Com- mand of their Lord. 84 It may be proper in this place to notice " PauPs'* ci'iticism on t!ie word teach" mentioned in tlie text I have quoted — I confess I Ijave been at some h)ss to understand how the meaning he would give it, can have any effect to strengthen his position, because I admit that men must become disciples in the school of Christ before tht^y are prei)ared to receive Spiritual Baptism. Yet in order to shew that the word ** teach" is correctly ren- dered in the present translation of the Bible I will just state, that the word which is rendered **teach" in the imperative mood, is in the original Greek Jlatlieteusate^' from '* Muthctuo'^' — in the latin **doceo" — to teach — to instruct — to inform. Both this verb and the noun Jlath^tt s^' (discipulus) are derived from the primitive verb ^* JTanthano^' in the latin ** disco" ** intelli- go" to learn, to acquire the knowledge of tilings, to be inform- ed of — to understand — to perceive, to know, Paul" traces the verb ** Matheteud^^ no furtlier tlian to the noun Jlathetes^^ disciple :" he ought to have gone a little further to tlie root of Mathetes — to Manthano, and then he would have discovered that the translators of the Bible had rendered the word Matheteiisate, coiTectly ** Go teach all nations" — so that all his verbal cri- ticism in tliis case seems intended only to veil the truth from the eye of his reader — to lead him from the plain path of Scrip- ture doctrine into the confused labyrinth of scholatic Divinity. I shall now notice some of ** Paul's" assertions which I con- sider unsupported by Scripture testimony. First — He asserts that as the Sun of Righteousness arose John the Baptist^j^-ra- dually disappeared". — If he had said that as the gospel dispensa- tion arose the dispensation of carnal ordinances gradually disap- peared, he would have taken ground which he might have de- fended by Scripture — but as he speaks of the person of John he manifestly contradicts the plain text, for John the Baptist was suddenly cut off by Herod, who threw him into prison and be- headed him before the Gospel dispensation was introduced, as we see Matt. xiv. 10. so that John's prediction John iii. 30. **He (Christ) must increase, but I must decrease," evidently refers to the two disj)ensations, the former administered by our Lord, the latter by his forerunnci- John the Baptist. The dis- pensation of the Spirit being that which was designed to rise in its own native splendor, and to eclipse the comparatively weak and planetary light of that morning Star of the Gospel dis- pensation," Secondly — Paul" asserts that we " make much of John the Baptist" — with how much reason he asserts that we make much of liim, I leave my readers to Judge — I rather think that this charge lies with most reason against those who plead for carnal ordinances and preach up his watery Baptism as a binding obli- gation on the members of Christ. 85 I'liirdly — He asserts contrary to the positive language of the Evangelist, that *' wiien Jesus began to make disciples he appli- ed water Baptism to his converts" — to sup])oii; this assertion he quotes John lii. 22, 26, and iv. 1. which only go to prove that our Lord's disciples administered Water Baptism : but he omit- ted the second verse of the fourth Chapter which proves express- ly that Christ took no part in the performance of this typical Ceremony. Jesus himself Baptized not, but his disciples." And as soon as our Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard a false report ** that Jesus made and Baptised more disciples than John," as if offended at the scandalous rumour that he was ad- ministering a carnal ordinance, he immediately left Judea the scene of water Baptism, and went into Galilee. John iv. 3. Fourthly — *' Paul knowing the assertion he had made, that Jesus applied water Baptism to his converts, was contrary to the positive language of the text, directly after tacitly admits the error of his own statement, by saying that if Christ did not Baptize himself — he ordered it to be done — Here he not only admits that our Lord did not Baptize himself — But he makes a new assertion equally unsupported by tlie text — Where is his proof that Christ ordered it to be done?" not in the Bible I am certain. Now as this position rests wholly on the ipse dixit evidence of my opponent, my only business is to deny it — The practice of the disciples in this case no more infers a Com- mand, than Peter's denial of his Lord or Judas's treason implies that they so acted in conformity with a divine injunction. Fifthly — *• Paul" asserts that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit mentioned Acts i. 5. is the Baptism of miraculous Gifts — this is a kind of term quite novel — a Baptism of Gifts ! ! I confess myself at some loss to understand this language — it agrees with no idea of Baptism either literal or spiritual conveyed in the Sacred volume. That the Holy Spirit with which the Apostles and j)rimitive Christians were Baptized conferred on them many miraculous Gifts is very evident, but this Baptism always pre- ceded the Gifts — they were Gifts proceeding from that divine power, which God by Spiritual Baptism had communicated to his Children — " Paul's" attempt to distinguish Baptism into four kinds is idle, and as I conceive irreverent — The Holy Scrip- tures mention but two kinds of Baptism, the Baptism of Water and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit — the effects of the latter ivere then, and always have been vanmis — The Apostle beauti- fully exemplifies this truth in his 1st. Epistle to the Corinthi- ans, Chap. xii. '*Now there are diversities of Gifts, but the "same Spirit — and there are differences of adminivStrations, but ** the same Lord, and there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all— But the manifcsta- 86 " tion of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal, for to *m Authors whose learning and critical abilities no modest man will question. The word for " teach" is rendered by Doddridge *< proselyte ;" by Pyle and Campbell, ** con- vert;" by Guise, Scott and Henry, disciple ;" by Parkburst, Wakefield and Gill, «make disciples;" all words of similar sa import, denoting (as it is expressed in the Persic Version) bring all nations to my religion and faith." And, if you wish farther authority, your own Clarkson, (II. 318.) says, '*the word * teach,' is an improper translation of the original Greek. The Greek word should have been rendered ''make disciples or proselytes So much for his Greek ! Let the public judge, who wished to '' veil the truth from their eyes." My former argu- ment, therefore, remains in full force. To illustrate Mark xvi. 16. a text which Amicus says I ''pro- fanely attempt to wrest," I need add but few words. Suppose Amicus should say, " He that believeth all the doctrines I teach, and publicly professeth them, is a good Friend and a good Christian." He would make this belief and profession an evi- dence of Friendism and Christianity ; but would not exclude others who might not believe exactly as he does, or who might not as publicly profess the same, from being real Friends and Christians. But should he say, " He that believeth not, or doth not profess all the doctrines I teach, is neither a Friend nor a Christian ;" he would make the thing required essential. In like manner, I might say "He who joins the Friends' Socie- ty, is sure to get rich and this be a very different thing from saying, " none but those who join your Society will ever get rich." In the former I should simply recommend one means of getting rich, in the latter name what was essential to riclies. Thus our Saviour, wiien he said, " He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved," only pointed out means of Salvation. But when he said, " He that believeth not shall be damned," he made ftiith and faith alone essential. As the Baptism therefore, of which he speaks, is only a means of grace, and not essential to salvation, we infer he intended ^fafe;- Baptism. Having confirmed my First, I now proceed to confirm my Se- cond Argument, di^awn from Apostolic Practice ; after wliich, I will answer a few of your objections, and conclude the discus- sion with farther proof of the propriety of W ater Baptism. That the Apostles practised water baptism, is too plain to be denied. Amicus, quibbling on the mode of baptism, says tlicre are no instances of theii' " applying water to their converts," but " several instances of their applying their converts to the water." Whether the twelve Apostles spent the whole day of Pentecost in " ajiplying" tlieir three thousand converts " to the water," or a small part of it in, " applying water" to their con- verts is of little moment; the fact, however, that the whole BODY of the Apostles at this time baptized with water, was never (Contradicted. The fact tliat the Samaritans, " both men and woiiien were baptized," when '*as yet the Holij Ghost had fallen on none of them," proves that they were baptized with water. r 89 (Acts viii. 12. 16.) The cases of the Eunuch, (Acts viii. 38.) of Cornelius, (x. 47.) of Saul, (ix. 18.) of Lvdia and her house- hold, and the Jailor and his household, (x\cts xvi. 15. 38.) with the rebaptism of John's disciples, (xix. 5.) are all equally in point ; and show the construction which the Apostles put upon our Lord's command — the difference they made hetween his and John's haptism — tlieir opinion of the propriety of water haptism under the gospel dispensation, and their belief that it was not *art, I am not in the habit of holding a candle to the Sun, or wishing to direct tlie decisions of Infinite Wisdom. The major proposition of his very formal sylogism, to wit, that *Hhe baptism commanded by Christ is essential to salvation," was fully refuted in my last. His conclusion falls of course. The Apostle Paul was sent both to baptixe and preach. The former, after he found it an occasion of party spirit, he perform- ed by the hands of others, as our Lord did, John iv. 1, 2. and as l*eter did. Acts x. 47. but he couhVpreach only in his own person. And this is the reason, if Amicus wishes one, why he did not thank God he had preached the gospel only to a few,'* while he thanks God he had left baptism to his companions. I am charged by Amicus with first denying and then — admits 101 f ing the *• fallibility" of the Apostles. The charge lies against his own abuse of the English language. 1 have never in a sin- gle instance admitted the fallibility of the Apostles. They must have bee!i perfecUy infallible^ or not inspired. ^* Fallibility," according to Walker, signifies liableness to be deceived," — of course relates solely to errors in jndgmentn and has nothing to do with practice. Now I appeal to the public, if it is not the manifest objert of my last essay to prove that the Apostles nev- er erred in judg nent, never decided wrong. It was admitted that, through the weakness of the flesh, they occasionally acted contrary to their judgment; but that their judgment was at all times rights and they never deceived" in their views of any ordinance or doctrine. My doctrine was that though frail as men^ they \\ ere infallible as teachers. — In confirmation of what I have said, in former essays of the Command of Christ, and the Practice of the Apostles I now add^ THIRDLY. The Jlpostles did not consider the baptism which they administered as Johns's baptism, bnt as an institution of Christ. You tell usthev practised ** John's Baptism," — but w itliout the least authority ; yea in tlie very face of scripture. In Acts xix. 1, 5, we are told that " Paul having passed through the upper coasts, came to Ephesus ; and finding certain disciples, he ** said unto them. Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye be- lieved ? And they said unto l\im, we have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And lie said unto them, Unto what tlien w ere ye baptized ? And they said, unto John^s baptism. Then said Paul', John verily baptized witli the bap- **tism of re])entance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is on Christ Jesus. And when they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jcsus.^^ Here then were a number of John's disci])lcs rebaptix>ed in the name of the Lord Jesus. An unques- tionable proof that the Apostles considered Clirist's baptism as different tvom that of John. You may say, if you please, *'they were deceived, and misunderstood their commission." Bnt you will pardon me, if I doubt your infallibility sooner than theirs. Fourthly. Our Lord makes wafer baptism essential to member- ship in the visible church. John iii. 5 : *' Except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.^* What can the phrase ''born of water," mean but bap- tism ? The phrase '* kingdom of God," or '' kingdom of hea- ven," (for they are one and the same) is in Scripture used iii two senses, for the visible, and for the invisible chui-ch ; or for the body of apparent and of real saints. That it sometimes means the invisible church, all will admit : but that it oftea 102 means also the visible church, none will doubt who read the pa- rables of the Tares," the <»Net," the "Ten Virgins," (Matt. xiii. 24, 47 and xxv. 1.) The kingdom of heaven" is in these passages spoken of as containing bad as well as good, hypocrites well 2is saints, wiiich cannot be true of the invisible church. Now to enter the visible church, or the society of pro- fessing christians, it is necessary to be born of water," or to be baptized; to enter the church invisible, or the society of real saints, sontetliing more is necessary, even to be born of the spirit," or be renewed in heart. The Jews used to say of Gen- tile proselytes after baptism, that they w ere ** born again," and to this our Saviour probably alludes. Here then is proof not only cif the propriety, but of the absolute necessity of water bap- tism to church membership. This looks something like making it a "badge of discipleship!" FiFTHiY. The Jpostles speak of it as an important means of salvation. As our Lord places it next to faith, Mark xvi. 16 : and next to regeneration in the passage before quoted, so the Apostles place it next to essential things. Thus Acts ii. 38 : Repent and be baptized,'' They required it as sl profession of religion and a means of grace. Eph. v. 26 : "Christ loved the church and gave himself for it, that he might cleanse it w ith the washing of water by the w ord." Here the " washing with wa- ter," or baptism, is spoken of as one means, along w ith the word of cleansing the church. This ordinance as well as preaching, christians know to be a means of grace and sanctification. The same sentiment is conveyed, Tit. iii. 5 ; "He saved us by the washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost." The former, (to adopt your style) is the baptism of water, the latter of tlie spirit. Abundant quotations might be made from the early Fathers, show ing that the " w ashing of re- generation" w as a phrase in common use with the early Chris- tians to signify baptism. Not that they supposed this outward ceremony changed the heart, but typified that change. Just as circumcision is called " the covenant," (Gen. xvii.) because it was a sign of the covenant ; and the cup in the Lord's Supper is called the " New- Testament," because it is a symbol and seal of that Testament. Thus Baptism is liere called tlie " w ashing jof regeneration," because it is a symbol or sign of regeneration. The Apostle here makes it a means of salvation ; " He hath saved us by the washing, &c." Again ; Heb. x. 22 : " Let us draw near with a true heart, in full assurance of faitli, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure w ater." Observe, hei'f is something external well as internal, something on the l)ody as well as tiie spirit, recommended to all who could ap- 103 proacli God acceptably. Or, to speak hi your language, heve is the baptism with water as well as tlie S;pirit required. Note also, that this '* washing with water," is recommended in that same Epistle, and in the very next chapter to that in which all Jewish ordinances, and divers washings, are said to be done away; (ix. 10.) a plain proof that Christian baptism is not to be numbered with the divers washings" of the Jews." Note also, that sprinkling and washing are here spoken of as synoni- tnous terms ; and also, that tliis Epistle was written within a year or two of the Apostle's death. So that his view s were not yet changed, I know" no other way in which tbese arguments can be answer- ed but by saying, this water, this washing, &c. means spiritual waters, spiritual washing. But, not to say that spiritnal cleans- ing is spoken of besides in these very passages, it is easy to see nothing would satisfy such an objector ! For if our Lord had said Go baptize with water,^^ — to such an ohjector it would not have been an ** express command," as be would still say our Lord meant *^ spiritual water !" The language is as plain as any reasonable man can ask. Sixthly. The *^postle John, in aii Epistle written after all the other Apostles were dead, speaks of Baptism as one of the three standing witnesses for Christ, 1 John v. 8. Having spoken of a Trinity of witnesses in Heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Gliost," he adds, and there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, the Water and the Blood,^^ to tliis great truth that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son." The Spirit bears witness by the Scriptures which he inspired, by the hearts which lie renew s ; — the wa^er of Baptism witnesses the necessity and tlie certainty of sanctification ; — and the Blood, or the Lord's Supper, the certainty and the mode of Justification. We are told in tlie 6th verse that Jesus *^ came by water and by blood," that is, witli a view to cleanse his church from pollution and atone for her sins. These two great ob jects of his coming ai*e clearly certified to all the world by Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Wliile these tw^o ordinances continue to be celebrated, Christ will never want two faithful xvitrnesses to the two leading parts of his salvation, — Justification and Sanctifi- cation— Now if all the world were Friends, two of these wit- nesses, if not the third w ould be banished from the world ! liASTLY ; that the Apostles never changed either tlieir views or practice on this subject, but left the w hole church in the prac- tice of this ordinance, is evident from the Testimony of the early Fathers,^\H we have no particular dispute on tlie subject of In- fant Baptism, 1 regret tliat the passages most in point will neces- saj-ily bring this into view.. It will be admitted bv all that Iv^ 104 fant baptism must have been water baptism. If therefore ihv. former was universal, so was tlie latter. I have room for only a few passages. The " Apostolic Constitutions" say Baptize your infants and instruct them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." Origen, ** Infants also are by the usage of the church baptized. Infants are baptized for the remission of sins." The church received a document or order from the Apos- tles to give baptism to infants." Fidtts, a bishop in Africa, wrote to Cypiiian inquiring whether it were right to baptize children hefor eight (\ivys old ?" Cyprian proposed the question in a Council of sixty-six Bisho])s, and afterwards wrote, not a single bishop agreed with you, — the spiritual circumci- sion is not to be restricted by that wliich is according to the flesh, — ^but an infant may be baptized immediately after its birth," &c. Augustine, speaking of the above letter of Cy- prian, says it was No new decree, but the established faith of the church,'^ And again, he never heard of any Christian whether Catholic or Sectary that denied Infants were to be bap- tized for the remission of sins," — that the Palagians are unable to contravene the autliority of the whole church, derived beyond doubt from our Lord and his apostles." Once more, Celestius and Pelagius, two men of great talents, learning and acquaint- ance with the churches in Asia, Africa and Europe, were ar- raigned for heresy, and charged with denying original sin, the corruption of Infants^ &c. and were much puzzled by this Ques- tion, If infants are not polluted, why are they by the usage of the universal church, baptized ?" Some accused tliem of de- nying infant baptism. They repelled the charge. Celestius acknowledged that infants were to be baptized according to tiie rule of the universal churchJ'^ Pelagius said that men slandered him as though he denied the sacrament of baj)tism to infants," and affirms that he never heard of any, not even the most impious heretics, that could say such a thing of infants." — Sucli quotations miglit be multiplied indefinitely ; but tliese are sufficient to prove the early and universal prevalence of wat- er baptism. On this subject I have yet many things to say ; but as the dis- cussion has already been protracted : as Amicus seems inclined to cease ; as we are now even in the number of essays, and as we have many other subjects to discuss if Amiens enters on a new si^bject. I sliall in my next proceed to consider and confirm the authority of the Lonl's Supper. PAUL. LETTER XII. At the close of my last Essay on the subject of Water Bap- tism, I expressed my intention of introducing to my reader, at this time, another object for his considei-ation and judgment. I had no other reason for changing the subject than a fear lest his attention might be wearied by a protracted discussion of it. As Respondent, however, it will be expected that I should aiiswer all my opponent's objections — and as **Paul" has again appear- ed against the doctrines I defend, I should hardly be excused were I to leave unanswered any argument, however weak or inapplicable to the points at issu I shall therefore be compell- ed to follow him througli his various windings, and to attempt the removal of any obstruction to the clear discovery of Gospel truth. [t is truly curious to observe the various maneuvers of my opponent to establish the use of outward ordinances (the pecu- liar characteristics of the Mosaic law) in the Christian church, to see how closely he adheres to the typical shadowy ceremonies of preceding dispensations, how anxiously he labours to engraft a Carnal Rite *• on the Gospel stock." If in this attempt he were forced to depend on the doctrines of the New Testament for support, his case would be desperate ; he has therefore fled to Doddridge, Pyle, Campbell, Scott, Henry, Parkhurst, and Gill for succour! — authors of no more authority with me than the writers of the C hurch of Rome are with my opponent. In his last communication he flies to the Apostolic constitutions" as they are falsely called — tlie spurious production of some nameless writer, a woi k unknown to Ireneus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Cyprian, Eusebirs, or any other writer of the three first centuries. Dr. Lardner tliinks they were composed in the be- ginning of the fifth century : the' author," says the Doctor, was probably a Bishop of a proud and haughty spirit, wiio was fond of Church power, and loved pjuip and ceremony in religious worship." This may explain the reason why my op- ponent so much relies on their authority. Like a drowning man he catches at every straw that floats in his way ; but in this case his dependence is delusive — they have not sutticient buoyancy to sustain their own w eight, amf the probability is they and the cause of my opponent must sink togetlier. But why any believer »* in the plenary inspiration of the sa- ered volume," should resort to inferior aid for support, is some- what mysterious ! Why desert '* the only and sunreme ^tr.nd- ard of religious truth ?" Has " Paul's" 'faith in tliis standard deserted him ? Can Cyprian." Augustine," and ** a Couu- 14 106 cil of Bishops," add any weight to the testimony of the inspii*- ed penmen ? Can a Candle" add any light to the Sun ?" Can the dark, contentious, contradictory authors of an Apostatized church, elucidate or direct the decisions of Infinite Wisdom ?" I have read, with some attention, the history of the Church from the days of the Apostles dow n to the present time. 1 have considered the various opinions of ecclesiastical writers as de- livered hy the best historians — and I will venture to assert, that such a mass of confusion and contradiction as their opinions ex-^ hibit, is not to be found in any department of literature — the confusion of tongues at Babel could not possibly exceed it — there are not two of the Fathers, as they are termed, who are of the same opini(ms. Division, contention and bloodshed mark their footsteps — their writings are much better calculated to make infidels than christians ; a man should either be much pre- judiced in their favour, or well established in the principles of vital piety, who ventures to read them. A more melancholy pic- ture of poor human nature, can hardly be produced, than that whicli is exhibited in the members of the church for the first thirteen centuries succeeding the Apostolic age. Under this view of the subject it is no matter of wonder that enlightened christians should place little reliance on their judgment or au- thority ; — one plain Scripture text outweighs the authority of them all. I will now advert to tlie particular positions of my opponent as exhibited in his last address to us. He tells us tliat '* those who say, that the word Baptism, in our Lord's Commission, is tliere used in an uncommon or extra- ordinary sense, are bound in the first place, to prove their bold assertion." Now I would ask, who has ever said so ? I did not say the word Baptism is here used in an uncommon or extraor- dinary sense. The word Baptism in the new Testament is very commonly used to imply the purifying operation of the Holy Spirit; this is indeed its most important meaning, it is used in this sense more than thirty times — any other meaning of the word is of no more value in comparison of tliis, than the shadow of a man is in comparison of the man : — this was certainly the opinion of the Apostles in the latter periods of the Apostolic age, else, how can we account for the fact, that in none of their Epistles they ever recommended Water Baptism, never spoke one word in its favour, never exhorted their brethren to use it, or promote it in any way whatever — but when in two or thre^ instances they alluded to it, spoke in a w ay calculated to discour- age them from the use of it, as my former Essays prove indubit- ably. Now I will ask one question, if the Apostles had believed that water Baptism was an ordinance of Christ, commanded by lor Iiim to be observed in his Church, why did they in their Epis- tles to the Churches never press the use of it — never exhort their brethren to remember the command? there is no other Christian duty that they did not excite them to tlie performance of, over and over again ; — tlie answer is plain, they neither considered it a duty, nor of any importance in the Church, and therefore when they spoke of it they spoke to its disparagement. Again, my opponent tells us that we are bound to prove that the Apostles were mistaken in interpreting their master's mind and will" respecting this carnal ordinance. Now I am very certain that they never were mistaken on this point — that they never understood him to command Water Baptism. I have proved by the text that he did not do so — tbatthe Baptism he commanded was an essential baptism, which Water Baptism is not, according to Paul's" own confession — and to prove that tiie Apostles did not understand their Lord to command Water Baptism in a new name, or with a new form of words, 1 ' have shewn that they never baptized tlieir converts afterwards " in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost," which they must have done if they had so understood him. In answer to the first point, he has brought no Scripture evidence to disprove it, and to the second he has made no reply at all — he has from motives of policy avoided it, well knowing that the Scriptures could afford him no assistance. Now he ought to have been very particular on these points, as on them hang the great question " whether Water Baptism is an institu- tion of Christ or not." In the next place my opponent tells us, that on the day of Pentecost, the great day of Spiritual Baptism — the day in which our Lord's prediction was so ^^markably fulfilled. Acts i. 5. *^ For John truly baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost" — that on this day, ^* when the Apostles were all filled with the Holy Ghost and began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance, Peter, standing up with the eleven spoke and said, Repent and be baptized every one of you /or the remission of sins^ and ye shall receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost — then they that gladly received the w ord were baptised, and the same day tliere was added unto them about three thousand souls." From all this Paul" infers that be- cause it *' is no man's duty (as he says) to command any one to be baptized with the Holy Ghost," therefore, they were baptized with water. On this subject I will observe that Paul's" logic in the case is not very logical — because, his whole conclusion hangs upon this assumption **that it is no man's duty to command any one te be baptized with the Holy Ghosf'—but as he has given us no ground for tliis opinion, I shall deny his position. I can con- ceive no reason why it is not as much the duty of a Gospel min- ister, one who is filled too witls the Holy Spirit, to command his hearers to he baptized with the Holy Ghost as it is to command them to repent : — Repentance is as much the gilt of God, as Spiritual Baptism is — hoth are equally out of tlie power of man unassisted hy divine grace, and therefoie they stand upon pre- cisely the same ground. But there is one exjiression in tliis exhortation of the Apostle Peter that irrefutably pi OA es he meant the Baptism of the Holy Spirit — ** Repent and be baptized every one ofyou for the re- mission OF SINS." Now I can hardly suppose that there is any Christian in tine present day w lio can seriously believe that re- mission of sins is obtained by Wafer Baptism — it would be little short of blasphemy to assert it — my opponent, however, dare not take this ground : — Remission of sins is essential to salva- tion— which Water Baptism is not, as lie has already granted. The fair conclusion is that the Baptism Peter commanded is not the Baptism of Water. There is anotlier circumstance tliat gives strong additional evidence that the baptism of the three thousand was not Water Baptism — This great multitude were in Jerusalem at the time of their baptism, and there was no stream of Water within sev- eral miles of the city sufficientl\ deep to immerse them — there- fore (unless indeed they were Sprinkled ! ! !) they were not bap- tized with water. The idea that they underwent a sprinkling is too ludicrous to need a serious refutation — sprinkling is not mentioned by any author, until one hundred and fifty years after this period, when the Cliurch w as reduced to the most humiliat- ing depravity. The next assertion of my opponent that is entitled to notice, is where he contradicts the positive language of the Apostle, ♦^Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel," 1 Cor. i. 17. His argument on this point is any thing but rational ^he says '*the Apostle after he found it an occasion of party spi- rit, performed it by the hands of others." — Now this assertion is jiot only unsupported by the least testimony, and therefore un- worthy of tlie least regard — but if it w ere true w ould show the Apostle to be a very incompetent judge of human nature — be- cause to baptize them by proxy would not remove the diflicult> — it is a maxim that ** what the principal does by the agency of another he does himself," — and conse(|uently the temptation of these weak Corinthians to say 1 am of Paul" would not be removed ! Paul's" attempt to extricate himself from the awkward sit». ttation in w^hich he is involrcd on the subject of Apostolic Injalli' 109 tilifif is better calculated to call forth compassion for the writer* thari commendation for his ingenuity — his last Essay has left the Apostles charged witli a much more exceptionable kind of fallibility than Amicus ever imputed to them. Paul" first de- clares that he never m a single instance admitted their fallibili- ty I" that •* they must have been perfectly infallible'' — he ap- peals to the public if it is not tlie manifest object of his last Es- say to prove they never erred in judgment." — After this appeal to tlie public (vviio I think will not find much difficulty to decide in the case) lie now admits that '*tlirough the weakness of the ; flesh t/iey occasionally acted contrary to their judgment.'' — Now if I have any just idea of the nature of liuman actions, that is a far more culpable s]K cics of fallibility which acts contrary to the judgment than that which prodiices an erroneous action in con- i formity with the judgment ! The latter involves no moral re- spo?isibility, at all — the former does. — If they taught others by example to act contrary to their judgment they could not be - very ** infallible teaciiers." ''Paul" defends theiv judgment at the expense of their integrity. '* Paul" has set the excellent and venerable Apostles of our blessed Lord in so unfavourable a light that I think it necessary I by repeating my former sentiments to vindicate their character ! — •* Amicus's" views as expressed in his former Essays, wei*e, that as they had been educated in the forms of an exterior wor- ship, and as through their whole lives they had been accustom- I ed to tlie use of carnal ordinances, t!iey did not suddenly per- ceive tlieir inconsistency w^ith t!ie spiritual nature of the new Covenant dispensation — but that as they advanced in religious i experience they gradually discovered their impotcncy and the powerful effects of the Holy Spirit — that thus they were pre- pared not only to lay them aside, but to hold up a testimony to their weakness and inefficiency. I have never impeached their integrity. The next point my opponent attempts to prove is that TFater I Baptism is not John's Baptism ; his inconsistency in this case w ith \ the uniform testimony of the Scriptures is very remarkable — John himself refutes him : " I indeed ha^^e baptized you with Water^ but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost." Mark i. 8. Now if we were to admit that Water Baptism were a bap- tisjn of Christ — then Christ would have two distinct baptisms* ! contrary to the express language of the Apostle, Eph. iv. 4. 5. 1 *'There is one body and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one I hope of your calling — one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all. w ho is above all, and through all, and in you all." Now as I observed in a former Essay, " Paul" can as easily prove that to the Christian there are two Gods, two Lords, 116 two faiths, as he ean prove that we ought to suhmit to two hap-' tisms. Paul" next endeavours to prove from the conversation of our Lord with N icodemus that the kingdom of God spoken of in the text means nothing more than the visible Church — in this he not (mly contradicts the plain meaning of the passage, hut op- poses all the writers on the subject that I have ever met with — ^'Except a man be horn again, he cannot seethe kingdom of God." — now I suppose that any unregenerate man who lias good eyes, can see the visible Church. The idea that water baptism is a badge" of church membership is one of " Paul's" curious notions which has neither Scripture nor reason to support it — a Badge" is some distinguishing mark, visible to the eye, and affixed to the object to be designated — but Water Baptism is ad- ministered but once in a man's life — it makes no change in the shape of his body, and he cannot wear it about him as a mark of distinction ! Tlie New Testament writers have never given us one word on the subject of its Badgeship, In the next place he asserts that ** the Apostles speak of Water Baptism as an important means of Salvation." As this asser- tion depends for its proof on texts which mean to convey no such idea, some of which I have proved in this and a former Essay to be applicable exclusively to the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, 1 need not in this place pursue this branch of the subject further, than to say, tlmt I deny Water Baptism to be in any degree a means of Salvation, — as a religious act it is perfectly useless. His whole argument on this point is beneath criticism — to say that tlie Spirit and Water and Blood agree in one," and that this Water is elementary Water is so contradictory to common sense and reason, that I wonder my opponent should ^nturc to expose such a sentiment. See 1. John v. 8. It is a very important question in the present discussion Whether Water Baptism be conformable to the nature of the Gospel dispensation," because we cannot suppose our Lord would command the observance of any Rite which is inconsistent with the nature of his own administration. Paul says, he is willing to leave that question to be discussed by ' Amicus' with our Lord and his Apostles." I am very glad that my opponent is at length willing to submit to Apostolic judgment. Let us hear then what the Apostle says of Water washings and carnal ordinances. This subject he handles with great perspicuity in the Epistle to the Hebrews ; from which I will quote two short passages for the settlement of this point. Then verily the ^rs^ Covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary, kc. which was a figure for " the time then present in which were offered both gifts and sac- Ill <* rifices that could not make him that did the service perfect as "pertaining to the conscience, which stood only in meats and I drinks and divers washings and carnal oi'dinances imposed on them until the time of reformation." Here he describes the nature of the ordinances appertaining to the first covenant. In the same Epistle, quoting the prophecy of Jeremiah, he describes the nature of the second covenant or Gospel dispensation in re- markably clear terms — **For this is the covenant that I will " make with the house of Israel after those days, saitli the Lord « — I will put my laws into their mind and write them in their ^* hearts, and I will be to them a God, and they sliall be to me a "people."' — Now," says the Apostle to the Galatians, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how ** turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage — are ye so foolish- — having be- ^*gun in the spirit, are ye now made perfect by the ^'flesh,'^ Heb. viii. ix. Gal. iii. iv. — I cannot suppose it necessary to ' make any comment on these passages — they not only point out the Covenant to which carnal ordinances belong — but they clearly discover the nature of the glorious dispensation under w hich we now live. It will be seen by what has been said in the fore part of this Essay that in doctrinal points, I place very little confidence on the opinions of those called the " early Fathers." They were miserably divided in sentiment — without the aid of divine in- spiration it is impossible to discover the truth in the heteroge- neous medley of their doctrines. Even in the second century they greatly corrupted the simplicity of the Cliristian religion by mixing with its doctrines the dark opinions of the Egyptian, Grecian and oriental Philosophy. — " Mosheim," speaking of the state of the church at this time says ^* In this century many unnecessary Rites and Ceremonies were added to the Chris- I **tian worship. These changes while they destroyed the beau- 1 " tiful simplicity of the Gospel were naturally pleasing to the " gross multitude who are more delighted with the pomp and splendour of external institutions than with the native charms " of rational and solid piety — Both Jews and Heathens were ac- I customed to a vast variety of pompous and magnificent Cer- I **emonics in their religious service. And as they considered these rites an essential part of religion, it was but natural that *^ they should behold with indifference and even with contempt I the simplicity of the Christian worship, which was dest itute of I those idle ceremonies that rendered their service so specious ( ! and striking : To remove then in some measure this prejudice "against Christianity the Bishops tiiought it necessary to m- " crease the number of rites and ceremonies and by this means io *^ render the publick worship more striking to the outward sen- ses." — Thus we see that even in this eai'ly period the Pastors of the Church abandoned tfie plain doctrines of Christ and his Apostles— and a cloud of gross darkness overspread the world, the baneful influence of which is still extensively felt in the per- petuation of vain lifeless forms and shadowy ceremonies, leading the attention of the people from inward vital piety to the pomp- ous but ineffectual institutions of abrogated laws, or of an apos- tatized age. As to Infant Baptism it rests on the sandy foun- dation of human tradition without one word of Scripture to prop the useless fabrick. AMICUS. Saturday^ Sept. ip, I8ZT, LETTER XI. ox BAPTISM. Though I am not aware of any rightful claim which Amicus may have to write more numbers on this, or any other subject, than myself, I should be very willing for ought that appears in his last Essay, to leave the four numbers I have written to stand against his five. But there are two or tliree objections advanced in former Essays and renewed in this, which ought perhaps to be answered more at large. After advancing a few more ideas in answer to these, I shall leave this subject with you and the public, with full consent that your friend should write as frequently and as voluminously as he please. His ar- guments are evidently exhausted, and no judicious person will measure the strength of an argument by the number of words* His last is the desperate effwt of a dying man. Goaded and in- furiated by tlie command of Christ, the practice of the Ajlostles, the unequivocal language of the whole New Testament, follow- ed by the testimony of the Fatliers, he has nothing to do but madly kick against the pricks." In his desperation, he not only denies that the Apostles prac- tised water baptism on the day of Pentecost ; and that baptism §ommnnly in Scripture, signifies an outward rite ; but he denies that Doddridge, Pyle, Campbell, Scott, Henry, Parkhurst and Gill, are of any authority as critics, or the Fathers as witnesses to a plain fact! Yea, more than this, he labours to destroy or nullify the church of Christ for 1300 years !! As he foresees the testimony of the early Fathers will not only on this, but many future subjects, be a severe thorn in his side, he makes a despe- rate elfort to set the whole aside ai; once. He says they were 115 miserably divided in sentiment."' If so, it will be easy ioi him to show they wei'e divided on water baptism. Let him try it. I challenge him to produce ove Father, within the first four centuries, who was of a different opiilion from tliose I have quot- ed. He says, *• no two were of the same opinion." In my last I quoted more than serentij, all agreeing in water baptism, and I could easily quote as many more. He calls the church in her first and purest ages " an apostatized church.-' says tliat within *• one hundred and fifty yeai^*' after Christ, she was : educed to a state of humiliating depravity." Reader, Christian, can you suppress your indignation ! This was the church, and these tlie leaders that faced the ten Imperial Persecutions — that laid down their lives by hundreds of thousands for the gospel of Christ — that without a sword or carnal weapon, by mere dint of piety, patience and perseverance, swept their enemies from the Roman empire, and conquered the then known world ! In short, tliese were the Martyrs so often referred to, wjiose ** blood was le seed of the church." Now if the success of the Apostles is any proof of their piety, and the truth of their cause, tlie success uf the Fathers and Christians of the first four centuries, (later than which I have not quoted) is a proof they were no aposta- tized church." The first preachers of the gospel, after the Apos- tles, were not generally learned, but it is cruel to doubt they were pious men. AVhile therefore w e do not receive them as au- thority in their e^vpositions of doctrine^ we have perfect confidence in them as honest witnesses of fad. The Apostolic Constitu- tions," it is generally supposed, wei^ written at the close of the Second, or in tlie commencement of the Third century, and have been received as autliority by tlie greatest men. Grotius (vriiose learning Amicus may doubt, if he please.) received them as au- thority, and quotes the very passage quoted by myself. The unanimous testimony of tiiese good men to the universal preva- lence of water baptism in those earlij times, is pi'oof irresistible, if any more is wanted, that neither Paul, nor Peter, nor any one of the Apostles ever c/2fl«.fe(f their mind, but practised and re- i ommended this ordinance to the day of their death. The next bold objection of Amicus, is to the meaning of the word *• baptize." He denies that it commonly signifies an out- ward rite, ** but very commonly {l\\?Lt is, more than commonly) implies the purifying opei'ationof the Holy Spirit." Now I am willing to admit that it sometimes •* implies" regeneration, but I deny that this is its common or proper meaning. Whenever it signifies a change of heart, the sufferings of Christ, or the communication of miraculous gifts, it is ridiculous to deny tiiat it is used in a fgurative^ and what grammarians call, an im- proper sense. To show in what sense it is used in Scripture, I 15 114 w ill quote a few who were as well acquainted with the meaning of the words they used, as any of their opponents. 1. Matthew calls John the Baptist's rite, which was undoubtedly with water, haptisnif ilu 6, 2. Mark does the same, i. 4. 3. Luke, Acts viii. 16. says, " For as yet the Holy Ghost was fallen upon none of them, only they were baptized,^^ 4. Philip went down into the water and baptized the Eunuch, Acts viii. 38. 5. Peter, Acts X. 47 : after the Holy Ghost had fallen on the centurion and his company, says, who can forbid water, that these should not be baptized.'^ 6. Paul, 1 Cor. i. 17. says, ** Christ sent me not to baptize," and in chap. xv. 29. he speaks of their being '^baptized for tlie dead and in Heb. x. 10. he calls the sprinkling and washing of the old dispensation " divers bap- tisms," (Greek) And lastly, John in his Gospel, written at least sixty years after the death of Christ, uses the word in th« same sense, John iii. 22, 23, 26. iv. 1. Amicus is pleased to say, he can produce **more than Thirty'' instances where it is used figuratively for the operation of the Holy Ghost." If he could produce a hundred, it would be of no avail, unless he could prove that this was its common Siud pro- per sense, and that it was so used by our Lord in his commission. But so far from this, with the exception of a few passages in which it is used for the sufferings of Christ, and for miraculous gifts, out of Eighty passages, lie cannot produce Ten in which it even alludes io or implies" the influence of the Spirit ; and of passages in which it is used exclusively for spiritual baptism, he cannot produce one ! The texts to whicli he will at once re- fer, are 1 Cor. xii. 13. Gal. iii. 27. Rom. vi. 3. 1 Peter iii. 21. in all which texts baptism is used in a literal as well SLsJigu- rative sense. The first is your favoi ite text. ** By one spirit we arc all baptized into one body." This " one body" is the church visible and invisible. By baj)tism with water we are introduced into union with the former ; by baptism with the Spirit, into union with the latter. The one is a type of the other. The meaning of Gal. iii. 27. is the same. As many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." Baptism is here also used in two senses, a literal and a figurative. As many as have received outward baptism, have put on Christ outwardly or made a profession of Chiist ; as many as have been baptized into his Spirit, have put him on inwardly, or re- ceived his image on their hearts. I have quoted these favoi'ite passages of yours to show that in these also, there is a reference to the external rite ; and secondly, to show the use of Baptism as an external bond of union, a profession of Christ, and a badge of discipleship. The next bold objection which he makes, and one in which he 115 surpasses all his predecessors, and shows him self a perfect hero ill contradiction, is that the Apostles did not practise water bap- tism on the day of Pentecost ! I know not what he will deny next, unless it be, that John the Baptist used water ! It is not enough that the Apostles, on that occasion, distinguished between bap- tism and the gift of the Holy Ghost : not enough that they af- terwards explained their own meaning in tlie cases of the Eu- nuch, Centurion, and others, when water is expressly mention- ed— he will have it they did not baptize with water, because there was no stream of water within several miles deep enough to immerse them ! !*' And because there was no ** stream of water" near Samaria, nor in the Centurion's house, nor in the Jail of Philippi, we are, I suppose, to infer there was no water baptism in any of these places ! — To me it seems that had the water been poured upon them, it would have been quite as ex- pressive of the outpouring of the spirit, as plunging them all over in water. (How Amicus can consistently contend that baptism means immersion all over in water, and yet has no allu- sion to water, I submit to tbe reader.) But he has discovered another argument of still greater force, they w*ere baptized ^*/or the remission of .si?is," and no Christian will say that remission of sins is obtained by water baptism." This he thinks conclusive. I would ask if remission of sins is obtained by the baptism of the Spirit ? certainly not ; remission of sins is granted Jirst, and then the Holy Ghost is bestowed. — God pardons the rebel, before he adopts the cliild. Again, I ask why is John^s baptism called the ^'baptism of repentance Acts xiii. 23. xix. 4. Did it obtain repentance? — Everyone may see that the reason why it is so called is, that it was a pro- fession of repentance, an indication or sign of repentance on the part of the person baptized; while on the part of God it was a token of pardon, or a sign of the reraission of sins. Thus it is said, Luke iii. 3. He (John) came into all the country round about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repent- ance FOR THE REMISSION OF sixs." Now I ask, did not John baptize with water 1 Or will he deny this also ! He might just as well deny tliat John baptized w ith water in the wilderness, as that the Apostles did the same on the day of Pentecost. His boasted argument, therefore, recoils upon himself, and shows at once the /ac^ and the propriety of water baptism. It is a sign of repentance*^ on our part, and of " remission of sins" on tlie part of God. It strengthens our hope of remission, and the oh- higation of repentance, and thus is an useful means of grace. Amicus quotes me as saying it was no man's duty to com- mand any one to be baptized with the Holy Ghost."* I saici no jiuch thing : though if I had, it would have been true. I meant 116 to say, it is no man's duty to be baptized with the Holy Ghost using tills phrase in its only ScHptiiral seusc, for mii^aculoiis gifts. It was no more their duty then, than mine now, to speak with tongues, utter prophecies, and work miracles. And the Apostles did not mean to **command" any such thing, but to confess Christ, io profess repentance, and put on Christ" by being baptized with water in his name. On the subject ot* ** Apostolic Infallibility," he thinks it better to make them err in judgment than in practice. I think it bet- ter to dishonour them than God; better to ** impeach their m- tegritif than their inspiration. Their integrity is their own con- cern, their inspiration is ours. An error in judgment \a ould re- flect on Him who promised to lead them into all truth ;" an eiTor in practice would only prove them imperfect in sanctifica- tion. — Amicus must know little of the human heart, or of Chris- tian experience, not to admit that the best of God's people, ** do the things which they allow not," and while with the mind they serve tlie law of God, with the f esh they serve the law of sin." (Rom. vii.) But on tliis sub ject your advocate is as bad as ni} self. For, in his last essay, he says, I am very certain the} NEVER WERE MISTAKEN on this point," (baptism) i. e. i\mr judgment was right. But in the preceding essay, he says I admitted that in the early periods of the church, the Apos- tles practised water baptism." Then they either ;7radiser/ con- trary to their ;it%me?i/, or they viewed water baptism as right! But if they judged it riglit, and were not mistaken," then it certainly was right. Thus Amicus has aided in defeating himself!" The reader will remember however, that my doctrine is, they never erred in judgment, and seldom, very seldom erred in prac- tice. And that they never commanded nor recommended, nor hahitually practised any thing wrong. Tliat, therefore, their commanding, recommending, and habitually practising water baptism, is a proof of its propriety and Divine authority. In answering my argument from John iii. 5. he very disin- genuously substitutes tlie 3d verse for the 5th. — In the text which I quoted, our Lord does not say ** except a man be born of w ater, he cannot **se^," but cannot enter into tiie kingdom of God." Unbaptized persons may see, with the natural eye, the visible chui'ch, but cannot enter into it, or become its members. I now proceed to notice two texts which have been used through this wIjoIc discussion as perfect hobbies ; texts in fact, upon a false construction of which the greater part of your sys- tem rests, texts which form the cement of Barclay's work, and w hich 1 believe have more influence upon your mind than all the rest of Scripture. The first is Eph. iv. 5; "one Lord, one 117 i'dithf one hapfisvi,^' and the second, Matt. iii. 11: I indeed baptize with water, but he (Christ) shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost." The former you quote as exchiding more than one form, shape or kind of baptism ; and the second as equiv- alent to a declaration that Christ should not baptize with rcater. On the first text, I remark, 1. I liave no objection to your doc- trine; I admit there is butane baptism, and that is -zra/er bap- tism. This is the common, proper, real baptism of the Scrip- tures ; all other baptisms are not really, but only metaphoricalkj such. But 2. I object to yourcms/nAcfio?i of this text. Because you would set aside the baptism of blood, as well as that of mira- culous gifts, and thus make the Apostle declare a falsehood : and because, it was not the Apostle's object to tell how we are baptized, but to draw an argument for the unity and harmony of christians. He is advising them to *• keep the unit} of the Spirit in the bond of peace," because they have one Lord, one faith, one baptism ;" i. e. the same Lord, the same faith, the same baptism. His expressions as much prove there is but one kind o{ faith, as one kind of baptism ; and we know there are different kinds of faith. Again, this text as clearly proves there is- but one Lord, as one baptism. And as the Father is here called Lord, therefore, upon your construction neither the Son. nor the Holy Ghost is Lord, for there is one Lord, as well as one baptism. If the phrase **one Lord" is not inconsistent with a plnrality of persons in the Godhead ; the phrase ** one baptism" is not inconsistent with plurality of modes. You must therefore either give up your argument or reject the doctrine of the Trini- ty, Only substitute the words ** the same," in the place of ** one," and you perceive the force and beauty of the Apostle's argument. Thus one of your main pillars falls to the ground. Let us now examine your other argument, John's prediction, that Christ should not baptize with water, John nevei' made anj such declaration, or any thing like it ; and before you quote Mat. iii. 11. any more in this view, escape if you can, tlie fol- lowing dilemmas. 1. Chr'v^ actually baptized with water, John iii. 22. ** And there he (Jesus) tarried with them and baptized,-" This was no '* false report," nor " scandalous rumour," but the declaration of an eye witness, of the beloved disciple, and inspired Apostle. He tarried thei'e and baptized." 2. It is of little consequence w hether he bai)tized with his own hands. or by the hands of his disciples ; w hether he did it himself, or ordered it to be done. If lie had not been the director, cause, and author of it, it could not have been said with truth. ** lie bap- tized." 3. Now Jolin the Baptist either did not say Christ should not baptize with atcr, or he told a falsehoo(! ! If you admit the former, you give up his testimony ; if the latter, you tell us his testimony is nothing worth. Take your choice. 118 If you attempt to escape by saying " Jesus baptized not, but Lis disciples," (John iv. 1.) and that John did not allude to what Christ would do by his disciples, but to what he should do in his own person, you are in another dilemma. For 1. The baptism in question (Matt, xxviii. 19.) is a baptism to be per- formed not by Christ immediately, but bydhe hands of his disci- ples. " Go ye baptize all nations." Now, 2. John either re- ferred to what Christ should do by his disciples, or he did not. If he did not, his declaration has no hearing on the question. If you say he did, you surrender your position, make John the Baptist assert a falsehood, and contradict yourselves ! The truth is, John the Baptist did not mean to assert that Jesus should or should not baptize with water ; he only intend- ed to contrast his own meanness with Christ's glory ; as he says in the same verse, *'He that cometh after me is greater than I ; I can only baptize you with water, but he shall baptize you with more^ with the Holy GJiost,^* I have been thus particular in answering these two texts, because they form the two sides of Barclay's ladder, which once taken away, the internal structure falls of course. Before I conclude, I would add a word on the conformity of this ordinance to the present dispensation. — Says Amicus, "we are not to suppose that Clirist would order any rite inconsistent with his own administration." True ; but we are to suppose Him a better Judge of what is consistent and what is inconsistent than ourselves. The fallacy lies here : you first determine in your own mind what is proper for Infinite Wisdom to prescribe, and then take it for granteii this has actually been prescribed. We take the opposite course ; first inquiring what God has actu- ally prescribed, and then acknowledging "he hath done all things well." Upon your ground infidels reject the inspiration of the Scriptures. They first imagine a p-ion what sort of a Revelation God 7vonld make, and then because the Bible does not correspond with their preconceived notions, they reject it as false. The grand argument on which we rest its propriety, is the same on which we rest the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, and justification by faith alone, — God has expressly taught it in his word. Yet we are far from saying, it cannot be defended on tlie ground of reason. For when viewed as connected, as it always is when properly administered, with teaching; when viewed as a sign of discii)leship, and the bond of a covenant, it Is an excellent means of grace. It is no more inconsistent with the present dispensation than preaching, prayer, singing, con- versation, public worship, silent waiting — all which are external signs of certain exercises of heart, binding the persons who prac- tise them, to make their internal feelings correspond with theri*^ 119 external conduct. All these, with haptism and the Lord*s sup- per, are means of grace, or ordinances by which God, in his own time and way, communicates grace, and without using which no person lias a right to expect grace. While we are in the body, it will ever be proper, yea necessary, to address our il understandings through our senses. * " TAUL. Seventh-day, lOth Mo. 0, 1821. LETTER XIII. ly the general character and particular features of Paul's first addresses to us, there is evidence of an overweaning confidence in his own powers — anxious for a contest and confident of a vic- tory, he invaded our peaceable territory and proclaimed an of- fensive war ; but he advanced in untried armour, not conscious of his weakness, nor of his adversary's forces. In his first manifesto he proclaimed to the world "the purity of his mo- tives," and the justness of his cause," — and added for our in- formation, that he was armed strong in honesty," and did not " fear controversy." Notwithstanding the foi'midable appear- ance of such an assailant, had he used no weapons but truth and fair argument, he might have passed along quietly — the discus- sion of our doctrines would at least have occupied his idle hours, and the correctness of our principles when fairly stated would have been seen in his attempts to refute them. But it was not long before our assailant convinced us by the uncandid misre- presentation of our doctrines, that some attempt at an explana- tion of them was due to the public, and to the cause w e had es- poused. Under this impression, ** Amicus" commenced a set of JEssays for the sole purpose of illustrating our religious views ; i pursuing this object in the most inoffensive manner, he was soon I assailed by the most pointed sarcasms, and the society of which I! he is a member, by the most opprobious epithets ; mistaking ; mildness for weakness, our opponent took every opportunity to : defame us, in which he manifested a malevolence of character, worthy indeed of a persecuting ^* Saul," but totally unfitting the character of the mild and benevolent Apostle, whose name I he has assumed. For confirmation of this statement, see "Paul's" productions in Letters 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11. Such were the circumstances of the present discussion, when Paul" dissatisfied with my explanatory method of defending our doctrines, and eager to show his skill at close quarters, press- ed " Amicus' to *< come to the point." A clear exposition of the 120 I'lToiieoiis opinions of my opponent, soon followed ? our prin- ciples were shewn to be consistent with sound reason, the nature of the Gospel dispensation, and the plainest Scripture text — but nnha|)pily for the repose of our assailant, the strength of our position could not in the nature of things, be m ide known to him, without exhibiting his own weakness ; this discovery has thrown him into a state not very becoming his profession as an advocate of religion. His last address to us, bears sti'ong marks of an angrij spirit, instead of a ** spirit full of love!" the proof of which, in the first paragraph of his Essay, will I think, be of- fensive to his friends. Truth rvill have compassion on Error, it is the property of Error to be angry at tlie Truth. I will only observe in reply to his assertion, that ''Amicus'* was infuriated and desperate," that if any symptoms of such a state were apparent in the phraseology of my last production, I have been most unhappy in the sclectioji of terms to express my feelings ; I cannot liowever reject the belief, that Paul" has drawn this angry portrait from the state of his own mind. — Amicus" certainly was very far re noved from ** despairf^- when he penned that Essay ; as to fury,^- he neither felt it, nor perceived any reason to feel it on that occasion. I have yet to learn that any position I have advanced on the subject of wa- ter baptism, can be refuted by Scripture testimony or sound ar- gument. Of the state of my temper, I cheerfully leave my read- ers to judge. It is an important question, at this point of the discussion, how far the ecclesiastical writers of those periods, which suc- ceeded the Apostolic age, are to be relied on for the confirmation or refutation of any doctrine that may be advanced by either of us." Now I will cheerfully grant that any document written under the immediate iiifluence of Divine inspiration is good and sufficient evidence of the truths to whicfiit is applicable : and I think m\ opponent will admit, that no uninspired writer can with propriety be quoted as authority on doctrinal subjects. Now I affirm that not only the professors of Christianity at large, but also the Teachers of the second century, and of every suc- ceeding age were divided in sentiment on the most impoi-tant subjects. By comparing the writings of Justin, Theophilus of Antioch, Clemens, Alexandrinus and Tertullian, this position will be fully confirmed. But besides the evidence of their falli- bility exhibited in their wntings, there is irrefutable testimony to this point in the history of their practice. Their departure from the simplicity of Christian worship, their adoption of the heathen philosopliy, and their introduction of Jewish and Pagan I'ites into the Church, mark their apostacy from the Divine purity of the Christian Religion, as taught by our Lord and his 121 faithful Apostles. If the limits of my essay permitted it, I could easily adduce ample proofs of this statement ; if my op- ponent should deny its truth, I shall take the pains to prove it from historical records. The conclusion to be drawn from the premises is plain ; the church of professing Christians after the lirst century is not sufficient authority to prove the truth of amj doctrines or the purity of any practice not clearly established by our Lord or his Apostles. '^Paul" still manifests his affection for t!iat spui-ious produc- tion called tlie " Apostolic constitutions." Indeed it appears that he has substantial reasons for his attachment to this work ; Avhilst its authority, and that of the early Fathers would indeed be ** a severe tliorn in my side," as well as in the sides of tlie good people of the United States of America, it would undoubt- edly be a cordial to him. *• In the second century," says Mo- shcini, ** the Christian Doctors had the good /orf w/ie to per- '* suade the people that the ministers of the Christian cliurcU succeeded to the character^ rights and privileges of the Jewish priestJwod, ami this persuasion was a new source both oi iionmir and profit to the sacred order ; the errors to w hich this absurd comparison gave rise, were many, and one of its immediate consequences was the establishing a greater difference between, the Christian Pastors and their flock, than the genius of the Gospel seems to admit." See Mosh. Eccl. Hist. Cent. II. Part 2. Cap. 2. "^Paul" says **it is generally supposed the con- stitutions were written at tiie close of the second, or in the com- mencement of the third century, and have been received as au- thority by the greatest men." Although it is not correct that this was the general supposition, yet as my opponent desires it should be so, we will for the present admit the statement. Now~ in oi'der that my reader may judge for himself of the state of the church at tiie time they were written, I will on the author!-: ty of the learned Dr. Jortin, give some of the sentiments con- tained in this celebrated production : ** The constitutions," says the Doctor, repeatedly assert, that a bishop is a god, a GOD upon earth ! and a king, and infinitely superior to aKixG, •* and ruling over Rulers and Ktngs ! they commanded Christians to give him tribute as a Ktngf and reverence hi m as a god ! an;! to pay him tithes and first /ruifs, according, say they, to God's coiumand, and they strictly forbid Christians to make any in- quiry or to take any notice whether he dispose of these reve nues well or ill ! ! !" •* Can the Christian Reader suppress his indignation" at the perusal of this iuipious docti-ine f on my part I can truly say that it excites no sentiment like iudignatioii. In our nappy country it is as harmless as a papal anatheraa ! Divine mercj" 16 122 has shed a ray of light on the Christian world which is melting a\va> the ])ower of a mercenary Priesthood, and penetrating the dark abodes of superstition ; the advocates of such a doctrine have a better title to our pity, than to our anger : no practice that depends for its support on such a broken reed, can finally avoid a fall. My opponent tells his reader that "Amicus" denies that Baptism," commonly in Scripture signifies, an outward rite — that Doddridge, Pyle, Campbell, Scott, Ileni-y, Parkhurst and Gill, are of any authority as cnticSf or the Fathers as witnesses to a plain fact Now not one word of this sentence is true, although it is a pretty fair specimen of " Paul's" candour in all the stages of this discussion as I shall have occasion to shew in future. In the first place I have never said that the word bap" tism is not commonly used to signify an outward rite — although I have said tliat '*in the New Testament it is very commonly used to imply the purifying operation of the Holy Spirit," but tliere is no contradiction in this position a word may be commonly used to convey at different times distinct meanings. Paul" himself acknowledges this truth, where he says, " The King- dom of God is in Scripture used in t7Vo senses ; for the visible arid invisible church, foi* the body of apparent and of real saints. That it sometimes means the invisible church all will admit, but that it often means also the visible church none \\ ill doubt." Thus we see that my opponent who insists so strongly for the literal meaning of words, in one case, can when it suits his pur- pose, contend for a figurative meaning in another. Sometimes the Kingdom of God" is to be understood literally , often figu- ratively. Paul in his last essay, either tlirough inattention to the state of the controversy or from a desire to lead his reader away from the points at issue, takes much pains to prove, that the Baptism of John w as with water, and that Water Baptism was sometimes used in the primitive church he might have saved himself all this unnecessary trouble if he had reverted to a former conclu- sion of Amicus," that this no more proves that Water Bap- tism is an ordinance of Christ, than that circumcision and Jew- ish sacrifices arc yet binding on the chui'ch. Not only Water Baptism, but circumcision and Jewish sacrifices were used in the days of John the Baptist — in the time of our Saviour, and in the apostolic age, and for a long time afterwards in the pro- fessed churches of Christ, as can be clearly proved : If there- fore the practice of the Apostles prove any thing, it proves too mucii, and the whole conclusion drawn from these facts must fall to the ground. The contradictions and absurdities in Paul's" attempt to 123 uphold his carnal scheme, are so numerous, that the limits of an essay would be too narrow to exhibit them. I will, however, point to a few of them. First, in Letter XI, he tells ns that the Apostle speaks of water baptism 'ds an important means of salva- tion ; then he tells us it is a symbol or sign of regeneration. "Sow I would ask how in the nature of things, can any symbol or sign, be an important means of salvation? Again he tells us that the early Fathers commonly used the phrase, the washing of regeneration," to signify baptism : now according to my opponent, water baptism is a *• symbol, or sign of regeneration of course, the washing of regeneration, must be a sign of regeneration ! this conclusion is too contra- dictory to common sense, to need animadversion. Quoting the text ** By one Spirit we are all baptized into one body," he says "this one body is the church, risift/g and invisible. By baptism with water, we are introduced into union with the former, by haptism with the Spirit into the lattei-, the one is a - type of the other." Thus he would make the word Baptism" to have two meanings at the same time ; one literal^ and the other^^uraf/re. But tlie absurdity of tliis construction plainly appears from the text ; for the Holy Spirit is mentioned as the baptizer. '*By one Spirit we are all baptized." So that ac- cording to " Paul," water baptism is performed by the Holy Spirit ! Again quoting Gal. iii. 27: " As many as have heen baptized 1 into Christ have put on Christ," he tells us tliat " baptism here is used in two senses a literal and, figurative.^' One meaning with water, and the other with the Spirit. Now if this construc- tion were correct, none can put on Christ, except he be baptized with water ! I will now advert to ** Paul's" explanation of John iii. 5 : a text on which he seems to place much reliance for the support of the sprinkling system. — ** Jesus answered, verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be horn of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God." *» The Kingdom of God" in this passage, must either mean the visible or invisible church. If it mean the visible church, then according to Paul," no man can enter the visible church, unless he be baptized with water, and with the Spirit ; wliich is a contradiction to the uni- form experience of mankind. If it mean the invisible church in Heaven, and the word water alludes to water baptism, then no man can be saved unless he has been baptized in water, w liich my opponent will not assert ; the inevitable conclusion is, that the word water in the text, is used figuratively, just in the same manner as John tlie Baptist used the word '\fire.'' n here he says, when speaking of tlie baptism of Christ, **IIe shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with^re," Luke iii. 16. 124 It must have been observed by our readers, that " Paul's'* method of interpreting the Scriptures, is so h)ose that if it be- sanctioned, there is no position so weak tliat it may not be sup- ported by the sacred text. Sometimes he takes a passage ^^m- ratirely — somQiimcs Hi cr ally ; sometimes to bend it to his pur- po c, he at tlie same time puts ?i jigurative and literal meaning, on tlie same word. This course, if it receive the general appro- bation, must tend wholly to undermine the authority of the Scripture, and render it subservient to the basest purposes. Every passage must have eitlier a literal or figurative meaning there is no alternative ; th^e writer intended to express himself either in a literal or figurative sense ; any other hypothesis would destroy all confidence in the text, and do more mischief to the cause of Christianity, than all the cavils of the Atheist or Infidel. Let us now turn to ** Paul's" explanation of the text, Tliere is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and tlirough all, and in you all," PLph. iv. 5, 6. — The baptism of w ater, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit, are clearly mentiojied in Scripture as two distinct baptisms. John's expressions are conclusive on this point. '* I indeed have baptized you w ith water, but he (Christ) shall baptize you "with the Holy Ghost." Now- w hen the Apostle w rote this pas- sage, only **a7ie" of these Baptisms was binding on the believer in Christ. There is but one Christian Baptism; this position can- not be refuted ; — the text is too clear to be perverted by sopliis- try. The question then is, w hat is that one Baptism ? AVe say it is the baptism of the Holy Spirit. ** Paul" says it is ** water baptism, and that there is no otlier real baptism !" If this were admitted, then our Lord w as mistaken when he said, Acts i. 5 : Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost ;" then the Apostle was mistaken, w hen he said, ** By one Spirit we are all baptized into one body," — and tlsen the faith of the Holy Apostle and all the spiritual members of the church of Christ, has been in vain ; they have all died in their sins, for without reai spiritual bap- tism, there is no remission of sin. Paul," in order to avoid the force of the text, tells us there are different kinds of faith, and several Lords ; there appears to be some truth in this assertion, for it clearly appears that his , faith is very different from the faith of the Apostle ; my o])po- nent's faith is of a carnal natui-e ; it rests in elementary w ater, in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordi- nances," as the ** important means of salvation." He also ac- knowledges several Lords, in which he plainly declares his faith to be different from the Apostle's faith, w ho, in 1 Cor. viii. 5, 6 : says, ** For tliough there be, that are called Gods, wheth- er in Heaven or in earth, for there be Gods many, and Lords 155 many, but to us there is hut one God, the Father, of wliom are all things, and we in him ; and one Ijord Jesus Christ, by whom are all tilings, and we by him." — I think my reader must ac- knowledge, on a serious review of these autliorities, that the pillar which Paul" supposed had fallen to the ground, still stands in its place, a firm support to that excellent testimony against the weakness of all typical and carnal ordinances, ** weak as pertaining to the conscience, and which can never make him that doeth the service, perfect." Paul" attempts to weave a dilemma or two for me ; and as they are rather an unpleasant thing to he entangled in, I will not rest in tliem as he does, without making an attempt to extri- cate myself, in which I have no fear I shall easily succeed. The iirst dilemma is formed by an assertion of my opponent, w hich is in contradiction to the plainest Scripture testimony. — '* Paul" says, "Jesus did baptize with water." The Evangelist says, "Jesus baptized not, but his disciples." That our Lord **or- - dered it to be done," rests upon a bare assertion ; there is not the least proof of it, as my reader will see by reading the whole passage. I do not know that the true state of the case can be better explained than in the language of Dell, master of Gonvil and Caius college in Cambridge. ** The baptism of John was very honourahle, and of high account in its time, so that the « Ycpy disciples of Clirist took it np, and Christ himself suffered them, because John's baptism was the sign and forerunner of liis, and because tlie time of his own baptism was not yet •* come ; but Christ himself used it not as Jolm witnesses, chap. '* iv. 2: saying Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples — " to wit, with John's baptism, which was water baptism. For it became not the Son of God to baptize with a creature, nor the Lord of all to use the baptism of a serrant,^^ See ** The Doc- trine of Baptism reduced from its ancient and modern corrup- tions, by Wm. Dell, printed 1652." Tiie otlier dilemma is formed by begging tlie question — by a mere assumption without the least proof. He says the baptism in question (Matt, xxviii. 19 :) is a baptism to be performed not by Christ immediately, but by the hands of his disciples. But the text does not say, " Go teach all nations baptizing them, witli your hands in water," but " Go teach all nations, baptiz- ing them into the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," for so the Greek has it. If "Paul" can prove that i\w disciples were ordered to baptize " witii their hands," I will clieerfully yield the point ; but tliis I am certain he can never do. Now if my opponent cannot weave a sti'onger di- lemma than these, I tiiink he had better relinquish the business. Having noticed all the material parts of " Paul's last essay, 126 I Avill conclude this number with a short extract IVom a poetical letter of the celebrated M. Knowles, written on the subject no\t in discussion many years ago. " No typic observations are revered, " Since their immortal Archetype appeared. " Fox preached this tloctrme to a seeking- ag-e, ** It shines in Baiiclat's imrefuted page — ** Simple their scJieme — no mean self-love they knew, *' But freely preached without a sordid view; ** With hearts devoted, Gospel truths displayed, " An.! scorned to make Divinity a trade : ** No jug-gling" a-t e'er used— -m/ low disguise, " O'er obvious texts and sense to tyrannize ; " Discerning truth by its own native light, '* And bv its guidance, practiced what was right." AMICUS. SalurdaytOct. 13,1821. LETTER XII. ON THE lord's supper. The last essay of Amicus contains nothing of importance and serves simply to fill the blank. Two or three things only I would notice. His long defence of his motives was unnecessa- ry. Though I Ivave been puzzled at times to reconcile his want of candour, his cunning evasions, and erroneous quotations with perfect honesty, I have never intentionally questioned, nor am I now disposed to question his general integrity, or coolness of temper. And I assure him that I feel not the slightest emotion of anger, though accused of writing with an angry spirit,** with an overweaning confidence," with malevolence," and asserting what was ** not one word of it true !" Let the public decide. The reader will remember that the author of the Apostolic Constitutions," against which he inveighs so much, was only me of seventy witnesses adduced by me to prove the universal prevalence of water baptism in primitive times. No other wit- ness has he questioned. Campbell, Parkhurst, Doddridge, and others, were quoted by me expressly and solely as critics, to determine the sense of a Greek word ; and the Fathers solely as witnesses of the fact ofi water baptism. He sets them all aside as of **no more authori- ty" with him, <'t!ian the writers of the church of Rome" with me. Yet when I charge him with rejecting tlie former as cntics, and the latter as witnesses of fact, he charges me with saying what is *^ not true." Now he either did reject them as critics and witnesses, or he did not. If he did, what I said was true ; if he did not, his declaration was nothing to tlie point. He has his choice. Whether he has escaped, or ever can escape the dilenunas founded on John iii. 22, let the public judge. It was a maxim of Amicus in a late number, that what a principal does by the agency of another, he does himself." It is of no consequence therefore, whether our Lord baptized with his own hands, or by his disciples, provided he baptized. The Editor of the Reposi- tory as really prints that paper, as though he set the types with his own hands. It is true that he prints the paper, and it is like- wise true that he does not print it himself , but his workmen. In like manner, it is true that Jesus baptized ; while it is equal- ly true that ^* Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples." IC however, the Editor of the Repository did not employ, direct, su- perintend, or cause others to print the paper, it could not be said with truth he printed it. Upon the same principle, if our Lord did not authorize, direct, or order the disciples to baptize, the in- spired Apostle was mistaken when he says of Jesus, he bap- tized''^ — " After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judea, and there he tarried with them and baptized. And John also was baptizing in Enon, &c." John iii. 22, 23. It is as expressly said that Jesns baptized, as that Jb/i?i baptized. Amicus is therefore on the horns of the dilemma still. On the subject of Apostolic practice. Amicus has not only taken ground different from all liis predecessors, but has shifted his own ground. The usual mode of defence has been to admit the /flc^ that the Apostles practised water baptism, but hold they w^ere mistaken. This ground was at first taken by your ad- vocate. Driven from tliis, he takes the opposite ground, and says, I am very certain thatthey never were mistaken on this point," and denies i\\e fact that they baptized with water on the day of Pentecost. *Kot anticipating the denial of a fact so evi- dent, I did not quote the passages at large, and it seems out of place to do it now. Let the reader examine for himself; taking the concession of Amicus in Ids hand that **they never were mis- taken on this point," let him examine Acts ii. viii. ix. x. xvi. xix. &c. and decide wjiether the Apostles did not reallij believe water baptism to be an institution of Christ. I have no fear of the re- sult. Every candid reader will be convinced that they who, like the Pharisees and Lawyers of old, refuse to be be baptized, I reject the counsel of God against themselves,'* (Luke vii. 30.) THE lord's supper. Amicus, in three long essays on this^ subject, has laboured to .prove three things that this ordinance was not instituted 128 by Clirist" — ^^was not practised by the Apostles" — and 'Ms not consistent with the present dispensation." So weak and irrelevant are most of his arguments, that I would not notice them, but let my former essay, on this subject, stand against his tliree, were I not afraid some people, without examination, w ould measure the weight by the bulk. Compared with the bulk of his words, his arguments are as two kernels of wheat in a bushel of chalf !" His long quotations from Scripture and from Cradockf to prove that our Lord and his disciples met to eat the passover, — that the Jews were in the practice of using bread and wine at that feast, and that the present is a spiritual dispen- sation"— quotations which occupy tlie larger portion of his tliree essays, every judicious reader must have at once pronounced nothing to the point ! We are willing to admit they met for the celebration of the passover, but out of this feast, or after it, our Lord formed his own feast, in the room of the passover. We grant also that our Lord did not send off to the market for bread and wine, but took that which was on the table before him : and also, that the present is pre-eminently a dispensation of the spirit; but as a dispensation, it is not so spiritual as to set aside every thing external, or we must reject Preaching. Praying, Public Worship, Reading, Conversation, for all these are addressed to the senses, as well as Baptism or tlie Lord's Supper. The plain question is, did our Lord, or did he not institute what we call the hordes Supper? You say no, and we say yes. I have already referred in general to the evidence on this subject; a more particular reference will confirm my former arguments. That our Lord actually instituted this feast, is proved by four inspired witnesses. First Witness. The Evangelist ./>/a??/iew in chapter xxvi. 26 : says, As they were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the discipies, and said, take, eat, this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave tlianks, and gave it to them saying, drink ye all of it ; for this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." On this plain testimony I would simply remark, the Apostle must have understood our Lord as introducing a new and im- portant ceremony, or he would not liave noticed it. Matthew had been long and intimately acquainted with Jewish usages on this subject, and had three times before, celebrated the Passover ivith our Lord himself. If this was an usual ceremony at that feast, and no new institution," why had he never before re- marked it? It was manifestly a new institution whicli our Lord here introduced as less burdensome, and more significant thaa the Passover. Second Witness. The Evangelist Mark, in clia])ter xiv, 22 : bears tlie same testimony, in almost the same words. 129 Third Witness. The Evangelist Luke, in chapter xxii. 19 : says, " And he took hrcad and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, this is iny body which is given for you, THIS DO IN RKMEMBRANCE OF ME. LikcwisC the CUp also after supper, saying, this cup is tlic New Testament in my blood, which is shed for you.'* Here is not only the institution of the ordinance, but an ex- press command to keep it. But says Amicus, the words * this do in remembrance of me,' are in the present tense, and simply mean, eat in remembrance of its great Antitype, the Spirit of Christ and again, Christ does not say, ' do this in remem- brance oimy deaths'' but eat and drink in remembrance of tliat Divine Spirit which should shortly be poured out." — Answer. How we can remember a thingprese/i^, and much more one which is to come, is beyond my compi'ehension ! Remembrance relates to things past. And in remembering the ** Divine Spirit,^' there is something too vague for common minds. Far preferable is - the simplicity of the Scripture, do this in remembrance of ME," of my sufferings and death. Let this broken bread repre- sent my broken body, and this wine my blood, which is shed for the remission of sins." Surely liis death must be the chief thing represented, or there is no meaning in the emblems, no force in our Saviour's language, nor in the declaration of the Apostle, ** As oft as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show forth the Lord's deaf/i." As therefore, they could not, in the nature of tilings, remember his death, till after that deatli had taken place, it follows of course, our Lord intended this feast should be celebrated through generations. But here comes a wonderful objection ! ** Matthew and John," says Amicus, ** were the only Evangelists present at the feast." I What does he mean by this ? does he mean to insinuate that Mark and Luke might have been mistaken I You must excuse me, but indeed, I do look upon all such slights put upon any scrip- ture writer, as an attack on inspiration. Is not Moses to be cre- dited in his account of the Cr-ealion and Deluge, events which happened many centuries before his time, and at which, of course, he was not present ? Is not the Apostle Faul correct in his state - ment of the doctrine of our Loi'd, merely because he did not see nor hear (in the flesh) the things which he relates ? Are Mark and Luke of no authority in tlieir statements concei-ning the Lord's Supper, merely because they were *^ not present" at its institution I Either there is no force in the remark of Amicus, or lie intends a sly reflection on the infallibility of the Evangelists. In the same way I must understand what he afterwards says, **Luke is the o?i(2/ Evangelist wlio says, do this in remembrance of me." What of that ! is not he enough t do you consider tl^e 17 130 Gospel which Luke wrote as his gospel, the words as Ais words, or the words dictated hy the Holy Ghost ? I mean, is it simply Luke that speaks, or the Lord speaking through him ? If you assci t the former, you deny his inspiration ; if the latter, is liot one declaration of God as true as a hundred ? To me me declaration of an inspired writer, if it be plain and unequivocal, is as strong as the testimony of any number ; because I view it not as his declaration but the declaration of the God of Truth. But, after all, it is not true that Luke is the only writer who mentions this command. The Apostle Paul, as will be seen presently, men- tions it twice. Here then, wehave the testimony of God himself (or Luke w as not inspired) tliat Christ commanded the observance of this feast. How can you get over this without denying inspiration ? Again, you object the silence of the Apostle John, and inti- mate he thought tlie circumstance" too ** immaterial" to men- tion. And so, I suppose, he thought of our Lord's Miraculous Conception, Nativity, Iiis Sermon on the Mount, and nine tenths of his Miracles ! for none of these does he mention. The fact is, 1. After the other Evangelists had given such explicit testi- mony, and the ordinance had been observed and established for more than half a century through the whole church, there was no need of further testimony. 2. His Gospel was intended as a, supplement to the other gospels ; accordingly, from the middle of the sixth chapter, it is almost wholly new and different from the other Evangelists. 3. He does allude to this ordinance, and pay it a high compliment in his first Epistle, v. 8. making it a standing witness for Chi-ist. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, tlic Water, and the Blood." But not to dwell on this testimony at present, a Fourth Witness is the Apostle Paul, 1 Cor. xi. 23: *'For I have received of the Lor^l that which I also delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in \\hich he was betrayed,^ took bread; and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said. Take, eat,* this is my body which is broken for you ; This do in remembrance of me. After the same manner, also, he took the cup, saying, This cup is tlie New-Testament in my blood ; This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. Sec, &c." The terms ** rcceiveo'' and *^ delivered" which occur so fre- quently in the writings of this Apostle, clearly evince the cha- ractei* in A\ liich he vie\\ ed himself as acting. He represents himself as the mere minister or servant of Christ, receiving" first from him, and then ** delivering" what he had received to others. In tiiis passage then, 1. He plainly declares he receiv- ed this oj dinance of ttic Lord Jesus to deliver to others, thus asserting its Divine origin. 2. He txvice repeats our Saviour's 131 eommaiid to observe it. " This do in remembrance ot* me." 3. In the subsequent verses he attaches great imporiance and solemnitij to its observance. " Whosoever eateth this bread and drinketh this cup of the Lord unwoi'thily, sliall be gtiilty of the body and blood of the Lord," or guilty of murdering the Lord. And again, sucli unworthy communicants bring upon themseh es Divine judgments, even sickness and death, (verses 29, and 30.) To suppose all this importance attached to the observance of an uncommanded useless ceremony, (as you consider this feast,) is to suppose the Apostle acting a solemn farce! 4. All this was written twenty-seven years after tlie institution of tliis sacra- ment, of course, long after he had had time, (if he needed any time) to discover the Divine will upon tliis subject. What more is necessary? Here are four inspired witnesses, all express- ly testifying to the Divine authority of an ordinance which you neglect and despise. Our Lord says, Take eat," you say, " take it not !" He says, Do this in remembrance of mc ;" . you say, **do it not !" The Apostle says, I received this feast of the Lord Jesus ;" you say, he was mistaken ! Here I might with perfect safety rest this subject. Amicus miglit as easily prove our Lord did not command Prayer and Public Worship, as that he did not institute the Lord's Supper. But he has said some things of the practice of the Apostles which may be with equal ease and clearness answered. His Second Objection to this ordinance was, that " the Apostles never practised it.^* On this subject I would remark, that had no account been transmitted to us of their celebrating this feast ; if in the conciseness of the sacred history, not a word had been said about it, nor an allusion made to it, we should hsixe fairly presumed they obeyed the injunction of their I^ord in this particular. The institution of Christ would have been suf- ficient authority for practising it ourselves, and believing that the Apostles practised it. But we are not thus left. V/e have the clearest testimony that they kept this feast. Without men- tioning other passages, I am willing to rely on three. Acts ii. 42. It is said in praise of the primitive disciples, that they con- tinued steadfastly in the Apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." Acts xx. 7, 11 : **Upon the first day of the week when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, 6cc." To these two pas- sages you object, that the breaking of bread" here mention- ed, '.ienotes a common meal ;" in proof of which, you quote chose passages which speak of their ** having all things com- mon," and eating at a common table. To which we answer, 1. This '* breaking of bread" is spoken of before the commn- 'lioii of goods took place, as any one may see who will turn to the passage ; of coui'sc lias no allusion to their social ordinary meals. 2. It is spoken of as a religions ceremony and a proof of their piety ; " tliey contiiuied steadfast in breaking of bread and in prayers." K most wonderful proof of their piety, if break- irig bread" means nothing more than Amicus understands ! they continued steadfast in ca^in^// But on the supposition it was a sacramental eating, a public testimony of their faith in Christ in the presence of his foes, it was a re%io2/s exercise, and very properly mentioned along with their ♦* prayers" as a proof of their faith and boldness in confessing Christ. Besides it is ex- pressly distinguished from eating *' meat," in the 46th \erse. And breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart." 3, That this, " breaking of bread" was a religious ceremo- ny and sacramental feast, is evident from its being the chief ob- ject of their meeting on the Lord^s day. Upon the first day of the week when the disciples came together to break bread, &c." It is not said ** when they came together they broke bread," but ** they came together to break bread," This was their chief object. Now is it not a most gross and unworthy idea to sup- pose they came together on that solemn day to eat a common meal ? And is it to be supposed that the holy Apostle, *< ready to de- part on the morrow," at such an aflecting season, would coun- tenance such gross conduct ? Besides it must be remembered that the argument about communion of goods," and com- mon tables," however it might apply to the saints at Jerusalem, wouM not apply at Troas where no sucl» communion was known. 4. The Syriac version^ (the earliest version of the New Testa- ment, made fov the use of the Syrian Chri.stians about Antioch, either during, or immediately after the Apostles' days) renders the ])assage they came together to break the eucharist ;" and the Arabic version, they came together to distribute the body of Christ." This shows how early Christians understood these passages. But if these passages were all blotted out, if every other chapter of the New Testament was silent on the subject, so long as the xith of Corinthians remains, there will be no other way of setting aside this ordinance, but by denying the Apostle's inspiration. The passage has been in part already quoted. The fact that the feast called the Lord's Supper was observed by these Chr istians, is too plain to be doubted. Amicus therefore ad- mits *' these Coi inthians were some how in the habit of eating bread and drinking wine as a religions ceremony Here he ac- knowledges that the feast they observed was not for a car?ia^ but religions'^ pur])()se ; and not an occasional act, but an habitat- al practice. They were *' some liovv in the habit !" some how ! 133 what a j)ity Scripture liad not given Amicus some information on this subject ! what a pity he was driven to such improbable conjectures, and left in such darkness as to the original of this ceremony ! Shall I suggest a key to discover its author and or- igin ? You will find it in the 23d verse : I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto yoniJ'^ They received this ordi- nance from the same source from which they received their doc- trines, from the Jpostle himself / *' I delivered it unto you,'^ But where could Paul have got it? Our Lord it seems **never in- stituted it," the rest of the Apostles " never practised it," it was inconsistent with the present dispensation," how could he have come by it ? He tells us himself, " I received it of the Lord Jesus." The public can now judge whether our Lord appointed, the Apostle sanctioned, or tlie primitive Christians practised the Lord's Supper. PAUL, Sefcnth-day-t xoth Mo. zo, 1821. LETTER XIV. AS Paul" in his last address to us, has closed his arguments on the subject of Water Baptism — before I enter into a defence of my opinions on the subject of the Eucharist, I will briefly notice some of his remarks on my last essay. In doing this, I shall not confine myself to the order in which they occur, but take them uj) as they appear to have a bearing on the points at issue. The assertion of my opponent that Amicus has not only taken ground different from all his predecessors, but has shifted his own ground'* — is founded in an unaccountable mistake, as will be perceived by a reference to my essay, in Letter XIL How such a mistake should occur, seems on any fair principle, to be incomprehensible. On a review of that essay, I cannot perceive any ambiguity in the expression of my sentiments. " PauP' in a former number had asserted that we were bound to prove that the Apostles were mistaken in interpreting their Master's mind and will as expressed in Matt, xxviii. 19. **Ami- cus" answered that he was very certain they never were mis- taken 071 this point, that they never understood our Lord to command water baptism." To demonstrate that in the fev/ exami)les of water baptism that occurred afterwards, tliey did not act by virtue of that commission, I shewed that they never baptized their converts *'in the name of tl)c Father, and of tlie 134 Son, aiul of the Holy Ghost," which they would have done, if they had so understood him. Tliis argument wliich Paul can never answer, without contradicting his own creed, remains un- touched hy any subsequent reply. The Apostles and early con- verts to Christianity, both Jews and Gentiles, had been accus- tomed to a variety of outward forms and ceremonies in the cele- bration of their worship, and which were wholly inconsistent with the nature of tlie Christian dispensation, in which, as our Lord tauglit the woman of Samaria, tliey that worship the Fathci* must worship him in Spirit and in truth." Under the . New Covenant, no teuiple made with hands — no outward cere- mony— no carnal rite is necessary to that communion between Goil and the soul in wliich divine worship essentially consists. This truth was not suddenly perceived by the first professors of the Gospel, and they continued for some time after its introduc- tion, to use many of the Jewish rites as well as the peculiar bap- tism of John. This was the only mistake which " Amicus" ever attributed to the primitive believers, a mistake which was corrected by the gradual increase of Divine liglit, by tlie rising splendor of the Gospel Sun, under whose increasing radiance the weakness and inefficiency of typical institutions were clear- ly discovered and pointedly I'eprobated, as evidently appears by the Apostolical Epistles. ** What a man does by the agency of another, he does him- self," is very true : If Jesus had commanded his disciples to baptize witli water, it might with sufficient i)ropriety be said, *'he baptized ;" but that he ever commanded them to use Water Baptism, remains to be proved. When the Evangelist says, John iii. 22 : After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judea, and there he tarried w ith them and bap- tized ;" by the context he evidently means, ** and they baptized," for directly afterwards he declares, that Jesus baptized not, but his disciples," John iv. 2 : ** When therefore, the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, (tliough Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,) he left Judea and departed again into Gali- lee," John iv. 1, 2, 3. The rumour that Christ was any ways concerned in the administration of a carnal ordinance, was evi- dently offi3nsive to iiim, he //iire/bre immediately leaves the scene of Water Baptism, and retires into Galilee. To tliose acquaint- ed with the Geogi'apliy of that country, the cause of his leaving Judea will be evident. The river Jordan between the lake ol' Gennesareth and the Dead Sea, was the scene of Water Bap- tism : there Jolin and the disciples of Christ baptized their con- verts. AVhen our Lord knew of a rumour, that lie baptized with fVater, in order to remove a suspicion so derogatory to the Di- 1S5 vine nature of that glorious dispensation which he came to intro- duce, he straightway departed from the scene of these opera- tions, and retired into a country where this carnal ordinance had never heen administered. With Doddridge, Campbell, Parkhurst and others, as critics^ I have no controversy, but when as commentators they attempt to pervert any plain text of Scripture, I shall deny their authori- ty. Tlie command of our Lord, Matt, xxviii. 19 : is as 1 have shewn, translated with accuracy. Paul" in liis eighth Ad- dress to us, declared, that it was well known to all acquainted with the Greek, that the word rendered teach," literally sig- nified to make disciples." In my succeeding essay, I quoted the original word with its meaning, in Latin and English, that my reader might be able to judge for himself, as to the accuracy of its translation. I did not, like my opponent, rest the case upon a bare assei'tion. With respect to matters of fact, 1 have never denied tlie au- - thority of ** the early Fathers," yet I freely confess, that I rely on their authority no more than on other respectable writers of that period. I do not consider them as inspired penmen, and therefore, their credibility rests on the same foundation with that of all other historians. On the Apostolical constitutions, my opponent " casts a long- ing, lingering look," and though from the exposition of their real character, he is obliged to abandon them, yet that they may pass away with some reputation, he tells us, that **the autlior of them was only one of seventy witnesses," to a practice that can add no weight to his argument, unless it were sanctioned by the authority of Christ. But who were these se\ enty wit- nesses !" A council of sixty-six Bishops in the third century when, the church had grossly apostatized from the faith and practice of the Apostles ! Cyprian, Origen and Fidus of the same period ! Augustine a persecuting Bishop of the fifth century ! Pelagius and Celestius, two monks of the same era whose doctrines were alternately applauded and condemned by the Pope of Rome, and whose opinions are generally held in abhorrence! The church which my opponent calls **the church of Christ for thiiteen hundred years," has a much better title to be called the church of Antichrist," it was a corrupt persecuting church. Against it ^^ ickliffe, Jerom of Prague, Huss, Luther and Calvin pro- tested. From its errors and superstition, the Christian World is yet but partially reformed. " Paul" asserts that **the last essay of Amicus, contains nothing of importance :" By this assertion, he affords us a means of detei'mining what he deems unimportant. First he deems it of no impoi-tance that 1 have proved the early Fathers 136 were divided in sentiment on the most important subjects, and are not sufficient authority to prove the truth of any doctrine, or the purity of any practice, not clearly established by our Lord or his Apostles ! Secondly, he thinks it of no importance that the authorities he quoted for the support of his scheme, are shewn to be totally unworthy of confidence or respect ! Thirdly, he thinks it unimportant that I have proved by his own writings, that he is inconsistent with himself! Fourthly, that his doctrine is irrational, unscriptural and absurd ! Fifthly, that ids mode of interpreting the Scriptures, is calculated to destroy all con- fidence in the sacred text, and is mischievous to tlte cause of Christianity ! and, Sixthly, that his faith is a carnal faith, rest- ing in elementary water, in meats, and drinks, and divers wash- ings, as the '* important means of salvation." But Paul's" assertion can be considered in no other light than mere affectation. He lias too much understanding to be perfectly indifferent to the weight of the arguments tliat have been adduced. Although Amicus is aware that the excellent cause he has espoused, might have fallen into mucli better hands — that his knowledge and experience fall very far sliort of a large number of his fellow professors — that his literary qual- ifications are mean, in comparison of many witii whom he liolds religious communion — yet he is also sensible of the Divine na- ture, and happy effects of the doctrines we advocate — of tiieir conformity with the precepts of Christ and his Apostles; that Truth however feebly advocated, is powerful in its nature, and with the candid enquirer, its impression will not be easily erad- icated. In this belief, I cheerfully rest the case ; if my oppo- nent is easy, I see no cause why I should not be satisfied. I will now advert to Paul's" attempt to reply to my argu- ments, on the subject of the ** Lord's Supper." ' The great question on the present subject, is as stated by my opponent, *' Did our Lord, or did he not, institute what is called the Lord's Supper ?" W e deny that he instituted any supper at all, and that he ever celebrated any supper but the Passover supper. In Paul's" last address to us there is not the least proof, although there is much assertion to the contrary. All the evidence he has adduced on this point, amounts to no more than this, that our Lord in distributing the Bread and Wine added some expressions never before used on that occasion. To prove that these expressions used whilst performing the ancient cere^ monials of tlie Passover feast, were the institution of a new Fes- lival, "Paul" brings forward three Evangelists as evidences. We will now attempt to examine these >Vitnesses, and sift the testimony which they give us on this subject. That our Lord was celebrating the Feast of the Passovci' when he used tiies»; 157 expressions, cannot be denied. Matthew says, chapter xxvi. 26. '•Andas tlietf were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed it, and brake it, and gave to the disciples, saying, take eat.'* 27 " And he took the cnp and gave thanks saying, drink ye all of it." The taking of the bread, the blessing of it, and break- ing it, and distributing it to the guests — the taking of the cup, and giving thanks, and handing it to the company, were the usual rites always performed by the governor or cliief man of this feast. In doing all this, our Lord certainly instituted no new ceremony. They who imitate Him in these particulars, so far celebrate the Jewish Passover, and nothing more. We will now consider the other testimony of these Witnessess ; hitherto they have only confirmed my former position. ; ^ Of the Bread, our Lord, according to Matthew, simply says, ••this is niy body." According to Mark, he uses the same words. Luke adds, which is given for you, this do in remem- brance of me." Of the AVine, according to Matthew, he says, ' this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many, for the remission of sins." Mark says, which is shed for many." Luke says, which is shed for you." The ques- tion now is. How are we to understand tliese words ? My oppo- nent says, ^'the Holy Scriptures in thc'w literal and logical sense, are the supreme and only standard of religious truth." Now if we interpret these expressions, literally and logically, I cannot see how we can reject the doctrine of *• the real presence :" we must either give up theiv literal nieaning, or unite with the Doc- tors of the Church of Rome. I will however, suppose that my opponent will he willing to suspend his rule m tlie present case — that he will abandon their literal sense, and rely upon their hgimi meaning. I do not know wliat otliers may tliink of ** Paul's" reasoning in this case, but after giving it the best at- tention'in my power, I cannot discover much logic our Lord makes his material body and blood, a tijjieovjigure of his Spiritual body and blood. John vi. 53. ^' Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, ye have no life in you : whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day, for my flesh is meat iiideed, and my blood is drink indeed." My opponent whose views seem remarkably directed to carnal objects, takes a differ- ent course, he makes the broken bread" to ** rejiresent Christ's : broken body, and the wine his blood." Thus he makes bread and wine to be the type of a type, whicli is absurd.^ The ti-uth is, there is no consistent or rational method of interpreting these passages, unless we admit that our Lord intended the Bread and AVine as figures of his Spiritual Body and Blood, emphatically given for the ••remission oi sins." it is the Divine operation 138 this Heavenly food on ^eace, and joy in the Holy Ghost, — that meat commendeth us not to God, for neither if we eat arc Ave the better, neither if we eat not are we the worse." 1 Cor. vii. It is not by any carnal observation that the " soul is establish- ed w ith grace :" The soul of man is Spiritual, it cannot in the nature of things be nourished v. ith outward food. " The bread that Cometh down from Heaven — the meat that endureth unta everlasting life," are its only j)roper aliment, this it receives not by outwai-d observations, but by the immediate communica- tion of the Holy Spirit: "meats and drinks and divers wash- 139 i ugs" are the peculiar cliaracteristics of the Mosaic La^^ . Un- der the Gospel (lispensatioii the real Christian draws nigh unto God in Spirit, eats Spiritual hread, drinks living water, draws his nourishment from Clirist the true vine, and by abiding iu him brings forth much good fruit to the gloi'y of God, and the benefit of his fellow creatui*es. - AMICUS. Saturday f Del. 27.1811. LETTER XIII. ON THE lord's supper. The fact that' the Apostles practised and commanded wateT baptism, is' too plain to be denied or doubted, Acts ii. 38. viii. 16, 38, and x. 48. Now, in this practice they either were, or .wei'e not mistaken. Let Amicus take whiy^h side he please, his system must fall. If he holds they were mistaken, lie so far denies their inspiration, and contradicts the Scripture whicli as- serts that they were filled with the Spirit — spake as the Spi- rit gave them utterance," and were led into all truth if he holds they were not mistaken, he admits the proprietif of their prac- tice, and thus gives up his whole argument. So far, therefore, as relates to the jiresent argument it is a matter of comparative indifference which side he takes. It will however, puzzle any reader, not moi-e penetrating than myself, to discover from his last, which side he intends to take. He is pleased to say, ** I have shown that the Apostles never baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost." If he has, I presume his readers have forgotten it. For my part, I must beg him to show it again, as it has entirely slipped my memory, if he has shown any such thing. The mere gmissioii to record the form in full, no more proves that they did not fol- low their Lord's command, than the omission to mention circum- cision for the 1400 years between Joshua and John the Baptist proves that this rite was not practised millions of times. We forget ;the conciseness of the sacred history. We might as well infer they did not ** teach" their converts ** all things whatso- ever he had commanded them," because every lesson is not expli- citly stated. But I ask any candid reader how he can under- stand Acts xix. 2, 3. upon any other principle ? John's disci- ples say, ** We have not so much as heard w hether thei^i be any Hdij Ghost. And Paul said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized ?" Does not this imply that the Holy Ghost was men- tioned at baptism ? After all,* however, could Amicus prove 140 that the Apostles never used the precise form mentioned by our Lord, (v liich lie never can) it would only prove, as some Chris- tians hold, that that form is unessential to the validity of bap- tism ; which would be nothing to his point, unless he could prove they did not pi'actise baptism itself. On this subject, Barclay has a droll conceit at which Amicus also seems to hint, that the Apostles did not baptize in conse- quencc of their commission ; but out of their own heads, from a mistaken notion of expediency practised John's baptism. The objection hardly deserves an answer. But in a former essay I proved from Acts xix. 5. that they rehaptized the disciples of John, of course they did not practise John^s baptism ; and I now refer the reader to Acts ii. 38. viii. 16. and x. 48. which show us in whose name and by whose authority they baptized. "Re- pent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Chnst,^' The Holy Ghost had as yet fallen on none of them, only they were bap- tized in the name of the Lord Jesus.'' And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord,'' &c. Let the can- did reader decide wiiethcr they did not baptize in the name and by the authority, and with especial regard to the commission of their Divine Master. And here I close this subject, to renew the consideration of the Lord's Supper. In my last, it was fully proved that our Lord instituted^ the Apostles sanctioned, and the primitive Christians celebrated the Lord's Supper. How few objections can be brought against our sentiments by the most ingenious disputant, the reader has alrea- dy seen ; I shall not weary his patience by reviewing wliat he has answered as he read. It cannot have escaped notice how little attention Amicus has paid, both in his last and former es- says, to the argument drawn from 1 Cor. xi. 23 — 30. He knew that it was not in the power of any honest man to answer it, and therefore he very ca\ alierly, though very wisely, treats it with neglect.* His manner of treating it reminds me of Paine's an- swer to the question whether such a person as Jesus Christ ever existed ? ** there is no ground either to believe or disbelieve This is a very convenient w ay of getting over, when you cannot answer an argument. Tiie fact that the Apostle Paul ** deliver- ed" and enjoined this ordinance on his Corinthian brethren, and that he did so in the name and by the authority of his Di- vine Lord, is as evident as any truth in Scripture. Want of room prevented my making as many observations on this passage of Scripture as its importance deserved. Let me remark then, 1. 'Y\\e Feople to whom tliis ordinance was "delivered," — tlie Christians of Corinth. They were Gentile con^ ci-ts, far re- 141 moved from Judea, the land of ceremonies ; and tliereforc not likely to adopt such an ordinance without Apostolic influence, or a divine command. £. Tlie Person who delivered it — the Aj)ostle Paul. He was appointed the special Apostle of the Gentiles, and had the clear- est views of the spirituality of the pi'esent dispensation, and tlie greatest fear of any thing like Jewish ceremonies. He therefore would have heen the last one to deliver such an ordinance with- out tlie clearest signification of the will of Christ. 3. The time when the Saviour revealed it to him ; — many years after tlie institution of the feast. If as you suppose, this ceremony was adopted by the Apostles and disciples from a 7Jiis- taken interpretation of the last words of their dying Lord ; is it supposable, that our Lord, after seeing this abuse of his lan- guage, originating and perpetuating a ** carnal rite" in his church, should repeat to the Apostle Paul, many years after, the very words which had led his brethren and the whole church astray ! thus exposing him to fall into the same snare, and con- ^Urming the whole church in their gross error ! ! Yet this worse than absurdity you must hold, or admit that our Lord intended this ordinance should be observed. 4. Consider also the time when this Epistle was written, and the Apostle gave the ordinance this sanction, A. D. 60. Thus upon your supposition, the Apostle was left in a gross error for twen- ty years after his calling and commission ; and the church de- ceived by the inspired servants of Christ for twenty seven years ! Remember also, that this mistake was never corrected by this or any other Apostle, and the Bible has been left by C hrist to come down to us in a way calculated to lead every humble conscienti- ous follower of the Scriptures into the observance of a rite ** in- consistent with the present dispensation !" He who believes this, will believe any thing. Here 1 rest the argument. On this broad ground, that the Saviour instituted, the Apostles sanctioned, and early Christi- ans observed this ordinance, I am contented to rely. If Amicus tan remove this, I will make no account of what follows. The above arguments I wish Amicus to answer ^7*s^, and tlien I will consent that the following considerations pass for nought. I would now submit a few thoughts on the utility of the ordi- nances of Baptism and the Lord's Sup})er, leaving it to your- selves to estimate tlieir value. 1. I appeal to every candid observer, if these ordinances do not honour Christ and his religion. They make religion visible. They exhibit Christ as an object of faith, hope, love, joy, grati- tude and adoration. They testify to his Divinity, Incarnation and Sufferings. Baptism is a standing witness of the Trinity, 14!^ original sin and regeneration ; the Lord's Supper, of the do*i- trine of vicarious atonement and imputed riglitcousness. The one speaks vohimes on the subject of Sanctification : the otlier on the subject of Justification. Both are memorials t]»at he came by water and blood, not by water only, but by water and blood." (1 John V. 6.) If preaching glorifies Clirist, then tliese ordinan- ces glorify him, for they preach loudly to the humblest capacity. If a public profession honours Christ and his religion, thcii these thus honour him, for tliey are a public profession. They are a visible, public testimonial of our faith in Christ, and entire de- pendence on him for salvation. If the observance of a festival to perpetuate the memory of some distinguished individual, is an honour to him, then the Lord's Supper honours Christ, as it was instituted for this very purpose to perpetuate tlie ** remem- brance" of his death. Surely then these ordinances must be useful, 2. They are projitable to Believers. Is it desirable that Chris- tians should know and believe the truth? These ordinances con- tinually exhibit tlic most important truths. They help to pre- serve orthodoxy in regard to the fundamental doctrines of sal- vation, the Trinity, Divinity of Christ, Original Sin, Regene- ration, Justification and Sanctification. — Is it desirable Chris- tians should be separatedfrom the v.orld Come out and be separate saith the Lord." These ordinances require them to come oiit from the world, to renounce the world and enlist on tlie Lord's side. Is it desirable Christians should be united and feel that they are one ? These ordinances bring them into com- munion with each other. The cup of ble>ssing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ ? the bread which we break is it not the comimuiion of the body of Christ ? For we being many are one bread and one body^ for v, e are all partakers of that one bread." 1. Cor. x. 16, 17. These ordinances tlien teach tlic saints their unity in faith, hope, love, baptism. Lord and God, and thus cement them in brotherly love. ** For by one spirit we liave all been baptised into one body (that is made members of the same church) and have all been made to drink into one spirit." 1 Cor. xii. 13. Here is an allusion to both the sacraments, teaching us that the design of both is to unite lis in one body," and obligate us to breathe and follow^ " one spirit." Again ; these ordinances are useful, inasmuch as tliey lay Christians under more sensible obligations to live a pious life. The peculiar garb worn by Amicus, betokens him a Friend, and Jays him under a j)owerful obligation to observe certain peculi- arities of speech, manners ami conduct, and exposes him to im- mediate detection, reproacli and shame, if he act unbecoming? -143 Ills profession. And there can be no doubt that a distinguishing mode of dress adopted by any cliurch, will have a powerful in- fluence in controling the conduct of her members. So much so, that whenever a member of such a church falls from Iiis duty, he immediately changes his garb for one which does not remind him and others of his professional obligations. Now I am not finding fault with such practices; they liave their use. But if these badges of profession are useful, upon the same principle, Baptism and the Lord's Supper are useful. For these show who profess to be on the Lord's side, and who not. They lay those who observe them under obligations to live a corresponding life ; and therefore expose the professors of religion, whenever they transgress, to instant reproach and shame from an ever watch- ful world. And though their observance of these ordinances is , not visible except in church, and there only at certain times ; their professions are remembered by the world, and are a more powerful restraint than even modes of dress, as the latter only ' bind their honour and their interest, while the former bind their conscience under an oath, signature and seal. The main differ- ence however is, that modes of dress are badges of human inven- tion, Baptism and the Lord's Supper, badges of Divine appoint- ment. That these ordinances are badges of Christianity and bonds of duty is evident from many passages of Scripture. 'Gal. v. 3 : He that is circumcised is debtor to do the whole law." By pa- rity of reasoning, he that is baptized is debtor to do the whole gospel, or is bound to be a Christian. Rom. vi. 3 : "As many as have been baptized into Christ have been baptized into his death ; we are buried witli him by baptism into death, that like as Christ was raised up by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." See also, Col. ii. 11, 12 : and Gal. i^i. 27. Baptism then binds us to die unto sin, and to walk in newness of life." Again 1 Cor. x. 21 : ** Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of devils : — ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table and the table of devils ;" which plainly shows us that partaking at the ** Lord's table" is a. pro- fession of Christianity, and obligates us to live separate from the world and the company of the wicked. Again; *'This cup is the new covenant in my blood," says the Lord Jesus, as he hand.s the symbols of that covenant to the believer. By which he vir- f tually says, if you are willing to enter into covenant with me, I take this cup as a token and pledge of our mutual contract,- I hereby promise to be your God, and you, if you accept it, prom- ise to be one of my people." Tiiis cup is the sign of the cove- nant between Ci»ristians and Christ. Every communicant, therefore, has entered into covenant with God, and is under the 144 most solemn obligations to live a holy life. Now will any one be so uTu^easonable as to deny that such a solemn covenant with God, will o])erate as a restraint uj^n ))rofessors of religion, and arm their conscience against sin ? Who then can doubt such an ordinance is useful? Again; they lead professors to self-examination, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest" be baptized, said Phili]) to the Eunuch. Baptism therefore is a loud call to the candidate to examine whether he hath genuine faith in Christ. So in regard to the Lord's Supper: ** Let a man examine him- self and so eat of that bread and drink of that cup." 1 Cor. v. 7: Christ our passovcr is sacrificed for us ; therefore let us keep the feast not with the old leaven, neither with the leaven malice and rvickednesSf but with the unleavened bread of sincerittj and triith,^^ They thus urge us to a reformation of our lives, and a watchful inspection of our own hearts. Since then, these ordinances exhibit important truth, sejmrate Christians from the world, promote union and communion in the body of Christ, lay professors under the strongest obliga- tions to be holy, continually remind them of their duty, and lead to self-examination, watchfulness and reformation, and since they were appointed of God for all these purposes, why should we doubt their 2dility ? 3. They are useful to the world. They are standing exhibi- tions to those who do not read the Scriptures, and confirmation to those wlio do, that without the cleansing influence of the Holy Ghost, and an interest in the Blood of Christ, they cannot be saved. Baptism says to every unbaptized spectator, *'you have not complied with one of the conditions of salvation," be- lieve and be haptized,^^ The Lord*s Supper says to every non- communicant, you are outside of tlie visible church, an alien from the commonwealth of Israel, a stranger and a foreigner, while Cliristians are fellow-citizens with the saints and of the household of God." Thus these ordinances exhibit truth, convince of guilt, alarm the conscience, point to the path of duty, lead to pi-ayer, in due time to a public profession of Christ, and thus onward to salva- tion. Tliousands of sinners have been awakened at baptismal and comihunion seasons, and millions of Christians edified and comforted. PAUL. 14j Seventh-day tiithAfo. 3. I82T, LETTER XY. The iimits of an essay foi* the Repository are too narrow to [jermit nie to do ample justice to the important subjects under liscussion, to give a clear idea of our principles to those who lave no better opportunity of acquiring a knowledge of them. The greatest difficulty I have had to encounter in the present con- roversy has been to condense the matter which appeared essential o a clear illustration of my subject. My opponent often com- )lains of the length of my* essays, and I confess not without ;eason — if they were much shoi-ter, he would have sufticient ground to be dissatisfied — yet I wonder that lie should venture o express his feelings on this occasion, whilst his own commu- lications continue to be at least as long as mine. Unmindful lowever of his complaint, I purpose to pursue my original plan, md make the best of my means to convey information to the •andid enquirer on the subject of our princii)les. Because ximicus" said, '*that Matthew and John were the nhf Evangelists present at the feast of the passover whicli our ^ord attended for the last time, Paul" attempts to make his eader believe that I thought Mark and Luke mistaken in their Lccounts of this festival. — He *• looks upon" my statement as ^ an attack upon inspiration^** and begs me to excuse him for ntertaining such a view. — On this account "Amicus" can easi- y excuse him. The interests of his carnal scheme are so deep- y involved in the establishment of this idea, that he may well »e pardoned for his attempt. The inspiration of the Apostles is so nseperably connected with the authority of the sacred writings, hat if Amicus doubted on this point, all his arguments might »e rejected — but this finesse of my opponent cannot avail — the vhole of my communications evidently shew — that I am no seep- ic in the case. I have not only admitted the authority of the scriptures, but I have contended with my opponent for their ex- liisive authority, as the only legitimate evidence of doctrinal ruth. When I mentioned the total silence of the Apostle John m the subject of the Eucharist, I did not mean to infer that the estimony of the other Evangelists was incompetent to establish he fact, that *• onr Lord used some cicpressioiis peculiar to that oc- asion** Tlie only inference that I intended — I yet see no rea- j.on to condemn — which is, that If the Evanglist had believed ^as my opponent does) that Christ at that time had instituted a :eiLV ordinance hmding upon Christians — to be observed in the church 0 the end of time — to be a badi^e of christianitif and a seal of grace'* le would not have omitted to mention a fact of so much import- uce. The truth is that Jolni wrote his Gospel in the maturity 19 146 of religious experience, when the inconsistency of carnal ordi- nances with the Cliristian dispensation was clearly manifest to his enlightened understanding. In all his writings he never mentions one word on the use of Bread and Wine as a religious act. If, as my opponent observes 'Miis Gospel was intended as a supplement to the other Gospels," he ought to have been the more particular on this subject, seeing none of his predecessors mention the use of these elements as a new Institution, nor give us the least reason to believe that Christ meant to perpetuate it in his church. All the plausible arguments used to prove it a standing ordinance hang upon this one exjuTssion of Luke Tliis do in remembrance of me," a very incompetent foundation for the gorgeous superstructure w hich the sacramentaries have erect- ed upon it. As I have before observed, the command of our Lord is in the present tense *'This do" — Do what? take the broad w hich I have given you and eat it in remembrance of me — let your attention be directed to its spiritual import — Thig bread is my Body" — it represents my mystical flesh, which is given for the life of the world — This cup is the new Testa- ment in my blood" — it represents the new covenant, the adminis- tration of the Spirit, my spiritual blood "which is shed for you." Matthew^ says this is my blood of the J\''ew Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins." To those who recur to the original meaning of the word, " Testament" the import of these expressions must be obvious — A Testament," signifies a compact, a covenant — tJie blood of the new covenant is the Holy Spirit, the pow erful operation of w hicli on the soul of man purifies it from all iniquity, and remits, not only the guilt, but the potver of sin. This new^ co^ enant" is expressly de- scribed by the Apostle in his Epistle to the Hebrews, as the min- istration of the ** Holy Spirit,*' the law written in the heart." See Heb. viii. 8. &c. The attentive reader of Evangelical History must have ob- served that it was the common i)ractice of our Lord to give a spiritual meaning to outward objects — to dii-ect the attention d his hearers to the divine import of natural tilings — Thus, to the woman of Samaria, wlio seemed to have a religious veneration for Jacob's well, he spoke of living water." If thou knew est the gift of God and who it is that saith unto thee, give me \A drink, thou wouldst have asked of him and he w ould have given thee living water, John iv. 10. W hen she spoke of outwarc places of worship, he immediately directed her attention to sph ritual worship. W oman believe me, the hour «ometh when y< shall neithci in this mountain, nor yet «at Jerusalem worship the* Fitthor — '1 lit iiour cometh ijid now is w! en thr true worshipperi shall worship the Father in Spirit and in truth," John iv. 21 ' 14/ 03, Again, Wlien the multitu^le sought him tor the sake of tlic bread with which he miraculously fed them, he rebuked them for their carnal religion, and turned their views to heavenlif bread'' — Verily, verily, I say unto you, ye seek me not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves and were filled ! — Labour not for the meat that perishetli, but for that which endureth unto everlasting life^ which the Son of man shall give unto you. I am the bread of life.'^ John vi. 26, 27, 48. When they told him of the manna given in the wilderness, lie replied " Moses gave you not that bread from heaven, but my Father givetb you the true bread from heaven, for the Bread of God is he which cometh dow n from heaven, and giveth life unto the world." John vi. 32, 33 — I could cite many more passa- ges to illustrate this view, but I wish to be as brief as the nature of my concern will admit, and think it unnecessary. Thus we see that our Lord sought frequent opportunity to turn the attention of his followers to divine and spiritual ob- -jects : my opponent pursues a different course — he takes much pains to direct our views from spiritual to carnal objects, to in- duce us to turn from the divine reality, and embrace the shadow — to depend upon meats and drinks and divers washings'' as important means of salvation." — But it will not do — Christ remains to be the immediate and only " author of eternal salva- tion to all them that obey him," Heb. v. 9 : ^*That which is born of the flesh is flesh" — outward ordinances can only ope- rate on physical matter — ^they cannot reach the soul — they may be observed by the unregenerate and the wicked — they are con- sequently no ^* Badge of Christianity" nor ''seal of grace." The views of my opponent on this subject are irrational and un- scriptural — they are derogatory to the divine nature of Christi- anity, they are calculated to do infinite mischief by creating a false dependance on things that cannot profit the soul, they lead the mind from the only adequate pow er of salvation, to lifeless forms and inefficient ceremonies. I When Christ called the bread '* his body" and the cup the new testament in his blood" — he w as only pursuing his usual r.ourse ; he w as simply directing the attention of his disciples to divine objects. Sitting with them at the Passover Supper, and being about to leave them, he gave them tlie parting advice of a dying friend — advice, when rightly understood, more important in its nature than had ever flowed from human lips. It was an admonition to mind spiritual things, to remember the only proper murishment of thesoid, '* the meat that endureth unto everlasting life," the new wine of the kingdom," tlie animating princi- ples of all true piety. I have before stated that the Apostle John has never in any of 148 liis w ritings mentioned one word on the use of bread and wine ' as a religious act. Paul" says in his twelfth Letter to us, that John ** does allude to this ordinance, and pays it a high compliment in his first Epistle v. 8. making it a standing wit- ness for Christ. *ortance of the Scriptures, the doctrine of the Trinity, the Divinity of Christ, the works of the different Di- vine Persons, the Resurrection of the dead, the universal Judg- ment, and future Everlasting Punishment ! These are topics seldom or never touched ; and w hen touched are merely glanced at as matters of subordinate importance to the great subject of Internal Light I These errors, or these gross deficiencies of yours are not mentioned w itli joy, but with unfeigned grief. And however you may suspect oi* arraign my motives, the Searcher of hearts is my witness that my soul weeps over the souls you are ruining by keeping tijem in igr.orance of the only true God and the salvation of Christ. It is my sincere belief that an anxious sinner, w ho had no means of reading the Scriptures, miglit attend your meetings and read your books for years, without either experimentally or speculatively learning the way ' of salvation. In my last Note, I stated the reasons for believing you reject the doctrine of the Trinity. Your systematic writers say noth- ing on the subject : others only allude to it to condemn it, while 157 it is a notorious tact that your preachers never say a word in its favour, and private members of your Society treat it witli con- tempt or ridicule. Every writer of other denominations whom I have read, and who speaks upon tlie subject, takes it for granted, your Society is heretical on this point. If, therefore, you hive any respect for your Christian Brethren of other de- nominations, you ought to make your sentiments known on a tx)pic which they view as second in importance to no doctrine in the word of God. A difference from them on this point will forever separate you from their communion and exclude you, in their estimation, from the visible churcli, and the number of the w orshippers of the only true God. In view of these considera- tions. Amicus was requested to state his and your real senti- ments upon this subject. This reasonable request he has refus- ed to comply with, and has thus given additional reason to suspect your orthodoxy on this important point. And I here i-epeat my yet unaltered belief that the God whom you worship 'and the Savmir whom you preach are not the God and Saviour set forth in the Scriptures of truth. And until you give some ex- plicit statement of your view s on this subject, the Christian pub- lic will be justified in considering you as heretical on the great first principle of revealed religion, — that Jehovah is j(FTRiuNB God. It is unnecessary at present to proroe the doctrine of a Trinity of Persons in the Godhead ; it will be time enough when you* formally deny it. At present I will adduce a few considera- tions to show its fundamental importance in religion. 1. This doctrine is of prime importance because it relates to i the Object of worship. As religion consists principally in loving, worshipping and serving God, every system of religion will take its character from its particular Deity. Men could not with ])ropriety be called the worshippers of Belial, Moloch. Mammon, Venus or Mars, unless tlieir lives were conformed to the character of these idols. Neither are any the worshippers of Jehovah farther than their lives are conformed to his charac^ ter and w ill. He is the Sun of doctrine, and the Soul of the re- ligious system. Every tiling therefore depends on the nature of Him whom we worship. If he be not just and holy, it is w rong to worship him as such ; if he do not exist in a Trinity I of Persons, to worship him as such is idolatry. This doctrine I then is of the highest importance and lies at the very foundation I of religion. I 2. Upon it depends the Divinity of Christ. For if there, be but one Person in the Godhead, as Christ is a separate Person from the Father, both cannot be Divine. And as no one doubts that the Father is God, it follows that the Son must be inferior 158 to and a creature ot* ):lie Father. Upon no otlier supposition than the truth of the Trinity, can we with propriety hold the Divinity of Christ, unless we adopt the Avian scheme and call him God though we helievehim a created and dependent being ; or the Swedenborgian and old Sabellian scheme tliat the Father, Son and Holy Ghost became incarnate, which is attended with many absurdities. The quotation made by ^* John" some time ago to prove you hold the Divinity of Christ amounts to no- thing, unless you tell us who Christ is, and that you mean a person distinct from God the Father. To tell us that the FatJier is divine is not enough. To deny the Trinity then, is to deny the real Divinity of Christ. And the same may be said of the Divinity of the Spirit, Fop if there be but one Person in the Deity and the Father be that Person, the Spirit must be something else than God. On the other hand, admit the doctrine of the Trinity, and you at once establish the Divinity of the Son and Spirit. 3. Without the Trinity, we must suiTender the doctrine of Atonement, For to whom did Christ atone ? — certainly to some other than himself, even to the Father. But how can this b^ unless h^be separate from the Father. To deny the Trinity then, to*rnake the Father and the Son the same jyerson is to ren- der an atonement impossible, and thus sap the foundation of our eternal hopes. The man Jesus could never have made the in- Jinite satisfaction which God required for our transgressions, nor paid an obedience for ns. Being a creature he owed obedi- ence for himself. But suppose him a distinct Person of the Godhead, under no obligation to obey the law, and you honor the law by his condescending obedience, and make him capable of atoning to tlie Fatlier by tlie endurance of infinite agonies for the redemption of a lost world. Accordingly you are consist- ent with yourselves in saying little of his atoning sacrifice. The cross of Christ" in which the Apostle supremely glo- ried," forms no prominent topic, if it is even mentioned in your preaching ! 4. You Runul his Intercession, Heb. vii. 25. 1 John ii. 1. John xvii. For unless he be distinct from the Father, how can he in- tercede with the Father. To say that as man he intercedes, is to make him as man omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent. For he who intercedes for the millions of his people must be present not only in all religious assemblies, and in every closet, but must continually read the feelings and desires of every heart ; of coui'schemustbe God ; but as God he cannot intercede unless he be a distinct Person from the One with whom he in- tercedes. To deny therefore a Plurality ot Persons in the God- head is to set aside another important part of the work of Christ. 159 5. You undermine the Mssimi and Work of the Holy Spirit. John xiv. 26. ** But the Comforter which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance whatsoever I have said unto you." xvi. 13. ** Howbeit when He, the Spirit of Truth is come, He will guide you into all truth ; for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear that shall he speak." Here the Spirit is spoken of as a Person, the person- al pronouns being used. It is not said the Spirit xvhich^ but w/ioiJi" the Father shall send. Nor is it said it shall lead," but " he shall lead you into all truth." The Spirit therefore is a Person, a Divine agent who thinks, speaks and acts in and of himself, and a Person separate from the Father and the Son, or how could he be sent from the Father by the Son. John xv. 26. " The Comfoi-ter whom / will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth." If here be not reference to three dis- tinct Persons, in what language could such a distinction be ex- -pressed ? Deny then the Trinity and you deny the distinct ex- istence of the Holy Spirit and his work of conviction and con- version. In short, this doctrine is interwoven with all the leading doc- trines of the gospel. And no preacher can properly explain the way to heaven, without a reference to the distinct works of Father, Son and Spirit. The First devises, the Second pur- chases, the Third applies salvation. ' Yet this is a doctrine which you do not believe ; or if you do believe, one upon which you never preach nor write, nor speak , unless in terms of condemnation ! This doctrine so necessary to a right apprehension of the God we worship, so necessary to right views of Jesus Christ, so essential to right conceptions of the Holy Spirit, so intimately interwoven with every important doctrine of the Christian faith, you insist upon no more than Seneca or Socrates who never heard of it, or than Socinians and Mahometans who hold it in abhorrence! The God whom all Antitrinitarians worship, is so essentially^ different from the Triuive Jehovah, that were all as candid as Dr. Priestly, they would say with him, I do not wonder you refuse to hold communion with us, for if we are right, you are I idolaters ; and if you are right, xve are not Christians,'* PAUL. 160 Seventh-day y nth Mo. 24,18:1. LETTER XVI. As all typical ceremonies appear to be incou istcnt with tli« Spiritual nature and great design of Christianity — As the Apos- tle asserts tliat Christ " blotted out the hand writing of ordi- nances and took it out of the way nailing it to his cross.'' Col. ii. 14. it is a matter of primary importance in the present discussion to ascertain whether our Lord came to blot out one set of carnal ordinances, in order to institute another in their stead — whetlier the great ^Mitype in whom all the figures of the law were fulfilled, came to abolish the significant ceremonies of the Jewish Economy, in order to introduce others of the same na- ture, but far less significant than those he annulled — whether he intended to put an end to the solemn feast of the passover and sacrifice of the paschal lamb, (that awful and most expressive figure of our suffering Lord) in order to institute the eating of bread and drinking of wine as an ordinance in its room. Be- fore I proceed to answer the particular objections of my oppo- nent, it will be proper a little to examine this subject. In do- ing this, I will first advert to the nature and design of these ceremonies, and afterwards notice tlie mode of instituting them. 1st. The ultimate object of all the rites of the Mosaic Law, was to point out the Saviour, to direct the attention of the Jews to the promised Messiah and his office in the redemption of man- kind. Before faith came," says the Apostle we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards, he revealed, wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us un- to Christ, that we might be justified by faith, but after that faith is come we are no longer under a schoolmaster." The whole ar- gument of tlie Apostle in this passage is remarkably a propos,— He shows, first the object of carnal ordinances under the Jewish law. " A schoolmaster to bring the Jews to Christ.*' — As a teacher leads his pupils to the knowledge of things by first teach- ing him signs ; letters and words being the signs or symbols of ideas intended to be conveyed. So the law^ as a schoolmaster was intended to lead the Israelites to Christ by outward signs, typical ceremonies, and figurative institutions, all pointing to tlie divine substance, the great Antity])e, **the end of the law for righteousness to every one tliat believeth," Rom. x. 4. and secondly, he points out a substitute for them. Under the law they were shut up unto the faith which was afterwards reveal- ed." Christ was preached to them hy the rites of an outward worship, but after that faith came, they were no longei* under j a schoolmaster." On the introduction of the Gospel, carnal or- 1 dinances were all abolished, and in tlicir room faith in ChrkX*^ IGI was made the suhstitufc^ and faith, inteand living faith in Christ is anl ever will be a perfect subs fit nie for everif tifpical andfigura' tive ceremony that was ever ivstituted. See Gal. iii. 23, 24, 25. In the fourth chapter to the Galatians the Apostle further il- lustrates this view of the .suhject hy pointedly i*e])rohatin2; the use of elemeiLtary and carnal ordinances amongst Christians. •*Even so we" says he ** when we were children were in bond- age midcr the elements of this world, but when the fulness of time was come, God sent forth his Son to redeeem them tliat were under tlie law that we might recei^ e the adoption of sons,'* — ** Now after that ye have known God, or ratlier are known of God, how turn ye again to the wealx and beggarbj elements w here- unto ye desire again to be in bondage.'* 1 am afraid of yovi lost I have bestowed upon you labour in vain." Gal. iv. 3, 4, 5, 9, 11. 2d. We will now consider tlie mode of instituting carnal or- dinances, and endeavour to shew tliat when it pleased Divine -Wisdom under former dis])ensations to establish any outward, i ceremony as a men.oi'ial of his mercy, or as a seal of his cove- nant, it was al\N ays done in tlie most positive and unequivocal. ni viner — not by occasional rcinarks or by co-iversation on other ■ccts, but by express command, in the clearest langaagc. Thus wiiLMi circumcision was instituted, ** God said unto Abraham, thou shalt keep my covenant, thou and thy seed after thee in tiieir generations : this is my Covenant wluch ye shall keep between me and you and thy seed after thee, every male among you shall 1)0 circumcised, and it shall be a token of the covenant between '-1' and you," Gen. xvii. 9,10, 11. When f/ic pas.swer was ituted, iMoses, after describing the manner of observing tlii*; -t and the design of celebrating it, says, And thi^day shall nito you for a memoriaU and you shall keep it a feast to the Lord througiiout your generations, you shall keep a feast by an irdinance forever,** Exod. xii. 14. In these cases the com- Ucind was plain — nothing ambiguous — nothing uncertain, no ■ ) »m left by the divmo Institutor for any misunderstanding on iiose subjects : and, as might be expected, no oise ever after- vards doubted of his intention to institute them standing or- linances in the Jewish Church. It is not supposable that a )orfect Lawgiver would give an imperfect law — would convey lis will in dubious or equi ocal expressions. Lotus now re - ort to the language of our Saviour when as my opponent says le instituted a ceremony of such extraordinary importance as ho Eucharist, let us well consider the circumstances in which ' was placed, let us remember the occasion which called them ether at t'le time, and I think the unprejudiced rea('cr must icknow ledge tiiat our divine Lord did not intend by the express- 21 162 ions which then fell from his lips, to institute a new oi'dinanct of perpetual ohligation on his Church. The Evangelist expj ess- ly informs us that they met to celebrate the Jewish Passover, In my former Essays I have clearly shewn that no ceremony was tlien performed, that did not strictly appertain to that festival. AVliilst as Master or chief man of that feast ^'and as they were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed it and brake it and gave it to the disciples" — **and he took the cup and gave it to them, saying, drink ye all of it." In doing all this he did no more than was always done by every Jew who presided at this ceremo- ny— so far he celebrated no new instiution, he only performed the custom^-ry rites of the paschal feast — But in conformity to his usual practice, he on this occasion endeavoured to turn the at- tention of his auditory to the symbolical meaning of the Bread and Wine he had offered them — Of the Bread he said **this is my bodij^^^ this represents my flesh which is given for the life of the world." John vi. 51. Of the cup he says **This is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many." — In both tliese sentences he plainly alludes to tlmt^flesh and blood, that di- vine and spiritual food of the immortal soul, of which he had be- fore said Except ye eat the jlesh of the Son of man and diink his blood ye have no life in you," John vi. 53. This do in re- membrance of me." — Remember whilst you are eating this bread and drinking this wine the eternal consequences, the infinite im- portance of communion w ith God, of a participation in my spiritu- al Jlesh and blood, Whoso eateth my flesli and diinketh my blood hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." John vi. 54. From what has been said, my reader will be led to contrast the expressions used on the institution of circumcision and the paschal feast, with those used by our Lord at the Passover Sup- per. In the former the command was to Abraham and to his seed after him — to the Jews for memorial to be kept through- out their generations by an ordinance forever,'' In the latter- we lind no intimation that the successors of tlie Apostles were to ob- serve the breaking of bread and drinking of w ine, the usual cer- emonies of tlie Passover festival, in remembrance of Christ, The command this do in remembrance of me," w as only directed to the Apostles — not to any after them. We have not the least proof from the text that any others tlian those present wei'e com- manded to do this,'' The whole of the context shows that our Lord and his Apostles were celebrating the Jewish Passover, and tliat he intended nothing furtlier than that they should ad- vert to the objects of all typical institutions, the end f all carnal ordinances, tlie divine and spiritual Lamb which taketh away the sins of the world. 163 I will now advert to the arguments of my o])ponent on the subject in disrussion. He says ** on tliis broad ground tliat the Saviour instituted — the Apostles sanctioned — and the early Christians observed this ordinance I am willing to rely.'' How weak a reliaiice he has in this case my readers will readily pei*- ceive. That our Saviour instituted the use of bread and wine as an ordinance, he had endeavoured to prove merely by citing Mat- thew, Mark and Luke on tliis subject — and by making a few^ gratuitous assertions without the shadow of an argument to show that our Lord meant to institute a new ordinance when he cele- brated the feast of the Passover. If any of his readers can be misled by such kind of argument, they are such readers as Ami- cus has never expected to convince, he has appealed to the un- derstanding of his readers, to those who are capable of weighing the force of an argument, and not to those who are willing to be led by tlie ipse dixit evidence of any man however high his pre- |- tentions in matters of faith. That the Apostles ever sanctioned the use of Bread and Wine as a religious ceremony he has never brought any evidence to prove. The history of the xVpostles as recorded by Luke, give** us no idea that the use of wine **the memorial of the blood of Christ" — that important part of this carnal ordinance was ever observed by them — consequently they never celebrated the Eti- charist. That the early christians observed this ordinance, he has brought no proof exceptthe practice of the Corinthian Church — the most immoral, contentious, carnal Church in Christendom^ a Church whose practice in this case was severely reprobated j by the Apostle. A Church whose example may suit my oppo- I nent, but cannot serve as a pattern to any Christian who is de- sirous of following the precept and example of our Lord and his Apostles. Let us now consider the utility of these ordinances — a branch of the subject on which my opponent dwells with much compla- cency. First he says ** I appeal to every candid observer, if these ordinances do not honour Christ and his religion ?" To this it may be answered that if murder and bloodshed do honoui* ! to Christ and the religion of my opponent, the Eucharist must i rank very high as a means of doing this honour. Those of Paul's" readers who have made themselves acquainted witli I Ecclesiastical history, cannot be ignorant of the horrible cruel- ties to which this Rite has given birth! How many thousands of innocent men and women have been butchered or burnt at a. stake on its account. But says m\ opponent ** it is profitable believers," — ** it teaches saints their unity in faith, love, c'^c." 1G4 Wliy yes, if contenHon " is profitable to believrrs," it has been a fruitful source of profit! If animosity and strife produce unity in faith and love" it well deserves the laboured eulogium of my opponent — It broke the peace between Calvin and Lntlier — it has divided Christians under every name — it has for many centuries been a perj)etual cause of wrangling and discord. There has liardly been any other source of as much vexation, division and disgrace to the ])rofessors of Christianitv, as al- most every page of Ciiurch history abundantly demonstrates. It may safely be asserted that those societies of Christians have leen most united who liave had the least to do with it. But says my opponent ** it makes religion visible." Tliis is another of "Paul's" curious notions. Religion consists in iin inward piety of the heai t, in the fear and love of God, it is ren- dered visible, not by the use of the '* weak and beggarly ele- ments," but by ** visiting the fatherless and the widow in tiieir affliction, and by keeping ones self unspotted from the world." I ask my opponent to put his fingei' on any passage in the sacred volume, where eating of bread and drinking of wine is identified with religion or spoken of as an evidence of its existence, ^'one can deny that the unregenerate and wicked may and do use this ceremony — w hat kind of religion do they ** make visible" but the dark and carnal religion of the hypocrite ? — The very best and only infallible evidence of religion in any of its professors is a pure and holy life. Under a conviction that carnal ordinances were never com- manded by Christ, that they are inconsistent with the Gospel dispensation, and that their consequences are pei*nicious, the Society of Friends have never used them. On this account they have been severely blamed by their fellow professors of the christian name, by those very men ^^ ho have neglected to observe outward ceremonies, ordained with more formality, enjoined with greater solemnity than any of those observed by our oppo- nents. Paul" in his first Letter on the subject now^ under dis- cussion, tells us that **a request from a dying Redeemer to all who love him, will equal a command." 1 w ill now attempt to shew that he has dared not merely to deny *'the request sl dying Redeemer," but that even a command has failed to i)ro- duce any effect on him. It a])pears by the sacred text that our Lord after he had celebrated tlic Passover with his disciples **rose from su])per, laid aside bis garments, took a tow el, gird- ed himself, poured water into a basin and began 1o wash his dis- ciples^ feet — Peter astonished at his master's condescension in performing so mean an office, said ** thou shalt never wash my feet." Jesus answered If I wash thee not ^ thou hast no part with me." Peter saith to him ** Lord not my feet only but also / 163 my hands and my bead." *^ So after lie had rvashed iheir feet and had taken his gai inents and was set do\\ n again, he said unto them. Know ye what I liave done unto you ? Ye call me jnaster am! liOrd, and ye say well, for so I am — if I theih your Ijord ami master have washed your feet, ye alsoou^ht to wash one amthersfect, for 1 have given you an example that you should do le of the unfair method generally pursued by my opponent in the prose^ cution of his scheme. He fii'st takes it for granted that our Lord commanded Water baptism — and secondly that Luke fmitted to record the form of baptism in full, 'But he has never yet shewn that our Lord commanded water baptism — nor juever can shew it—And that Luke was not the very defec- tive historian that " Paul" describes him to he, will he seen by 166 consiiltijig the history of the Apostles — And first, Acts, viii. 15. where the Evangelist says speaking of the Samaritans as yet the Holy Ghost had fallen on none of them only, they were bap- tized in the name of the Lord Jesus'^ — and secondly, Acts x. 48. speaking of the baptism of Cornelius and others by Peter, he says, ** he commanded them to be baptzied in the name of the Lord and thirdly. Acts xix. 5. giving an account of the dis- ciples whom Paul found at Ephesus, he says after Paul had preached to them " they were baptized i?i the name of the Lord Jesus,*' Now there is no other case of W ater Baptism mention- ed after our Lord's resurrection, in which the sub jects of it were baptized in any other name than the name of Jesus — which I consider a sufficiently clear proof that the Apostles never used the form of words mentioned in Matthew xxviii. 19. It is the best evidence that any negative proposition can possibly have. The only opposing argument adduced by my opponent is found- ed in a surmise that the Evangelist omitted to tell the tvhok truths and that there may have been cases that were never re- corded at all !!! Is it possible that any of our readers capable of nnderstand- ing the force of an argument can rely on such weak surmises for the support of any ordinance in the church ? AMICUS. Saturday, Dec. i. i3ii. LETTER XV. ox BAPTISM AND THE LORD's SUPPER. It will be recollected, that on the subject of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, Amicus has written twelve Letters to my eight ; and on the Lord's Supner alone, six Letters to my three. No one can deny therefore that he has had a fair and full oppor- tunity of defending your doctrines ; a^iJ it may be fairly pre- sumed, as he has spared neither time nor pai)er, that lie is now satisfied to ♦*close the sub ject of carnal ordinances," and **give your views." of the Scriptures or the Holy Trinittj, As I am two subjects in advance of him, and as I have said nothing on the subject of the sealing ordinances for four week past, the public M ill pardon a short reply to the latest objections of your Friend. The ungenerous personal reflections contained in his late Letter, and his so fi'cquent condemnation of my motives, do him little honor, and as tiiey liave no weight in the decision of tlie question* they will not ])rovoke an answer. Let the public read and judge. Let me first answer his Objections, and then advance some further Arguments. 167 Obj. 1. The Apostles practised circumcision, legal vows iind Jewish sacrifices, and if in these they were mistaken, why not in water Baptism A. '*To mistake," according to Walk- 3r's Dictionary, is " to err, not to judge right It relates to the mind and not to the conduct. Now in this sense I deny that he Apostles ever were mistaken on the subject of either doc- trines or ordinances. To admit such a mistake is so far to de- ly their infallible inspiration. If they sometimes winked at fewish ceremonies they were never mistaken as to their impro- Driety, and never Q\i\\er commanded or recommended these cere- nonies. Admitting, therefore, that the Apostles had practised »ome Mosaic rites, it could not follow they were mistaken in heir views. But such a practice though Amicus quotes me as .idmitting it, I have all along denied. Any one who has read Letter IX. has perceived that almost the sole object of my es- ay was to prove the assertions of Amicus on this subject incor- rect, and to show that the Apostles never commanded, recommend- •d, nor practised any of the rites of the Jewisli law. That they lever commanded nor recommended them, Amicus will I think illow : that they never practised them, will be evident if we :onsider the common and proper meaning of the word. To )ractise,'' according to Walker, and according to common isage, is *'to do habitually and practice,'^ is ** the habit loing any thing," It would be wrong to say a man practised ^'hysic or Law, who never administered medicine but once, or )lead but one cause in his life, and whose habitual profession vvas of a very different kind. It would be out of all propriety o say Abraham ])?'ac^?se(Z lying, Noah drunkenness, Peter, deny ng \iis Master, when they were guilty of these but once in their ! ives, and the habitual tenor of their conduct was of an opposite character. It is equally unjust to accuse the Apostle Paul of jractising circumcision, who never performed that rite but once n his Christian life, and that under such peculiar circumstances is to give the rite no sanction, while he habitually preached and )ractised the contrary. And the same may be said of his once \fering sacrifices at Jerusalem, at the request of James, while ,ie habitually condemned and opposed such offerings. But in re- gard to Baptism, he literally pmctiserf it, that is, he did it habit ' 'uilly, from the commencement of his ministry to the close of his life. And as he did, so did all the Apostles, not onlyin Judea, Jut in all nations whither they went. Neither he nor they rver condemned the practice, but left all nations in the constant iise ot it. Let Amicus show the same of circmncision, sacri- liccs, 6cc. and every believer in Apostolic inspiration will acknow- ledge the propriety of their conduct. Besides, hey expressly jand repeatedly recommended and commanded Baptism, Acts ii. 168 37. X. 48. Let Amicus show tlie same of any Jewish rite, and I for one will either acknowledge its propriety and divine authori- ty, or join with vou in denying their complete inspiration. The Apostli? does propose himself as an example for his converts to follow. 1 Cor. xi. 1. *' Be ye followers of me, even as 1 also am of ChrisW^ or hecause 1 follow Christ. Phil. iii. 17. Be ye followers together of me, and mark those which so walk as ye have us for an example,^^ iv. 9. ** Those things which ye have hoth learned and received and heard and smi in me, do; and the God of peace shall be with you." II. Thess. ii. 15. " Hold fast the traditions (or things delivered") which ye have been taugiit whether by word or our Epistle." Surely tlie Apostle sets himself upas an exam])Ie, and says **tiieGodof peace shall be with" those who follow him. From their wri- tings, therefore, (which you have acknowledged to be inspired) we prove tlieir practice, that is, their habitual conduct to be a rule for our direction. Now, neither their writings nor their prac- tice sanction any Jewish rite, but both sanction Heater Baptism, Obj. 2d. "The Apostles nev r l»aptize«i in the name of Fath- er, Son and Holy Ghost, or Luke has omitted to tell the' rvhole truthJ* A. if not mentioning every circumstance connected with an event is not telling the whole truth," all the sacred Avriters are chargeable with it. The Evangelists tell us that there are many other thiiigs which Jesus did, the which if they should be written, the world would not contain the books." John xxi. 25. In II. Cor. xi. 24, the Apostle tells us Five times received I forty stripes save one, thrice was I beaten with rods, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day have I been in the deep, &c." Now will Amicus charge Luke with ** not telling the whole truth" because he omitted the greater part of these tilings ! A complete record of Apostolic acts would nil iifiy folio volumes. Amicus can see no difference between omitting to observe and omitting to record a thing ! This however is not wonderful since he cannot see the diffei'ence between a solitary and unguarded act, and an habitual practice ; — between winking at a faiilt and inculcating error ; — between tolerating circumci sion and commanding Baptism ! ! Obj. 3d. ** The Apostle received of Christ and delivered t*) the Corinthians a mere narration of matters of fact, and isot a command &c." The four Gospels, with many Books of the Old rcstament are mere ** nari-ation of matters of fac t,-" the Parables of ovir Saviour are many of them mere narration of facts 5 but do these therefore convey no lesson, make no disco- very of the will ol God. Had the Apostle no ohject in tiiis narra- tion ? Yes, 1. He manifestly attributes the origin of tiie Lord's Supper to the narrative" which he formerly'gave tliem — else 169 why does he licre mention tltat narrative? This was one of the ordinances which he liad formerly delivered (v. 2d. verse) and which he praises them, in generaU for having kept, hut hlames them for abusing it by the previous suppers of their ow n. 2. He assui^s them that narrative was true, for he received it of The Lord Jesus Christ himself. 3. He repeats the narrative it- self— w hich contains the institution of the feast, and a twice re- peated command to observe it in memory of Christ, and a recom- mendation to observe it often. 4. He now proceeds to am- ment on the narrative," and tells them tlie orignal design and object of the feast to "show forth the Lord's death, till he come" again. 5. He warns them against eating and drinking unworth- ily, lest they be guilty of the body and blood of tlie Lord. 6. He exhorts them to examine themselves whether they ** discerned the Lord's body," or made a proper discrimination between this and other meals ; and then gives an express permission to ** eat of tliat bread and drink of that cup." 7. He traces some of the sickness and death among them to their profanation of this ordi- nance. Lastly ; lie promises farther directions w hen he visits them. In what stronger language could he have sanctioned the ordinance ; or by what means confirmed and rivetted that church in tlie use of it ? Obj. 4th. Jewish and carnal ordinances are abolished."" I True ; but these are neither Jewish nor carnal^ but evangelical or- dinances. Are they not addi^ssed to the senses?" Yes; and so is Preaching, Conversation and all the other means of grace. You, I believe, reject all means of grace except the Spirit and silent waiting. But however the Spirit may sometimes work without external means ; ordinarily he never enlightens or con- verts but by some instrumental outward means, such as Preach- ing, Reading, Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Take slwry these and the other media through w hicli the Lord addresses the outward senses, and for one I should have no hope of salvati;»ri for the children of men. Upon the same principle on w hich I would advocate Preaching, or C(jnversation, I would justify Baptism and the Lord's Supper. fVords and letters are as much signs of spiritual things as these ordinances ; and to say that tlio Lord no longer teaches by signs, is to say that he no longer teachetli by human language, for this is necessarily by signs. We are no longer under a Schoolmastir." True, we are no longer under the rigid discipline, the bondage, slavertj and igno- rance of the ceremonial law ; but we are still taught by outward signs, such as letters, words, ordinances and providences. Obj. 5th. ** Christ did not command tiiese ordinances in the mine words as Circumcision and the Passover, i. e. it is not said ' shall keep the feastiw yo2tr generations,^^ Neither did he thus 22 roiiiniiiud the observance of the first day of the w6ck as the Chi'istiaii Sabbath, — iioi* Public Worsliip, nor Family Prayer, nor Reading the Scriptures, nor any other duty that I can find in the whole New Testament. Yet you will find some difficulty in persuading Christians that tlie above and many other duties are not really commanded. In fact tliis objection would set aside the Moral Law, which simply says, Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy,*' — **Honour thy father and thy mother," and. docs not say ** keep these precepts through future generations." It is sufficient for us that God commands a thing in any way he pleases. To dictate to Infinite >yisdom is presumption in the extreme. Obj. 6. The Lord commanded his disciples to wash each others feet, as well as to eat the Lord's Supper." A. 1. The Primitive disciples never understood him literally, nor as insti- ttiting a sacramental ordinance. But they did understand him as instituting Baptism and the Lord's Supper. 2. It does not ap- pear tiiat the x\postles ever practised it literally, or inculcated it on the cliurches as a religious rite. They appear to have under- stood him as giving them, under a parabolic action a lesson of humility, condescension and mutual kindness. — But they did ob- serve and inculcate the Lord's Supper. 3. It does not appear designed for universal practice. It is convenient and proper on- ly in warm climates, where the dress of the feet is open and easi- ly removed, where such ablutions are necessary for cleanliness and comfort. But in this climate, and in more northern regions, wiiere there are so many bandages about the feet, such an office from a Chnstian brother would be ratlier a vexation than a kind- ness I — But the Lord's Supper is suited to all climates and condi^ tioiis. 4. It does not appear that the Apostle of the Gentiles ev- er ** received" this as a part of his commission, or delivered" it as an obligatory ceremony. — But he did thus receive and deliv- er the Lord's Supper. Obj. 7. It lias been the occasion of murder and bloodshed.'^ So has Christianity. Only substitute the word ** Christianity" or ** Gospel" in the whole of that pathetic paragraph, wherever the Lord's Supper is referred to, and the argument will be of the same strength, and furnish an admirable objection (though an old one) for an infidel against the religion of the Bible! Having thus answered the ingenious objections of your advo- cate, I w ill now adduce a few new arguments which confirm mc in the propriety of Baptism and the Lord's Su p])er. And 1. These with the Scriptures are the o?i^i/ witnesses for Christ on the earth. 1 John v. 8. 10. *«Tliis is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.'" To this interesting record we are told ** There arc Three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word and tlie Holj in Ghost, — and there are three that hear witness in earth, tlie Spi- rit, the Watkr and the Blood." The Spirit" here is not the Holy Ghost himselt*, for he is one of the Heavenlif Witnesses, but the ScRiPTURi.s, called **the Spirit" hecause they contain what the Spirit saith unto the churches." The Water" is Baptism, which so long and so often as it shall be administered will bear unequivocal testimony to tlie '^Record" above mention- ed. The ** Blood*' is the Lord's Supper, so called hecause it is " the communion of the blood of Christ" the New Testament in his blood,'* and sets forth that Atonement which was by blood. These are the only witnesses Christ has on earth. Take away these and you leave us in as complete darkness on the subject of salvation, as though Christ had never died, and Salvation had never been brought. Now it is one grand objection to you** whole scheme that you labour to set aside all these witnesses at once I You degrade the Scriptures by denying them the title of the " Gospel," Revelation," word of God," ^c. and trans- ferring these titles to an ignis fatuns within. You set aside Baptism so far as it is a visible witness for Christ, and the Lord's Supper, so far as it shows forth'" the Lord's death. You have perhaps read an allegorical work in which this world is describ- ed as a City with different streets called, *• Presbyterian Row" ** Episcopalian Row" Baptist Row" Sec. and one *^ Quaker Row," where the houses /tad no windows because the inhabitants preferred the light of a cfutdle to the light of the Sun/ Now for my part I am unwilling to relinquisli the light of God's word I and ordinances for any internal light. 2. The Apostles address all their conyei-ts as Baptized and as Communicants, and deduce truths and duties from this circum- stance. Thus addressing the Romans, (vi. 2.) he says, '* know ye not so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death ? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death, ^:c." He spake to the Colossians in a sim- ilar strain in Col. ii. 12. To the Galatians he writes "As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." iii. 27. See also Tit. iii. 5. and Heb. x. 22. Ad- dressing the Corinthians, he says, ** we are all baptizedinto one body, and have all been made to drink into one Spirit." Again, Tlie cup of blessing whicii we bless is it not the communion of the blood of Christ; the bread which we break is it not the com- mnion of the body of Christ ?" 1 Cor. x. 16, 21 : xv. 29. Any one who will I'cad the context of these passages will perceive that he deduces duties and doctrines from these ordinances. 3. The Apostle stigmatizes Jewish rites, and Iwnours these Christian ordinances with noble names. Thus, circumcision he- calls concision," Pliil. iii. 2 ; the kecj)ing of {h\ys, months, years and other Jewish institutes he calls beggarly elements/* 172 Oal. iv. 9; other things he calls **will worship,'- Col. ii. 16, 23. How differently he speaks of Baptism tlie texts quoted under the last head sufficiently show. What you call ** the ceremony of eating bread and wine" the Apostle calls the " Table of the Lordf^^ the **cup of theLord,'^ ** the communion of the body and blood of Christ," 1 Cor. x. 16, 21. In the next chapter he styles it the " Lord's Supper" (not the **Passover,") xi. 20, the cup of the Lord" and the ** Lord's body," 27, 29. Now Avould he have given these liigh and honorable titles to a feast of their own invention, and one inconvsistent with the present dispensation ?" Would he have given tliem to any but a divinely instituted ordinance ? 4. He represents our Lord as commanding it to be observed fften. The careful reader will observe that in the 25th verse the Apostle attributes some words to Christ not mentioned so explicitly in the Evangelists, This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me." Now would our Lord have used this language if he had not intended they should drink it more than once, and not on that evening only ? ** As oft as ye drink it," does not this imply his expectation they would drink it af- terwards ? Certainlv this, as well as the word remembrance" implies it was to be celebrated after his death. The only ques- tion is how long ? If we ask reason, it will answer forever, as it will be more and more necessary for each succeeding genera- tion. If we ask the Apostle, he will answer keep it " till he comes again." 5. The Apostle gives eocpress permission (to say the least) to celebrate this ordinance. Some interj)ret the 26th verse imper- atively, ** Show ye the Lord's death until he come." But cer- tainly the 28th verse is clear to this point. Let a man ex- amine himself and so let him eat of that bread, and diink of that cup.'^ And again 33d verse, " Brethren when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another." Here is an implied permission of the feast. Now did he ever give such a permission for any Jewisli or unlawful l ite ? 6. He promised to rectify their errors on this subject when he should visit them again. The rest will I set in order when I come." And yet he left this church (with all the other Chris- tian churches) in the use of tliis ordinance ! Now either it was ** in order'' to keep this feast, or the Apostle failed in his pro- mise. Take your choice. PAUL. Sevenlk-dar. ii'A Mo. 8, i8zi. LETTER XVII. In Paul's" last Address to us, he has recajiitulated the num- tjcrs of our respective communications on the subject of carnal Ordinances, and says, that as I have written the niosi on these points he ** he presumes that 1 am now satisfied to close the suh- ject.*' — Every reflecting reader will however perceive that ob- jections may be raised against the plainest truths in a very few ivords wliich it may require much time to remove. When the Pro- testants contended with the Catholics against the doctrine of transubstantiation the latter had little to do, except to quote the plain text, " Hoc est corpus meum," whilst, the former were under the necessity of shewing from various passages of Scripture, that these words were not to be understood literally. To illustrate their views and prove their position, much time and many arguments were necessary. Such is the nature of the present controversy. My opponent states a text, and pleads its literal meaning. This can be done in a very few* sentences, whilst it necessarily requires more room to answer and remove his objections. Were 1 to change positions with " Paul" and attack the doctrines and opinions of the Sect to which he belongs, I could in one page, state more objections to his scheme than he could answer in ten. From this view of the case it must appear unreasonable that I should be confined to a given space. It is therefore my intention still to pursue my ori- ginal plan. It can be of little importance to our readers whether ** Paul's" objections are all answered in the Letter succeding that in which they appear. So that they are answered, as soon as the nature of my concern will admit, I hope my readers will hold me excused. Paul" may take his own way — I hope he will be satisfied that I should pursue mine. Whilst I may be permitted to occupy a place in the columns of the Repository, my own judgment must dictate tlie course that I am to pursue. Whatever my readers may think of the merits of my opponent as a controversialist, I think they will not deny that he is en- titled to the credit of a goodly portion of that quality which (that I may not offend him by speaking the plain truth) I will denominate ingenuity — this very important quality he has often displayed in the selection of means to evade the force of an ar- gument \\ liich he could not fairly answer. He has in the course of the present discussion frequently asserted that the Apostles were always inspired: that they were never mistaken — this un- scriptural position seems to be one of his favorite oi)inions — Yet he admits that " they sometimes acted contrary to their judg- menV* and were guilty of *' a weak compliance with Jewish prejudices." — In my Letter XV. I asked a few plain questions, to which I hoped Paul would candidly reply. SVcre tlie Apostles inspired to act contrary to their judgment ? &c." — Now I suppose he foresaw that if he gave to these questions a direct answer he would fall into a dilemma from which he could not easily extricate himself — he has therefore xvisely declined a 174 reply. If lie had answered affirmatively then it would follo\y that tlie Apostles were inspired to act contrary to inspiration ! — this kind of doctrine would ha^ e been too gross for general re- ception ! If he had answered in tlie negative, tlien his own po- sition would have fallen to the ground. 1 am inclined to think tliat our readers Avill coincide in the opinion that ** Paul" has acted wisely by declining to reply. The saying of Phesident AYiTHERSPOON had a great deal of good sense in it, Never speak unless ye have something to say.'' My op])onent has resumed the subject of carnal ordinances, and as defendant, I am reluctantly obliged to reply to his argu- ments— I had hoped these subjects would have closed with my last Letter, but must yield to my duty as defendant in the present controversy — the time spent on them will not I hope be finally unprofitable. From the history of the Apostles it clearly appears, that the primitive believers were in the practice of Jewish ordinances, which I have, by citing various texts, clearly proved. — Further to illustrate this truth, I will observe, that notwithstanding the brevity of Apostolic history, it is recorded of the Apostle Paul, that he was twice concei-ned in the practice of the Nazarite's Vow. In a former Letter my opponent says, the vow on ac- count of which Paul shaved his head at Cenchrea miglit have been the Nazarite's Vow^, but the Scripture does not say so." Now I afl[irm that the Scripture does say so, in language not to be misunderstood. There was hnt one vow observed under the Mosaic dispensation, that was accompanied by shaving the head. The consequence is indubitably certain, this vow of the Apostle was the vow of the J^^axarite, see Num. vi. 13 : And hence wc demonstrate another fact, that Paul, though stiled the Apostle of the Gentiles, v. as at least tivice engaged in Jewish sacrifices — for at the time of shaving the head, the hair w as to be put in tlie fire which was under the sacrifice of the peace offerings :" on such occasions three beasts were slain; a he-tamb for a burnt offering — a Ewe-lamb for a sin offering — a Ram for a peace of- fering. Thus it appears plain, that Paul in his Christian life offered at least six beasts according to the law of Jloses. Again, thelApostle in liis Epistle to the Galatians tells us, that he rebuk- ed Peter for his dissimulation in sometimes acting the Jew, at other times living as a Gentile, and yet, compelling the Gentiles to live as do tlie Jews. Now the inference to be drawn from the premises is, I tliink, indubitable that Peter practised Jewish or- dinances at tliat jiei'iod, w hich was nineteen years after the intro- duction of Christianity.— -Nor was it until that time that eveii tfie Gentiles were rvholly excused from the yoke of circumcision, the Jewisli converts stilt submitted to this Rite. And we find from Ecclesiastical history, that on the opening of the second 175 century, a large portion of professing Christians were zealous in observing alt the ceremonials of the Jewish Law. Thus wc see from plain Scripture testimony (and I have adduced but a small part of tlic evidence which could be brought on the occa- sion) that the Apostles actually jrractised many ceremonies wliich belonged to the Jewish code. That more cases of this kind are not recorded, may fairly be attributed to the brevity of the Apos- tolic history. To use an argument of my opponent I might say, *'the mere omission to record ai^ the facts of this nature no more proves that they did not practice Jewish ordinances, than the omission to mention Circumcision for fourteen hundred years, proves that the Rite was not practised millions of times." My opponent says **the Apostle prfldise^i Water Baptism 5" that he did it liabitually from the commencement of his ministry that he never condemned the practice."' These are unfounded assertions ; let the Apostle answer them himself, I thank God 1 baptized none of you but Crispus and Gains — and I baptized also the household of Stephanus, besides I know not whither 1 baptized any other, for Christ sent me not to bapti:ce but to preach the Gospel.'^ 1 Cor. i. 14, 15. Now for any thing that appears to the contrary, Paul sacrificed more beasts in conformity to the law of Moses, than he ever baptized converts with the Watery Baptism of Jolm, That the Apostles expressly and repeated- ly recommended Water Baptism" I deny — there is no recom- mendation or command, of any of the Apostles, to use Water Baptism recorded in the whole New-Testament, except in the solitary case of Cornelius and his company — in this instance it is said that Peter commanded them and only them to be baptized. Not one of the Apostles ever delivered a precept of a general na- ture in fa\our of Water Baptism. In none of their Epistles, which were written expressly to promote the practice of Chris- tian duties, do they ever command or recommend it in any way whatever. The use of Bread and Wine, Water Baptism, Circumcision kr, are all carnal ordinances. The Apostles in the infancy of the Christian church, not only *• winked at" but occasionally used them all. Even after they perceived them to be no part of the *'new and living way" — no ways connected with the design of the Gospel they condescend to become weak to them that were weak, that by the use of weak and beggarly elements, they might gain the weak, and in this way they became all things to all men, that they might gain some — their motives were of the purest kind — but some of them lived to see, that indulgences of this kind multiplied difficulties and produced dissention, and they became concerned to hold up a clear and decided testimony against them all — as by a recurrence to my former Essays will be manifest. 176 I believe'* says my opponent, you reject all means of Grace except the Spirit and silent waiting." This sentence clearly sliews his ignorance of the people to whom he addresses himself — an ignorance the more inexcusable, because he pro- fesses to be well acquainted with their practice. Docs he not know that without the aid of Theological Seminaries, without the allurements of silver or gold, we have more approved min- isters of tiie Gospel, in proportion to our whole number, than any other religious Society ? — Does he not know, that these arc frequently engaged in the public ministry and in vocal prayer — in a ministry, not in the ** Oldness of the letter" and witli un- feeling formality, but in tiie animating warmth of Gospel love — in prayer, not with vain repetitions as the heathen do," but in the life and power of the Spirit ? If a ministry, sucii as this, may be esteemed a means of Grace we do not reject such means. Yet I cannot view such a ministry in the light of a carnal ordin- ance— it is not used to feed or wash the Body — to please the ear or amuse the senses, but to convince the sinner, to call him to repentance — to come unto Christ the Physician of the soul — to the washing of regeneration, — to the participation of heavenly Bread, and of the new Wine of the Redeemer's Kingdom. — Now Carnal Ordinances according to my opponent's own confession, and according to the definition of them given by those who sup- port them, are mere signs or types of something prefgured or typified and consequently, cannot be compared with a genuine Gospel ministry, which is not a ministry ** of the letter which killeth, but of the Spirit which giveth life." In answer to my argument ** that Carnal ordinances were never commanded by Christ in such terms as conveyed an idea that they were to bind generations," my opponent says, **Neitlierdid he thus command the observance of the first day of the week as the Christian Sabbath — nor public worship — nor fa- mily prayer — nor reading the Scripture — nor any other duty that I can find in the whole New^ Testament." This I confess appears to me strange doctrine ! Can any man read the sermon on the Mount, and believe that its doctrines did not appertain to the whole human family ? Do not the concluding words of that Di- vine communication clearly shew that it was intended for every one tliat should ever hear tlie sayings contained in it?" •* Who- soever heareth these sayings of mine and doeth them, 1 will liken him to a wise man, that built his house upon a rock." — Tlic term , whosoercer, is universal — it applies to all of every age or nation. ** If any man tliirst let him come unto me and drink." — The terms any man, in tiiis sentence, apply to all men, to the whole }n:!nan race. Let my oponent shew any such evidence in favour of Wilier Baptism, or the use of Bread and AVine, and I will willingly yield every point in discussion, I will freely submit to 177 he spi-inkled with wafer ^ altlioiigli we liave neither precept noii €xan;)le tor s irli an >po{Mtioii in tlie whole New rcsta ni'.at. In my last Essay I expressed a desire to know upon what gr*o;ind my opponent refused to obs*.^vethe positive commaml of a dying Redeemer. ** If I then your Lord and Master have washed your feet^ ye also on:^hf to wash one anothers feet, for I have given you an example t!uit ye should do as T have done unto 2fo?/." Here the command is not only clear and positive, but plainly relates to the future. Let my reader maturely weigh liis answei" — an answer that I would su|)])ose could not satisfy any sincere and conscientious observer of outward and tvpical ceremonies — the command is positive, the neglect of it seems to involve the contumacious in the awful jjredicament of a sepa- ration from Christ, **If I wash thee not, thou hast no part in me." See John xiii. 8, 14, 15. My opponent's answer is comprehended under four different heads : 1st. He says that the Apostles never understood our Lord literally,^' 2nd. that **they nQvev practised it literally, nor inculcated it on tiie churclics as a religious rite." 5rd. that ** it does not appear designed for universal practice because in northern regions, where there are so many bandages about the feet, to wash them would be a vex- ation." And 4th. that ** it does not appear that the Apostle of the Gentiles ever received this as a part of his commission or de- livered it as an obligatory ceremony." To these I answer, 1st. The Apostles submitted to have their feet literally washed in Water, and, that they did not understand the command to wash- one anothers feet literally, rests for proof on tlie bare assertion of my opponent. 2d. How does lie know that the Apostles never practised it literally nor inculcated it on the churches as a re- ligious l ite ? ** tiie mere omission to record the fact, no more proves that they did not follow their Lord's command, than the omission to mention cii'cumrision for 1400 years, proves that the rite was not p?*actised millions of times." 3d. Washing the feet is a most comfortable thing in all climates, and as there is water in them all, it plainl v appears designed for universal prac tice. " In northern cliinates, where there are so many band- ages about the feet," it becomes peculiarly agreeable, anfi to wash them as often as tiie Bi ead and W ine are administered, once a month at least, J would not only comport with comf >rt, but V, ith decency and health. 4th. Although the Apostle of the Gentiles never received this as a part of his commission, for he was no Christian at the time it was given — yet it does app- ar that the other Apostles received it and were imperatively com- manded to practice it. Now all the objections used by my opponent against the Sacra- ment of Washing the feet, may be urged with greater force 178 against the use of Bread and Wine. 1st. The Apostles ncA^er nnderptood our Lord to perpetuate the use of Bread and Wine as a Sacrament. 2nd. They never afterw ards once used them literally, nor inculcated the'-' use as a Religimis Rite. Srd. The ceremony does not appear designed for universal practice." —There are many regions of the peopled earth, where millions of its inhabitants never saw Wine. It is not the produce of their soil, nor of any country within thousands of miles of them. To these it would be far more easy to wash one another's feet, than to procure a drop of Wine to celebrate the Eucharist. 4th. It does not appear that the Apostle of the Gentiles ever received any command to use bread and wine as a religious act — He only received a narration of facts that occurred at the celebration of the Jewish Passover, without the least intimation that he was to inimic the ceremony ; neitlier does it ever appear that he com- manded any of his converts to imitate it, as my former Essays clearly demonstrate. My opponent declares that **C/tns/iam/i/ has been the occasion of murder and bloodshed,'^ This is a most injurious libel against the purest, the mildest, the most Divine religion that was ever revealed to man. A religion that teaches in the plainest manner, to ** do good for evil, to bless them that curse us, and to pray for them that despitefully use us and persecute us." Murder and bloodshed have alv ays originated in a departure fix)m the doctrines of Christ. The Apostle James describes their origin with great precision. From whence come wars and fight- ings among you. Come tliey not lience even of your lusts ?" James iv. 1, &c. That church under whatever name it may have been known, which has originated, promoted, or in any way abetted murder or bloodshed, was an apostatized church — a synagogue of satan, let its j)retentions have been ever so high, its professions ever so im.posing. In the next place my opponent asserts, that carnal ordinances and the Scriptures are the **only witnesses for Christ on earth." Thus he rejects the great and fundamental witness of God — the witness of his own Holy Spirit — He that believeth hath the witness in himself." l John v. 10. ** The Spii it itself beareth witness with our Spii'it that we are the children of God. Rom. viii. 16. And thus he cuts off from the possibility of salvation all w lio have not the scriptures or outward ordinances for a wit- ness. About seven out of eight of tlic human family must On this hypothesis be sent for what they could not avoid, into everlasting ])erdition — a doctrine as cruel as it is dark and un- scriptural. In the next place, he says <*the Apostles address all their con- verts as baptized." 1 suppose he means <* in Water" — If so, I deny the assertion. The texts adduced by my opponent in this 179 paragrapli, all allude to Spiritual Baptism — and in some, ex- pressly mention it. See Rom. vi. 3, 4, 5. Col. ii. 12. Gal. iii. 27. Tit. iii. 5. I would particularly invite my reader to con- sult these texts ; they will shew in a very striking manner the dark and carnal state of my opponent, who I sus])ect must live in some row where the houses have no windows*' to let in the light of the Sun, nor any " candle" within as a feehle glimmer- ing substitute. As a commentator, my opponent has a strong claim to origin- ality — let us put it to liis credit, to balance his want of consistency. In Letter VII, he says, ** we admit that the Bible is not the Spi- rit"—^' We do not look upon the Bible as a person or a Spirit, but a Book." In his last he has discovered, that though the Bible is not the Spirit, yet that the Spirit is the Bible !!! "The Spirit (mentioned 1 John v. 8, 10.) is not the Holy Ghost himself — but the Scriptures, called the Spirit, because they contain what the Spirit saith unto the churches!!!" — With this latitude of interpi'etation we may make any thing of the Scrip- tures— If such a looseness of construction were admitted, no con- trovei'sy even on the plainest truths, could ever be decided by them. But I am persuaded that the serious reflecting part of the community are too much enlightened to receive sucli irra- tional notions for Divine truth. Bare assertion cannot pass for rational demonstration, nor contradictory positions for the har- mony of reason. AMICUS. Saturday, December ij, i8ii. LETTER XVI. ON justification. Error loves darkness ; ti'uth the light. Real Christians are ever willing to avow the doctrines of their faith ; heretics, in every age, under equivocal expressions, or by a total silence on the subject, have studiously concealed their errors. Hence Amicus and all your other writers are so reluctant to make known their views on fundamental points. Your view s of Inspi- ration f as will be seen whenever an explanation shall be given, are so different from those of other denominations, that they will not acknowledge the inspiration which you hold as worthy of the name. And whenever you w ill state your views of the Su- preme Being, it will be found the god you worship is not the God of Israel, but the idol of the Deist dressed up with a few- Christian features. If these opinions are unfounded, vindicate yourselves. You call them slander," prove them s%ich. 18U I will now introf'uce another doctrine of prime importance, upon which you differ fioni the whole Protestant Cliristian ^'orld — Justification, The doctrine of the whole Protestant Church, and the doc- trine of the Bible may be summed up in the following particu- lars : — 1. God is sl Just God, as much disposed, and as much obtigated by his own nature to punish the guilttf as to reward the innocent. 2. His Law is Si just law in its penalties as well as its lewards. 3. This law w'lU justify no man without a perfect obedience, 4. All mankind have f ran stressed th\s law ; of course j)erfect obedience is henceforth impossible, and consequently jus- tification by it impossible. 5. Tiiat the Son of God, being above all law% and of course under no obligation to obey the law, was made under the law" for us, that by his sufferings he might redeem us from its curse, and by his obedience entitle us to its rewards. That His single obedience has conferred as much honor on the Law as the ])ci-fect personal obedience of all man- kind would have conferred ; and His single death as fully satis- fied its penalty, as the everlasting suffei'ings of all for whom he died. 6. That a perfect justification from all the charges and demands of the law% is now freely offered and promised, through the alone merits of Christ, to all who will repent and bct[fication, We both agree that it is ahsoluteltj essential to sal\ ation. W> differ, in that you make it a pari (if not the whole) of Justification ; we consider it as entirely dis- tinct, even as thef \iH and evidence of* Ju4ification. We cail it our own rig!iteousness : you, the righteousness of Christ, Tliat all may judge for themselves, wliether these statement!* are correct, I sul>join the following quotations from your stand- ard works. 1. Barclay \n his Apology, condemns the doctrine of man's Justilication *• from something witho7if\\\m and not within him ])age 213 : He says some Protestants '*ran into the other ex- iremc in denying good works to be necessary to justification, and preaching up remission of sins hy faith alone, without all works however good," page 214 : He condemns tlie doctrine of the Westminster Confession of Faith, for ** not placing justi- fication in an inward renewing of the mind, or by virtue of any spiritual birth," pages 215, 216 : Justification in his view is ^' all one with sandrfication^^^ P^^gf 222: ** Christ alvrays re- commended to us 7vorks as instrumental in our justification," page 228 : ** That sentence or term the imjmted righteousness of Christ, is not to be found in all the Bible." By Jesus Christ formed in us^ we are justified ov made just^'^ P^^g® 299: "The immediate, nearest or formal cause of justification is the revela- tion of Jesus Christ in the soul changi^ig and renewing the mind^ by whom thus formed and revealed, we are truly justified and accepted in the sight of God," page 238 : <*The immediate cause of jdstification is the inward work of regeneration,^* page 239 : " riiere is a great difference between the works of the law, and those of grace or of the gospd,*' page 245. 2. Clarkson, in his Portraiture, says, *' The Quakers make but little difference, and not such as many other Christians do, between J ustification and Sanctification." And then he quotes from Richard Claridge, ** faitli and works are both concerned in justification;" — *'as far as a man is sanctified^ so far he is 1S2 justified and no farther." ^^The justification I speak of is the making us just by the continual help and operation of the Holy Spirit," — our justification is proportionable to our sanctifica- tion." Vol. II. page 280. 3. Kersey 9 in his Treatise, says a man may be sanctified in part and justified in part, and he is only justified in the same proportion as he is sanctified, consequently entire justification must be because of entire sanctification." He speaks of **the imputative righteousness of Christ, supplying what on our part was lacking, on condition of our obedience to the manifestation of the Spirit." p. 59, 60. Such is your doctrine ! We are to be justified not by Christ rvithout us, but within us," — not by "faith alone," but by ^'gos- pel works." Justification is a making just," a *^ renewing of the mind," — the same with sanctification." A doctrine so dan- gerous every humble believer in Christ should reject without hesitation. 1. Because, it is the perversion of an important scriptural term. That "to justify" is not to make just" or "sanctify" but to declare righteous, to vindicate, to acquit is evident from Scripture, Lexicons and common usuage. How it is commonly used may be inferred from Walker's Dictionary. To justify is "to clear from imputed guilt, to absolve from an accusation, to defend, to vindicate, to free from past sins by pardon." That it is used in the same sense in Scripture the following passages w ill prove. Deut. XXV. 1. "If there be a controversy between men, and they come in to judgment that the judges may judge them ; then they shsiW justify the righteous and condemn the wicked." That is, according to your doctrine, they shall sanctify the righteous ! Job ix. 20. If I justify myself ("sanctify") my own mouth shall condei/in me, if I say I am perfect it shall also prove me per- verse." Here justification is an act of the "mouth" the same with saying of a man " he is perfect." Job xxvii. 5. "God forbid that I should justify you." xxxiii. 32 : " If thou hast any thing to say, speak, for I desire to justify thee. Prov. xvii. 5 : "He that justijieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just is an abomination to the Lord." Justification is here op- posed to condemnation and not as you say, to unholiness. See also Ex. xxiii. 7. Isa. v. 23. Matt. xi. 19. Luke vii. 29. x. 29. xvi. 15. By which it will appear that you use the term justifi- cation (as you do Baptism and many other terms) out of its com- mon and proper sense, and different from that in which it is used by infinite Wisdom in the word of God. 2. You confound two things which are evidently distinct. Justification and Sanctification are as distinct as Pardon and Re- nervation, or forgiveness and virtue. The Judges m our courts 183 hii\e justijicil many a man, i. e. declared him ligliteous ; but they never yet sanctified a man, or made him holy ! 5. This righteousness within us by which you suppose us jus- tified you must attribute either to ourselves or to God, If to oitr- selves, then we are justified by our own works, in contradiction to the whole Bible; if to God, then we are not justified by tlie righteousness of Christ, but of the Spirit ! For the Spirit is un- doubtedly the Author of all holiness in the heart. Thus you confound the Son and Spirit and contradict the Scripture. Thus Amicus, Letter IX. calls the Holy Spirit "the justifier and Letter XV. says <*the blood of the new covenant, (Matt. xxvi. 28.) is the Holy Spirit, the powerful operation of which on the soul of man remits not only the guilt but the power of sin." The Holy Spirit remits guiW^ — sanctilication the same with remission of sins !! This is either a barbarous " murder of the King's English" or a gross misrepresentation of the way of life. The word remit" occurs, I believe but once in the New Testa- ment, and that is in John xx. 23 : Whose soever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them, and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained." Here the word manifestly signifies to for- give or declare forgiven, — precisely the sense in which we use the term. Now to talk of the Holy Spirit's forgiving sin, or jmtifying from sin, is a most barbarous abuse both of the terms and the doctrines of the gospel. You first substitute the light within for the Third Person of the Trinity ; and then to this de- lusive light attribute the whole work of salvation. Of this more hereafter. - PAUL. Sevenih'day^ izthMo. n, 1821. LETTER XYIII. In Pauls" last Letter he charges Amicus with a "reluctance to make known our views on fundamental points,^' Upon what ground such an accusation is founded is best known to himself. When he first opened his views on Water Baptism, he called it " a question of high moment and of eternal consequence^' — of course it must be a ^^fundamental point,'' Carnal ordinances lie stiled " badges of Christianity and seals of grace." Now of what importance is grace if it be not sealed to us ? How can a man be a christian if he wear not the badge? On these questions o^ high moment "Amicus" has shewn no reluctance to communi- cate our views — Whether he will manifest any o i the other /fm- damentals of Christianity time will determine. x\micus thinks it will be proper to answer old charges before we enter on those oif recent date. 184 It is a subject of the most agreeal)]e reflertion to those who desire the j>rosperity of Truth that the present time is distin- guished b\ a Spirit of free enquiry on religious subjects. The day has dawned in the light of which many have discovered t!iat the dogmas and decisions of Synods and Councils are no longer to be deemef! of equal authority with the plain doctrines of the New Testament; that the Inspired Penmen were qualified to record these doctrines with sufficient clearness for the purposes intended, w ithout the intervention of a learned clergy to make them understood. The greatest obstacle that ever opposed the progress of Truth, w as the belief imposed on the members of the church tliat they were bound to follow the opinions of frail erring men — men liable to err, not only from the common w eak- ness of tlie human faculties, but from the powerful bias of pecuni- ary interest. It was the beginning of a very dai k night to the church when Theological Philosophy was introduced as the Ex- pounder of the r,acred Text. Then was "the abomination of ^ desolation seen standing in the Holy place." Like an Arch en- chantress she waved her deadly wand and every green thing withered in her presence. **The native and beautiful swiplidhj of the gospel," sa}sMosheim, **was gradually effaced by the ^ laborious efforts of human learning and the dark subtleties of natural science" — and false doctrine and corrupt practice took its place. See Eccles. Histoi*^ Vol. I. Part 2. Chapter iii. Then w as the Apostolic prophecy fulfilled, ** The time w ill come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but after their own lusts shall they heap unto themselves teachers, having itching ears, and they shall turn aw ay their ears from the truth and shall be turned unto fables." 2 Tim. iv. 3. Then did the professed followers of Christ forsake him ** the fountain of living Waters, an 'i hew out to themselves cisterns, broken cisterns, that could hold no Water," Jer. ii. 13. Then was the kingdom of anti- christ exaltej^ and the chains of superstition so rivetted on the benighted follow ers of a corrupt and mercenary Priesthood, that more than fifteen huncired years have passed away leaving a large proportion of the professors of Christianity still shackled with their fetters and bowed under their yoke. The friends of <*pure and undefiled Religion" will therefore hail the present day as the opening of a new ei'a — a time when the individual responsibility of its professors is beginning to be extensively felt — a time w hen t/mj will judge for themseTves of the doctrines held out to their acceptance. No man can re- deem his brother nor give tn God a ransom for his soul." Psalm xlix. 7. No man nor set of men can discharge us from the im- pei-ious duty of seeking tlie Trutli for ours<'lves, — and if in this search, under a sense of our own insufficiency, we humbly ** ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not," 185 James i. 5. I have no doubt that the present age will be mark- ed, not only hy a spirit of free inquiry, but by the tottering and downfall of many gross errors and grievous impositions which have long disgraced the profession of the Gospel of Christ. 1 have premised tliese observations as an introduction to the subject of ** Paul's" addresses to us on ** Internal Light," in treating of which, I hope to shew that a recurrence to Jirst prin- ciples, to the teachings the leading, the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the soul, is the only effectual way by which the church of Christ can ever wholly recover fro]u the apostacy, and be re- stored to the beautiful simplicity" and Divine excellency of her primitive state. Paul" in his first addresses to us on this subject, has very justly remarked that ** in all unscriptural systems tliere is a radical error — some fundamental principle upon which as upon a Corner Stone the whole system rests, to loosen this, is to sap the whole building, a blow here, is a blow at the root." My principle object in tiiis Essay will be to sliew that the doctrine of the Society of Friends on Internal Light" is the clear doc- trine of the inspired Volume — that a blow struck at it, is a blow- struck at Christ **the author and finislier" of all true faith, to sap it, is to sap the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets ; Christ himself being the chief corner stone. Heb. xii. 2 : Eph. ii. 20. After an attentive perusal of the Bible, after many years of deliberation on its contents, it clearly appears to me that the doctrine of ** Internal Light" — ^of an immediate communication between God and his rational creation through the Holy Spirit, is one of the plainest and most prominent positions of the inspired penmen. There is hardly a page or chapter of the New Testa- ment that does not substantiate this view, as I think can be clearly demonstrated. It was promised by the prophets — it was preached by Christ and his Apostles — it was fulfilled in the primitive Christians, and remains to he the faith an?! consola- tion of all holy men down to the present day — the truth of which I will now attempt to pi*ove. First — It was promised by the prophets. — ** Behold the days come saith the Lord, that I will make a new Covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah" — and **this is the Covenant that I will make with the house of Israel, after those days, saith the Lord — I will put my law s into tlieir mind and write them in their hearts, and I will be to them a God and they shall be to me a people." Jeremiah xxx. 31, 3^. Heb. viii. S, 9, 10. The prophet Isaiah predicting the future glory of the church, gives the same sentiment in his usual sublime and beautiful manner, "the Sun shall no more be thy light by day 24 186 neither for briglitiiess shall the moon give light unto thee, but the Lord shall be unto tliee an everlasting light and thy God thy g]ory — thy sun shall no more go down, neither shall thy moon withdraw herself, for the Lord shall be thine everlasting light and the days of thy mourning shall be ended.*' Isaiah Ix. 19, 20. <*Lor(l now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, for mine eyes have seen thy salvation, which thou hast prepared before the face of all people, a light to lighten the Gentiles and the glory of thy people Israel.*' Luke ii. 29, 3Q, 31, 32. Secondly — It was prcaclied by Christ and his Apostles — When our Lord was demanded by the Pharisees when the king- dom of God should come, he re])licd — **Tlie kingdom of God cometh not with observation, neither shall they say, lo! here, or lo ! there — for behold the kingdom of God is tvithin you/' Luke XV ii. 20. A kingdom is understood of any i)lace w here a king reigns — where his laws are-promulgated, and where allegiance to his government is expected — this in a Spiritual sense is in the soul of every real Cliristian. This is tlmt kingdom which is so variously and beautifully described by our Lord under the simili- tude of a grain of mustard seed,*' the *' little leaven that was hid in the meal till the whole was leavened,'* — the seed that the ^* sower went forth to sow,'* — and a number of other significant parables all pointing clearly to Christ and his work in the sonl, to that Divine internal light," that ** lighteth every man that cometh into the world." John i. 9. This is that kingdom of which our Lord spake when he said ** Verily 1 say unto you whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein." He that will not receive and obey this light in the humble, submissive, tractable disposition of a little child cannot be a citizen of this kingdom. To this Internal Light" the Evangelist John bore a clear and striking testimony in the first chapter of his gospel ; In the beginning was the w ord, and the m ord was w ith God, and the word was God. Tlie same was in the beginning witli God — All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made — in him as life, and the life was the light of men — There w as a man sent from God w hose name was John, the same came for a Witness, to bear Witness of the light that all men through it migiit believe. He [John] was not that light, but was sent to bear witness of that light — tiiat was the true light that lighteth every mdn tlmt cometh into the world :" This same divine light is called by Christ, the " Com- forter" that was to "abide witli his disciples forever — even the Spirit of Truth,'' for says he, he dwelleth with you, and shall \)^, in you; and at that day ye shall know that 1 am in my Father, and you in me and / in you. He that abidetli in me, and / in Aim, the same bringeth forth much fruit, for without me 187 re can do nothing.*' I am the light of the ivorld, he tliat fo]- ioweth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life,** John viii. 12. "I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness, John xii. Thirdly — It was fulfilled in the primitive Christians. — The Apostle to the Romans, chap. viii. 9. &c. tells them that they " are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwelleth in them. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteous- ness— But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Clirist from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you,** To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glo- ry of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of gloiT," Col. i. 27. To the Ephesians the Apostle bears a - memorable testimony to this blessed '^internal light." *" A11 things that are reproved are made manifest by the light, for whatsoever doth make manifest is light, wherefore he saith, awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead and C/jWa^ shall give thee light.** If these passages do not clearly demonstrate, that tlie Apos- tles and primitive Christians were the advocates of " Internal Light" — that they well understood its divine nature and blessed effects, I confess I do not understand their language. The har- mony of the prophecies concerning it, with the testimonies of Christ and the doctrines of the Apostles, is so manifest, that I think every candid reader must perceive it. *• In all unscriptural systems, there is a radical error." — Any system thei^efore, that rejects Christ as the *• internal light" of the soul, as the divine aivd immediate fountain of spiritual know-' ledge is unscriptural" and radically erroneous." ** That which may be known of God, saith the Apostle, is manifest in men, for God hath shewed it unto them," Rom. i. 19. *' Now we have received, not the Spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God, that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God — for no man knoweth the things of God, but the Spirit of God. The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, neither can he know them because they are spiritn^ ally discerned," 1 Cor. ii. 12, 14. The doctrines preached by the Apostles in these passages, w e hold to be ^^fundamental principles*' of Christianity — upon them, as upon a corner stone, our whole system rests. " Paul" has attempted **to loosen it" — *• to sap the whole building" — he has '• struck a blow at it" — he has dared to vilify it by opprobrious names — ** Christ in man the hope of glory," he calls ** an ignus fatmis within,** Christ the true light that lightetli every man rhat Cometh mio the world," he considers wholly exteriial and 188 altogether unworthy of attention in any way, except through the medhm of the outward senses. Now 1 think it is evident, that this is a doctrine of Antichrist : " Every Spirit that confesseth not that Jesns Clirist is come in the flesh, is not of God. And til is is that Spirit of Antichrist whereof you have heard tliat it should come, and even now already it is in the world,"' 1 John iv. 3. Every man who can seriously declare that he never knew any thing of this ** Internal light, making manifest his sin — re- proving him for evil — calling him to repentance — rewarding him for obedience^consoling him in affliction — illuminating his understanding clearly to discern between good and evil — strengthening him in the practice of virtue, and caiTying on the work of sanctification in his soul, has no just title to the name of a christian, let him assume what character he may. The doctrine of my opponent on this subject, has ever been fa-' tal to the interests of Christianity — it was the ground and cause of tlie church's apostacy so early after the Ajjostolic age — it led its professors from a dependance on the great Head of the church, to a dependance on poor frail man — it caused them to turn away from the glorious Gospel Luminary, to wander in dark and crooked paths of human contrivance — and I confidently venture to express the sentiment, that the church will never be restored to the beauty, tlie excellency, the majesty, of lier primitive state, until she retrace her steps — until she return to the spot where slie first aberrated — until she reject the opinions of fallible men, the blind leaders of the blind," and rallying again under the Ca])tain of Salvation, is led by him who hath said, '* I am the Light of the World, he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.'' AMICUS. Saturday^ Dec* 29, i82f. LETTER XYII. ON INTERNAL LIGHT. With Amicus, the writer of these Letters cordially rejoices in tlie signs of the times. He hails *' the spirit of free inquiry'^ which prevails and the increasing *' light" every where diff'us- ing itself as the liarbinger of the '*downfall of many gross errors and grievous im])ositions which have long disgraced the profes- sion of the gosj)el of Christ." He confidently anticipates the period when all opposition to the Bible, to the Trinity, to divine- ly aj)pointed Ordinances, to the Sabbath, to the Ministry of re- conciliation, to the use of the Means of Grace, to Bible and Missionary societies, to the insti'uction of the Young in Sab- bath Schools, and to the Conversion of the Heathen shall cease 189 forever ,* and all tlie manifold errors arising from undue depend- ance on Internal light, to the degradation of tlie Scriptures^ shall no more delude mankind. W bat rule liatli God given to direct us in religion — the Scriptures or internal light is the question now to be discuss- ed. That there is such a thing as internal light, and also a ** communication between God and his rational creation through the Holy Spirit," has never been denied by us, nor can be de- nied by any Christian. This is not a doctrine in dispute. And therefore, the whole of your last communication is nothing to the point, is lost labour, has nothing more to do witli an answer to Paul's Addresses on the subject of Internal Light," than a dissertation upon Chymistry ! The question in dispute between your small Society and the Christian world, is simply this : Has God given to every man an internal light which is a safer Guide, Rule and Standard in religion, than the Holy Scriptiires That the question may be fairly understood, it may be pre- mised : 1st. You agree with us that there ought to be some Rule^ some supreme, infallible standard of religious truth. 2. That God has given such an infallible rule and standard S. That this standard is clearly designated in the Scriptures. (All his quota- tions in his last essay from Prophets, Evangelists and Apostles, imply Amicus' willingness that the Bible should decide what this standard is.) Therefore, 4. The true question is whether the Bi- ble makes itself ihe standard, or gives that honor to internal light. Lest the discussion should lead us into too wide a field, I would observe further; the question is not, 1. Whether there be a?ii/ internal moral light in man. This we admit, but deny that equal light, or light sufficient for salvation is given to all mankind. 2. Nor is the question, whether the Spirit sometimes acts as an internal guide. This we admit ; but deny that He is given to all the world, or that evei-y man has a sufficiency of the Spirit to be saved. 3. Nor whether the Spirit is of any use in the inter- pretation of the Bible. We admit the Spirit is of great use in revealing mysteries, in applying the word with power to our hearts : in short, we hold that the influences of the Spirit are essential to an experimental saving knowledge of the Scriptures. Nor 4. Whether the Spirit is an unerring guide to all whom He undertakes to lead. But whether we have the Spirit is the question ; wliether we can kiiow that we have the Spirit, or fol- low the Spirit, except by the Scriptures. Nor 5. Whether the Bible is a good book, the best book in the world. This you ad- mit, and when it suits you, say many fine things in its praise. But 6. The question is, whether what one of your best writers asserts is true : to wit, '^respecting the particular duty^of indivi- duals, every one has inhis own breast a nearer and more certain rule or g^iide of conscience than the Scriptures.^' Phipps on Man, p. 138. 190 The above quotation is a clear and correct statement of your views upon this subject. Having thus cleared the way of extra- neous matter, I now proceed to show, that the Bible, and not some independent inward light, is the Rule and Test of truth. 1. Jmicus tacitly admits the fact. Reader, to what does he appeal for the decision of this question? Does he direct you to internal light or to the Scriptures ? Manifestly to the latter. Why did he not appeal to his own or your internal light ? Be- cause he does not know enough of yours, nor you of his internal light. Nothing so vague and ill understood can ever be a com- mon standard. If there be a nearer and more certain rule of conscience than the Scriptures," — why does he appeal to Scrip- ture ? — why overlook a near and certain^' for a remote and doubtful nde? Let him answer it. 2. The Scriptures never direct us to follow internal light as our highest rule and standard. Let the reader review the texts quoted by Amicus, and ask, do they prove any tiling more than this, that God enlightens some men ivith his Holy Spirit? A truth never denied by any Christian. Not a single text directs us to follow any internal light as our highest rule of faith and prac- tice. Nor can such a text be quoted from the Bible. We ac- knowledge that in the days of Extraordinary Inspiration, Pro- phets and Apostles received immediate messages from heaven on subjects not contained in previous Scripture. But since extra- ordinary inspiration has ceased ; since God has given us his whole counsel," and the cannon of Scripture is closed, such revelations are no longer to be expected, believed or obeyed. Amicus cannot quote a text from Prophets, Evangelists or Apos- tles in which common Christians, or men in general are ordei'cJ to follow any other rule than the written word. 3. Your doctrine would nullify the Saiptures. If God has given to all mankind a guide, independent of the Scriptures, one which is a more near and certain guide," why all this addi- tional expense of Inspiration and Miracles to establish and con- firm a rule of which we have no need ? If we have in all our hearts a better ride than Scripture, wherein are we benefitted by a preached and written gospel ? Wherein arc we more highly favored than the heathen nations ? If God has given to man a superior all sufficient light in his own breast, where was tlic need of a wi^^e?i revelation at all? Thus you *Mnake the word of God of none effect by your traditions." 4. Tlie Scriptures were written for the very purpose that they might be our rule. Luke, addressing Theopliilus, says in the opening of his gospel, <'I wrote unto thee that thou mightest know the certainty of the tilings wherein thou hast been instructed." Luke i. 14. Paul concludes his Epistle to the Galatians, as many as walk according to this Rule^ peace be on them and the 191 Isi'aclof God." John, near tlie close of his Gospel, says These things were written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ." &c. John xx. 31. And in his first Epistle. "These things have I written unto you that believe on the Son of God, that ye may know that ye have eternal life." 1 John v. 13. sec also II. Peter 1. 15. The great object in giving the Scriptures is here stated, to wit, to be the Rule and firm foundation of his people's faith. The Apostles were no Quakers, or instead of giving Christians a written rule, they would have directed them to their internal light. 5. We are commanded by the Prophet to try all doctrine and all light by the Law and Testimony. Isa. viii. 19. 20. (This ar- gument was hinted at in Letter^ III. but for a reason assigned in a subsequent ** Apology." I shall feel at liberty to consider it and every other argument in that number more at large. Through some unaccountable mistake, instead of a correct copy, - the writer sent to press some rough Preparatory Notes.) " And when they shall say unto you, seek unto them that have familiar Spirits and unto wizzards that peep and that mutter ; should not a people seek unto their God ? To the law and the Tes- timony ; if they (these spiritual guides) speak not according to this wordf it is because there is no light in them.^' Here every word is full of meaning. There were persons in those days who pretended some internal unwritten light by which they could give more information respecting things unseen than the. oracles of God. To follow such light is here condemned as idolatry ; and the people are commanded to seek liglit from God. How ? By resorting to the Law and Testimony. By these all spirits and doctrines must be tried; and should any teacher con- tradict the written law, his light" was false, was darkness. This text clearly proves the Scriptures to be the supreme Stand- ard, Judge and Rule of truth. By this Rule, we of other de-- nominations try your Preachers and your Books, and as you contradict the Law and Testimony, we conclude, w hatever you profess " there is no light" in you. 6. Inquirers after salvation were never directed to look for guidance to internal lights but to the written rvord. Should a sinner come to you asking what shall I do to be saved," — instead of telling him Repent and be baptix>ed,^^ you would di- rect him to internal light ; instead of telling him to believe the record God hath given of his Son," you would tell him to follow the openings in his heart." Not so our Lord and his Apostles. When one asked him Master, w -at shall I do to inherit eternal life ? He said unto him, What is written in the law ? How readest thou .^" Luke x. 26. And there cannot be an instance produced where an inquiring sinner was answered by a reference to the light within. This would iiavel)ccn a di- 192 rect means of making him a prey to the delusions of a depraved and deceitful heart. Here I rest. These are hut the advance guard of a host of arguments in reserve. These however will he sufficient to de- feat any force which you can bring. The more this subject is examined, the more clearly it will appear, that the doctrine of <^ every man having in his own bosom a nearer and more cer- tain rule and guide of conscience than the Scriptures" is a cunningly devised fable," not of wicked men, — for 1 verily believe your Founders were more deluded than deluding, — hut of him who is the father of lies," and who, in contending with Christ, (Matt, iv.) and his conflicts with saints (Eph. vi.) dreads above all things the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of Godr TAUL. Seventh-day, ist Mo, s'-h. 1822. LETTER XIX. It will be seen by a recurrence to my last essay, that tlie Internal Light" which the Society of Friends deems essential to salvation — which they have always considered as the true and only foundation of genuine Christianity is the Light of Christ in the soul — Christ within the hope of Glory, whom" saith the Apostle "we preach" Col. i. 27, 28. It is a "measure or manifestation of the Holy Spirit" as the Apostle terms it, and which he says " is given to every man to profit withal." 1 Cor. xii. 7. My opponent opposes this doctrine — he cdAls it 2l delu- sion a cunningly devised fable." — This however we need not regard, as I expect clearly to demonstrate, that we are one in sentiment with our Lord, his faithful Apostles, and eminently holy men of various religious denominations. " The question now to be discussed, says my opponent, is " What Rule hath God given to direct us in Religion ; the Scriptures or internal light r" In other words (as he puts the Scriptures in opposition to internal light) Hath God given us ex- ternal light or internal light to direct us in religion ? I answer, that to those who have the Holy Scriptures, God hath given botli an external and an internal light to guide them in religion. As we believe, tliat the sacred Writings were ** given by in- spiration of God" — that holy men of old spake and wrote as tliey were moved by the Holy Spirit," so we bel eve, that tlie testimony of the inspired writings, can never contradict the testimony of that divine internal ** light which lighteth every man tliat cometh into the world." John i. 9. Like the strings of a well tuned instrument, there ever was, and ever will be, a perfect harmony between the ti uth manifebtcd by this light, and 193 tUe written or verbal communications of all those wlio act under its influence. Hence we believe that the Holy Scriptures ar3 an outward rule of faith and practice — that all doctrines or opin- ions, that are repugnant to the clear testimonies of the inspired volume, are to be rejected ; and hence may be refuted, one of Paul's assertions in his last Address to us, *^ that A:nicus ad- mits the fiict, tliat t!ie Bible and not some independent inward light, is the rule and test of truth." — Yet it will not follow that the Scriptures without the illu.nination of the Holy Spirit are capable t;) impart the spiritual knowledge of divine things — ♦*No man knoweth the things of God but by the Spirit of God,'* I Cor. ii. II. The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, neither can he know them because they are spiritu- ally discerned." 1 Cor. ii. 14. But the natural man may read the Scriptures, he may get them by wrote, he may defend them witii great though blind zeal, and yet be utterly ignorant of - their true design, their spiritual impor* . — There is an immense difference between a literal faith, and that faith which works by love, to the purifying of the soul. Gal. v. 6. Acts xv. 19. The first is an airy speculative thing, that dwells in the head — the latter is a deep, operative, sanctifying principle, that dwells in the heart. The for ner was the faith of persecuting SAUL — the latter that of the great Apostle. William Law 9 a learned and enlightened Clergyman of the Episcopal Church has ex])resscd hinself so clearly on the subject in discussion, th it I cannot forbear quoting him. He has stated his views with a force and perspicuity peculiar to himself. The Scriptures" says he ** are an infallible History or Relation of what the Spirit is and docs and works in true be- lievers, and also, an infallible direction how we are to seek and wait and trust in His good power over us. But then the Scrip- tures themselves, though thus true and infallible in these repor-ts and instructions about the Holy Spirit, yet they can go no farther than to be a true history. They cannot give to the r-^ader them the possession the sensibility, the enjoyment, of that which they relate. This is plain, not only frojn the nature of a writ- ten history or instruction, but from the express words of our Lord, Except a man be born again of the Spirit he cannot see or enter into the kingdom of God," thereforf* the new birth from above, or of the Spirit is that alone which gives true know- ledge and perception of that, which is ** the kingdom of God." The history may relate trutiis enough ab?)ut it ; but the kingdom of God, being nothing else but the power and presence of God dwelling and ruling in our souls, this can manifest itself, and can manifest itself to nothing in man, hut to the new birth. For every thing else in man, is deaf and dumb and blind to the king- 25 194 dom of God. — How murh then is it to be lamented, as well as impJDSsible to be denied, that though the scriptures assure us, that the things of the Spirit of God, are and must, to the end of the world, be foolishness to the natural man,** yet from almost one end of learned Christendom to the other, nothing is thought of as the true, and proper means, of attaining t/mne fenowied|§"e, but that which every natural seljislu proud, envious, false, vain- glorious, worldly man, can do. Where is that divinity student who tliinks, or was ever tauglit to think, of partaking of the Light of the Gospel, any other way, than by doing with the Scrip- tures, that which he docs with pagan writers, whether poets, or- ators or comedians — to wit : — exercise his logic, rhetoric, and critical skill, in descanting upon them. This done, he is thought hy himself, and often by otliers, to have a suflSciency of divine Apostolical knowledge !!! — What wonder therefore, if it should sometimes happen, that the very same vain, corrupt, puffing literature which raises one man to a Foet laureat, should set an- other in a divinity Chair." After many excellent remarks on this subject, he says, '*"Now to call such Scripture skill, divine knowledge is just as solid and judicious, as if a man was said, or thought to know, that which St. .John knew, because he could say his whole Gospel and Epis- tles by heart, without missing a word of them — for a literal knowledge of Scripture, is but like having all Scripture in the memory, and is so far from being a divine perception of the things spoken of, that the most vicious, wicked scholar in the world, may attain to the highest perfection in it." ** TImt one light and Spint, which was only one from all eternity, must to all eternity be that only light and Spirit, by which angels or men, can ever ha^ e any union or communion with God. Every other light is but the light whence beasts have their sense or subtilty — every other spirit is hut tliat which gives to flesh and blood all its lusts and appetites. — This ^tn^\^ty letter learned knowledge, which the natural man can as easily have of the sacred Scriptures as of any other Books, being taken for divine knowledge, has spread such darkness am] delusion all over Christendom, as may be reckoned no less than a general apostacy from the Gospel state of divine illumination. For the gospel state, in its whole nature, has but one light, and that is the Lamb of God ; it has but one life, and that is by the Spirit of God. Whatev er is not of and from this Light and govei-ned by this Spirit^ call it by what high name you will, is no part of the gospel state." W hat has been said and ((uoted on this subject clearly demon- strates our position, that tlio Holy Spirit is the primary rule of faith and practice." This will be fu' ther illustrated 'if we consider, that the Scriptures arc but the dictates of the Holy Spirit. How then can that which proceeded from a divine 195 source be a more certain rule than the source from which it ])ro- ceeded ? Can the stream be better than tlie fountain ? Can the effect be greater or surer than tlie cause ? It is absurd to aftirm it. The truth is tliat any doubt on this subject must proceed a secret infidelity — a species of Deism — a disbelief in the imviediate teaching of the Holy Spirit; because no man can ra- tionally doubt that an immediate communication from the /o?m- tain of Divine knowledge, must be superior in every respect to any transcript of the Divine will, liable to be misunderstood by tlie most serious inquirer, without tlie illumination of the same Spirit which dictated it. Can any one suppose, that the Divine will communicated to a fellow-creature 1800 years ago, — the import of that communica- tion written in a Book or Letter, that book or letter put into the hands of a transcriber — his transcript copied, that copy copied again — the last copy translated — the translation printed and reprinted — I say can any one suppose that such a communi- cation oftheDivine will, addressed to the understanding ^/iro?*;.^/* tlie medium of the senses^ can be a surer eri(/enc^ of Divine truth, than a direct communication, clearly and distinctly made to the sold, from the Fountain of Light and Life ? — To answer affirmatively, must I think, involve the Respondent in the gross- est absurdity. The only way to avoid this absurdity, is to deny the premises, — to declare plainly, what my opponent has insinuated, ** that God has ceased to communicate immediately with men." — **Ex- traordinary inspii*ation has ceased," says our learned essayist — God has given us his whole counsel," — the cannon, of Scripture has closed," — ** such revelations are no longer to l)c believed or obeyed." Thus we see by my opponent's scheme, that the Holy Spirit, tJie Origin of all Divine knowledge, is now reduced to the condition of an inferior Agent ; his office is to take the words that Moses and the prophets, that Matthew> Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, James, and Jude wrote, and apply them to our hearts." The great Creator of the uni- verse is now reduced to the state of a mere interpreter — a kind of Servum servorum." That this is a very valuable thing, my opponent condescends to admit — 'niie Holy Spii'it is of great use in revealing mysteries," — that is in explaining the words of the Scripture writers. I do not know what others may think of this kind of doctrine, but to me it appears injurious to the exalted character of the Deity. Those who can entertain it, with a full view of its con- sequences, have I think, advanced far into the darkness of in- fidelity ; a state in which unhappily many are deeply involved. •* Light is come into the world, ** but men" continue to ** love 196 darkness rather than lighV — and this is and ever will be the only cause of our condemnation." John iii. 19. Now I should he glad to know upon what authority it is as- serted that extraordinary Inspiration has ceased," that *' God has already given us his whole counsel," that the cannon of Scripture has closed," that " such revelations are no longer to be helieved or obeyed." The sacred writers, I am sure convey no such ideas. I should therefore like to be informed why Paul" has undertaken thus to limit the Deity — to set bounds to Him who declared AH power is given to me in Heaven and in earth — and lo ! I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." In his last Essay my opponent admits that the Spirit some- times acts as an internal Guide." — But he says, the question is. whether we have the Spirit?^' — or " whether we can know that we have it, or can follow it but by the Scriptures ? — In a former Essay he asks ** How can a man know that he has the Spirit?'* These queries are about as rational as the question put by the blind boy to his companions, when he asked them How do you know when the sun shines ?" One answer might very well serve both. To wit, By its own evidence." To send us to the Scriptures to know when we have the Spirit, is quite as reasona- ble as it would be to send the delighted participant of Solar light, to Sir Isaac Newton's Dissertation on Optics, to know when the sun shines. The light of the Sun and the light of the Holy Spi- rit are only to be known by their own operation. No verbal dissertation of either, can give to those who have never enjoyed them, any just idea of their nature. Paul" admits that we have <^ Internal moral light," but de- iiies that light, sufficient for salvation, is given to all mankind. \Vhere did my opponent derive this notion ? Did he learn it from the Inspired Penmen ? I believe I may venture to say that the Scriptures teach no such doctrine. ** Internal moral light" is a term whose meaning is I think foreign to any thing taught by the Sacred Writers. The Evangelist John in the first chapter of his Gospel speaks of a Light, which he tells us is Christ — the true Light that lighteneth every man that cometh into the world'* — Now unless Christ be only an " Internal moral Light" my opponent must be mistaken on this point. To say that our Lord is only a moral light is I think to degrade the divine Head of the Church to the low character of a mere preacher of morality, ** We deny" says our o])ponent that light sufficient for sal- ' vation is given to all mankind." This doctrine appears to me in the most unecpii vocal manner to contradict the whole tenor of the Old and New Testament, and to derogate from the justice and mercy of our olivine Creator. It savours strongly of that most abhorrent belief in unconditional election and reprobation" i9r — abeliet' whicli I had hoped the enlightened age in which we live had nearly if not quite consigned to those dark regions from whence it came. "As I live saitli the Lord God I have no plea- sure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live." Ezekiel xxxiii. 11. Now if our Creator hath not given ** light sufficient for salvation to all mankindf^' these solemn expressions of God through the prophet must be false — because if God has denied ** light sufficient for salvation" to any individual of the whole human family — then God tmist have pleasure in the death of that individual-— hecausQ to withhold light sufficient for the salvation of that individual must certain- ly be according to the pleasure of God, who has the power to give that light. How different from the doctrine of the Apostles is this dark Creed of my opponent ! *'The Lord," says Peter **is not willing that any should perish, but that all should coine to repentance" 2 Peter iii. 9. Tlie grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared unto all 7ne?i," saith the Apostle to the Gentiles **teach- ing us that denying ungodliness and the world's lusts, we should live soberly, righteously and godly in this present world. Tit. ii. 12. '*If any man sin," says the disciple wliom Jesus loved we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the right- eous : and He is the propitiation for our sins, and not/or ours mily, hut also for the sins of the whole world, 1 John ii. 12. Well might the admiring Apostle say of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons, but in every nation he that feareth him (md worketh righteousness is accepted of him,^^ Acts x. 34. 35. AMICUS. Su'Mrdayy Jar., ix, J82i. LETTER XVIII. ox INTERNAL LIGHT. To the law and to the Testimony ; if they speak not according ti> this word, it is because there is no light in them.^' Isa. viii. 20. You will agree with me that a more important question than that at present in discussion cannot be presented to the serious mind. Let us then seek the truth with honesty and candour. Let us understand each other, and kee]) to the point in contro- versy. To those who have the Scriptures," says Amicus, '* God hath given both an eocternal and an internal light to guide them in religion." Granted. Now as both these lights cannol be the Primary guide, the question is which of these has God ap- pointed as the Primary and Superior guide. To which should we first resort for divine information ? To which should y{e first di-. 198 rect the inqiiii ins minds of others. The Scriptures arc our iirst resort, the light within is yours. In my last, six arguments were adduced to prove that God refers us to tlie Scriptures or external revelation as a paramount and infallible Rule.. And I challenged Amicus to quote one passage where God has referred common Christians to internal light as an infallible rule. With- out answering one of my objections, he brings the following ar- guments, of his own. Arg. 1. " William Law. one of your preachers was of our opinion." A. 1. Except a ^enemi ^ea?im^ towards mysticism, there is nothing in that long quotation repugnant to our doc- trines. 2. But had he decided clearly in your favour, the Bible no where tells me that William Law is a divinely appointed standard. S. His leaning towards mysticism was his ruin, — leading him, inJiis latter years, to deny the Monement, the Pu- nitive Justice of God, and to represent the history of the Fall as an Mlegory ! (v. Southey's Life of Wesley, vol. l.p. 314 note.) In his early life, while he reverenced the Scriptures more, he wrote some very useful works, but forsaking a plain and di- vinely appointed Guide, he lost his way and became bewildered in the labyrinth of mysticism ! And hence I infer the danger of your doctrine. For if it be seducing enough to lead such men astray — of such strength of mind and knowledge of the Scrip- tures— what may we not fear when it is instilled into the minds of uninstructed, inexperienced youth ! — William Law therefore is an argument against you. Arg. 2. ''The Scriptures are the dictates of the Spirit, and can ^ e suppose a mere transcript of his will surer evidence than a direct communication from the Spirit himself ?" A. 1. Granted^ the Scriptures are the * ' dictates of the Spirit" and a " transcript of his will." Hence it follows (unless we suppose the unchang- ahle God to change his mind,) that no future or other dictates^ liowever made, can be a surer guide or more infallible rule. 2. Granting also tliat tlie Spirit does covjirm and enforce the Scriptures by a manifestation of himself to the regenerate soul, thus giving to that soul infinitely clearer and more impressive views of truth than a mere rational conviction can ever give to an anregenerate man ; still it does not follow that internal light in general, or the Holy Spirit in particular, is the divinely appoint- ed rule of faith. For, first, I deny that the Spirit generally, if ever, makes this manifestation to tlie soul except by and through the Scriptures read, heard, or in some way understood. And, secondly, could you prove that this manifestation is made to some who liavenot previously had external revelation, it will not follow that this manifestation or light is given to all mankind, or if given to all mankind, it would not follow that the scriptures direct us to internal light as our guide. And this last is the point 199 wliich you must prove, or sacrifice your doctrine. It* you can- not prove from Scripture that God commands us to follow in- ternal light as a " nearer and more certain guide of conscience than the Scriptures" you must give up your argument. It is in vain, therefore, to talk of the clearness of the sinritual manifes- tation,^^— does God command us to follow it as our primary rule ? Arg. 3. ** You hold that extraordinary inspiration lias ceased, and that immediate revelations are no longer to he expected." A. I do. And until you will work some Miracle, or give me some such extraordinary evidence of your Divine Mission and Inspira- tion as the Apostles gave of theirs, you must pardon me if I de- cline considering your Sermons, Books and Essays a part of Inspired Scripture ! Arg. 4. You make the Holy Spirit the mere interpreter of the words which jNIoses, Matthew, 5lark, Luke, John, and Jude WTote." A. This is not the first insinuation against the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures. The Bihle, for sooth, is the mere word of Pe/e?', James, John ^ind Jude I No wonder you have so often denied their infallihility," talked of their ''slowness to perceive," their *' maturing in judgment," their '* mistakes" and '* erroi's !" If these, or any other men are the authors of the Bible, it is apoor rule of faith indeed ! But however yon may re- gard Scripture %ve "receive it not as the word oimen, but as it is in truth, the word of God." 1 Thess. ii. 13. Now whether it be unworthy of a God who always works by means to en- lighten a soul through his own word, I leave the reader to decide. Having thus answered his leading arguments, I will now pro- duce some further considerations to show that Scripture and not internal light is the Rule and Test of truth. r. Ml Scripture is inspired and therefore infallible ; but all in- ternal light is not inspired, and tlierefore nat infallible. There- fore Scripture is the safer guide. "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God." 2 Tim. iii. 16. Now is it any where said " All internal light is inspired r" If so, I have never seen it. Benson and Conscience are but imperfect guides in religion, and these guides all men are liable to mistake for the Spirit of Gt)d. He who follows the Scriptures is sure to follow the Di- vine Spirit ; but he who follows internal light may be following his own deceitful heart, or the temptations and delusions of the Snirit of darkness. 8. Christ refers to the Scriptures as a rule, John v. 39. •* Search tJie Scriptures, for in them ye tliink ye have eternal life, and they are they which testify of ??ie." Now does he ever say the same of internal light ? Has he ever said, " Attend to the light within, and it shall testify of me ?" I should like to see the passage. To apply to ourselves, or to men in general, the 200 promises made to the Apostles of an extraordinory inspiration , is to put ourselves on a par with those distinguished men who were to lay the foundation upon which all future ages were to build. Eph. ii. 20. *^ Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures," said our Lord to those who denied tlic Resurrection. Matt. xxii. 29. Likewise the question about the sabbath, (Matt. xii. 3.) hc decided by an appeal to Scripture and not to internal light, 9. The Apostle takes it for granted, that externa^ mustpre- eede Internal light. Rom. x. 14, 17. "How shall they call on liim in whom they have not believed ? And how shall they be- lieve in him of whom they have not heard ? And how shall they hear without a preacher ? So then faith cometh by hearings and liearing by the word of God." This text while it proves the propriety and necessity of Bible and Missionary Societies, and the utility of more Preaching than you generally have in your assemblies ; — and while it proves that the Holy Spirit is not given as a teacher to all mankind, proves that without external there can be no internal light. In other words, that there is no true internal light but what comes to us through the Scriptures. Faith cometh by hearing." Whatever light therefore you may have, if it be not derived from, or received through the Scriptures, it is not true light, but darkness. 10. As a farther i)roof that we have no right to expect the Spirit^ except through the Scriptures, we have all the conver- sions of the JVew Testament. Had it not been for the Preaching of Christ, the Apostles would have remained unconverted, igno- rant fishermen. Had it not been for the preaching of Petei* and others at Pentecost, the Spirit would never have ** pricked the hearts" of the Jews. But for the preaching of Philip, the Samaritans would not have been converted. Acts. viii. 5. The prophecy of Isaiah and the preaching of Philip, gave internal light to the Eunuch, viii. 35. But for his residence among the Jews, the Roman Centurion would have never known a Saviour. While Paul preached, Lydia's heart was opened." Acts xvi. 14. The Bereans searched the Scriptures daily and therefore many of them believed." xvii. 12. The Corinthians would never have received a manifestation of tlie Spirit (or extraor- dinary gifts) to profit withal," had they not had the outward gospel. And so of the Romans, Philippians and Galatians, — of the last of whom he says " Receivedye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith ?" Gal. iii. 3. How in- consistent then for you to recommend inquirers after salvation to folh)w their internal light, when there is in man naturally no such light ! — When we liave no right to expect intei*nal sa\ ihg light, except by and through the Scriptures? We value the influ- ences of the Spirit as highly as yourselves, but we seek those influences through the Scriptures as the divinely appointed 201 means. You seek them ^Yithollt consulting the Scriptures, and expect a blessing witliout using tlie appointed means! 11. The Scriptures are a rule im- Freachers, 1 Peter iv. 11. If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God.*' A rule for hearers, 2 John 10 : 11* there come any unto you and bring ' not this doctrine (of Christ) receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed." Also, Gal. i. 9. If any man preach any other Gospel unto you than tiiat ye have received, let him be accursed." How shall we know whetiicr a preacher brings the ** doctrine" of John, or tlic •^gospel" of Paul, but by a reference to their writings as a standard ? The Bible, therefore, and not internal light is tlie Rule of truth for both Preachers and Hearers. 12. The high terms in which the Bible is spoken of, proves it a sufficient and perfect rule. Ps. 119, 105, 130. ** Thy word is a Lamp unto my feet, and a Light unto my paths." The en- trance of thy words giveth ligiit ; it giveth understanding to the simple." Ps. xix. 7. The Law of tlie Lord is perfect, convert- ing the soul." 2 Tim. iii. 16. ** The Holy Scriptures are able to make us wise unto salvation.'*' Now if the Scriptures are a Light," — a "perfect Law," — able to converV the soul — make us wise unto salvation," and render us perfect, tho- roughly furnished unto all good works," (2 Tim. iii. 17.) what can we want more t 13. Lastly; our doctrine honours, your doctrine dishonours both the Scriptures and the Spirit. There never yet arose a sect professing your leading doctrine, but always undervalued or perverted the Scriptures. The Anabaptists of Germany were the first (since the Reformation) who adopted the principle that the spirit speaking within is the primary rule. Accordingly thcy overruled or abused Scripture whenever it opposed their in- clinations. Mnnxer, one of their leaders, marricfl eleven wives, killed a number of his companions, and under pretence of setting up a spiritual kingdom, issued orders to kill all the Priests and Magistrates in tl»e world." Bockholdt declared himself king of Sion." David George believed himself tlie '* true Son of God." Did this honour either Scripture or the Spirit ^ In the next century, internal light led Swedenborg, by his celes- tial" sense of Scripture, to refine away the literal and projjer sense, — to deny tlie iVtonement, the Resurrection of the material body, and to believe that he held daily conversation with the Apostles, Angels and with the Lord himself! 1 will not pain you by a recital of the extravagancies of Miylor and others of George Fox's early followers. You cannot deny but in follow- ing their supposed internal guide they were guilty of the most impious and blasphemous conduct. 2ti 202 The Shakers arc a branch of your Society. They still retain your dress, plain language, opposition to oaths, " internal light," Iind only or chiefly condemn you for having something like a Creed. In tlieir book published a few years ago called Testi- mony to Christ's Second Appearing," t!iey state, lest the reader sliould consider it their creed, tliat ** these are the present senti- ments of our leading members," reserving room for any future gift" or contradictory communication. They have entirely new modelled thoi Scriptures, altering any part of it according to later revelations. 1 have only to add that your Society are led by the same erroneous preference of internal light and imme- diate revelations, to undervalue proportionably the Scriptures of truth. You take from them every honourable epithet, such as "the Gospel," "Revelation," "Word of God," " Law and Testimony," and apply these to internal liglit. You say little of the "outward" and much of the " inward coming" of our Lord Jesus Christ : — little of his Atonement, and much of his internal rigliteousness ; — you exclude the sacred volume from your jdaces of tvorship — quote it as you would any other authentic history — oppose its circulation by Bible and Missionary Socie- ties, and treat the Scriptures as a sort of half-inspired allegory. In sliort you reject it as a guide, you refine all its doctrines in the crucible of mysticism, and reduce the beautiful system of Christ and his Apostles to something little differing from the creed of Socrates or Cicero. If your doctrine be not a dangerous error, there never was an error held ; if our doctrine be not worth contending for, Chris- tianity is of little consequence. PAUL. Seventh-day, \St. Mo. 19, 1822 LETTER XX. Amicus can fully subscribe to the sentiment "that a more im- portant sub ject than the one now under discussion cannot be pre- sented to the serious mind." Whether God has created myriads of human beings destined to an endless existence, placed them in a state of probation where their final liappiness or misery is to be detei-mined, and has denied them the means of salvation ? Or, whether he lias furnished evei*y rational creature w ith the means of securing his favour and en joying it eternally ? — Whether the Deity we worship is a God of Justice, Love and Mercy — or wiiether he is cruel and capricous in the last degree ? are ques- tions that ai'e deejily involved in the present controversy. In my last Essay I quoted some passages from tlie writings of the truly enlightened AVilliam Laav. I quoted them, not ao3 because lie was a preacher of my opponent* s opinion or persua- sion— not because he was a divinely appointed standard'' — I am too well acquainted with his writings to suppose, either tliat he was an infallible standard of religious truth or that in temper or principle he in the least resembled my opponent. I quoted him because the sentiments he advanced were so consonant to the doctrines of the Holy Scriptures and to sound reason tliat I was persuaded they would carry conviction to the heart and un- derstanding of every unprejudiced reader. *^ Except" says my opponent *^a general leaning towards mysticism there is nothing in that long quotation repugnant to our doctrine." — Paul" could hardly have expressed his aver- sion to William Law's doctrine in more forcible language tlian by ascribing to its supporter a general leaning towards mys- ticism."— Mysticism is a term so repugnant to the feelings of my opponent that it seems by several of his Essays sufficient to call forth all his efforts to oppose it — the inference is unavoida- ble, Law's sentiments are wholly to be reprobated. His leaning towards mysticism was his ruin." This is the first time I ever heard tliat William Law was ruined ! Now in what did this ruin consist ? Did he lose his peace of mind, his communion with God the fountain of all consolation ? No. — Did he lose ^* the pearl of great price" for whose sake he accounted the wealth, the glory and honour of this world as dross ? No. Did he lose the consoling assurance of future blessedness on his death bed ? No. What then did he lose ? Why he lost or rather refused what some people tiiink worth more tlian all these ! A rich Benefice ! This was the only ruin that ever at- tended him. A ruin as welcome to this heavenly minded man as the largest salary is to the most selfish priest in Christendom. Thomas Hartley, a clergyman of the Episcopal church has borne an ample testimony to the superior excellence of William Law as an enlightened minister of the Gospel. His sentiments sufficiently refute the charge that he represents the history of the fall as an allegory." The loss of the divine life through the fall is one of Law's most prominent doctrines. He too well knew its truth to represent it as a fiction or an allegory. On the reality of the fall of man all his arguments, to prove the necessity of the new birth are founded. His explanation" says Hartley " of the gracious method of our redemption by Jesus Christ in the way of our union with him, and receiving a divine ftature from him presents itself as the sole possible remedy of man's misery — the only conceivable ground of his salvation. It sets forth Go(Vs love to all without partiality in providing a Sa- viour for all under every dispensation ; and re|)reseiits Chi'ist as that Saviour in the most intimate relation to us that can l)e — even as that quickening Sjmit which is the soul's true and only happy 204 iiCe." It* my readers desii'e any further refutation of ** Paul's" charges against William Law, let them consult the account of his life prefixed to the Boston Edition of his Serious call to a de- vout and holy life, 1808. This Avill I a|)])rehend he a much bet- ter standard to decide the question of William Law's religious character than ** Soutliey's life of Wesley,*' If**Southey" is not a very poor judge of religious characters and of Gospel truths, I have much undervalued his merits. Having briefly endeavoured to rescue the memory of the ex- cellent William Law from the aspersions of my opponent, I Avill now proceed to the discussion of the great Question. What has God appointed as the primary Guide, to direct us in our religi- ous concerns ? We believe, on the ground cf the clearest Scrip- ture evidence, that the Holy Spirit is tlic principal and primary Rule of Faith, and that it is the Christian's Guide, expressly ap- pointed to lead him into all truths relating to his salvation. The first passage 1 shall quote to prove our position is the promise of Christ Idmself, John xiv. 26 : The Comforter rvhich is the Holy Ghosts whom the Father will send in my name, He shall teach you all things, I have many things to say unto you but ye cannot bear them now ; howbeit when He, the Spirit of Tniih is come He will guide you into all truth.^' John xvi. 1 3. With this doctrine of our Lord the testimony of the Evangelist perfectly accords. The anointing which ye have received of him abidcth in tjou, and ye need not that any man teach you but as the same anointing teacheth you all things and is truth and is no lie, 1 Joli ii. j7. I cannot conceive how any two passages of Scripture could possibly run more parallel than these. In the foi iner Christ promises the Holy Spirit which was to teach his followers all things — in the latter the Evangelist declares the fulfilment of this promise, " the anointing teacheth you all things and is truth and is no lie." These texts point out, 1st. The na- ture of this Guide — **the Holy Spirit." 2ndly His office as a ' teacher, He shall teach you?' 3dly, JFhat He teacheth, All things," every thing necessary to salvation. 4thly, Where he teacheth, **The anoin+iiig which ye have received abideth in you.'* 5thly, His sufficiency as a teacher " Ye need not that any man tearh you, but as the same anointing teacheth you all things." And 6thly, The certainty of this teacher, that it is no "delusion" — It is truth and is no lie." From all which it is evident, that the " Internal Light" of the Holy Sj)irit — the Word nigh in the heart and in the mouth, which tlie Apostles preached, Rom. x. 8. This *• true Light that iighteth every man that conieth into the world, John i. 9. That Light of \\hi( h our Lord said, ** He that followeth it shall not walk in daj'kness, but shall have the light of life, John viii. 12. Fi om all this I say it is evident that this Divine Light is mr 205 *• ignis tatuus'' — no *• cunningly devised table,*' but the blessed and all sufficient means of Salvation, tiie anointed teacher of the New Covenant dispensation — Avithout which, though Ave may be in possession of all other means, we are dark and blind and ig- norant in divine things — with which, though destitute of every other Teacher we may attain to the true and saving knowledge of God. Now I think it w ill not be difficult to demonstrate that the Ho- ly Spirit is and must be the principal rule, because it is the Foun- tain of all truth. The inspired w ritings are but streams from this fountain. Now which is the prindpal — the Fountain or the stream ? No rational man can hesitate a moment to answer tiiis question. It will be equally easy to prove that the Holy Spirit is t\\Q primary ru\i\ First, In point of time. Abraliam, Isaac and Jacob w ere utterly destitute of the Scriptures — No part of them were written until some centuries after their decease, yet they had an infallible rule of faith and practice. But," says my opponent ** the question is, Whether wc can know tliat we have the Spirit, but by the Scri^ tures r" This question w hich only serves to shew the dark state of the querist, may be suffici- ently answered by another question — How did these patriarchs know tliat they had the spirit ? They had no Scriptures to resort to for this purpose. Were they led by an ** ignis fatuus" — Did they follow **a cunningly devised fabler" Any reply to these queries must involve my opponent in a dilemma — If he should answer affirmatively, he w ill contradict the plainest Scri])ture evidence — if negatively, he must admit that the Holy Spirit is the prim ary rule of faith and practice. Second. In point of importance it is also tbe primary Rule. Because by means of the Holy Spirit salvation is attainable tvithout the aid of ike Holy Scriptures ; else w ere Al)rahan?, Isaac and Jacob consigned to perdition, else three foiirths of the wliole human family have gone to destruction by the providence or rather t!ie improvidence of God, w hich it would be injurious to the character of our merciful creator to believe — Again, the Holy Spirit is primary rule, because salxaiion cannot he at- tained tvithout its agency, Except a man be born again of the Spirit he cannot see the kingdom of God." I'he conclusion to be draw n from the premises is unanswerable — I'he Holy S])irit is tlie primary rule, both in point of time and in point of impor- tance, and this establishes our position. ** That the Holy Spirit is the principal and primary Rule of Faith and practice." As w as observed in my last essay, any doubt on this subject must arise from the source of all Infideiity. It is a genuir.e branch of Deism. Deism is most strongly ciiai acterized by its rejection of Divine Revelation, My opponent denies divine reve- lation to three fourths of mankind, and affirms that tlie nllicr 206 fourth can only have it through the medium of the Scriptures. Thus he not only contradicts tlie plainest Scripture testimonies — not only limits the love and mercy of God ; hut, hy uniting with the Deist in three fourths of his scheme, gives liim the greatest encouragement to contend for the remaining fraction of it, and to cut off the whole human family from any union or communion with God, or any knowledge of his Will. <^ Immediate Revelations are no longer to he expected," says our opponent — No man knoweth the things of God hut hy the Spirit of God," saith the Apostle — ** the things that God hath prepared for them that love him, he hath revealed to us by his Spirit,^' 1 Cor. ii. 9, 10. 'Now \ f immediate revelations have ceased, and the Apostle's doctrine remains to he true, no man in the present day can know the things of God at all — nor have any enjoyment of the things which God hath j)repared for them that love him ! My opponent affirms that God always works by means.'* Now either this assertion is false, or the Scriptures are not true. GoJ," saith the Apostle to the Gentiles who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the Glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ ; hut we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God and not of us.'^ 2 Cor. iv. 6, 7. In tliis passage two points are demonstrated. First. That the Light which gives the knowledge of God, is immediately communicated^ " God hath shined,'^ Secondly. That this Light is an " Internal Light" — God hath shined in our hearts** — we have this treasure in earthen vessels** — Now it is undeniably evident, that the Apostle is here speaking of the same divine light, which the Evangelist said was the true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world," John i. 19. " Paul" says, "the Scriptures are a transcript of the Divine will, and that it follows, that no further or other dictates how- ever made, can le a surer guide or more infallible rule." When the real state of the case is fairly made out, this conclusion will be found erroneous, because, an immediate communication of the Divine will to the soul, needs no interpreter to make it clearly understood, it is self evident — But the Scriptures being an out- ward communication addressed to the understanding through the medium of the senses, we are extremely liable to misunderstand them. Paul" interprets a text one way — Amicus understands it in a different sense — Now who shall decide the case ? Shalf we go to the Commentators? We shall find them discordant — none more contradictory than they. Calvin tells me one thing, Luther another, Melancthon another; after wading through the writings of the ancient Fathers, consulting the Reformers and applying to the modern Doctors we shall find ourselves just 207 where we set out, or perhaps worse bewildered by the jarring and conflicting opinions of our fallible counsellors. From these considerations the correctness of my position as expressed in my last Essay, must I think be evident, that an immediate communication from the fountain of Divine knowledge must be superior in every respect to any transcript of the Divine Will, liable to be misunderstood by the most serious inquirer without the illumination of the same spirit whicli dictated it." My opponent aflirms that the Scriptures never direct us to internal Light." Now tbe truth is they seldom if cr direct us to any otlier Light. I do not recollect a single passage in the whole New Testament that directs Christians to resort to the Scriptures for light, — I am certain my opponent has not q loted one. In the text John v. 39. Paul says ** Christ refers to the Scriptures as a rule." This however is not true as I think can be clearly proved. In the first place the present translation does not render the original correctly. By the rules of the Greek Grammar the word Ereuxate may be understood either in- dicativelij or Imperatively ; — the second person plural of the Indicative and Imperative Moods being exactly the same in the Greek language. The context I think clearly proves that it ought to have been rendered indicatively, **Ye search the Scrip- tures." From the 37 to the 47 verses inclusive our Lord's lan- guage is one continued strain of severe reproof to the Jews, who were then seeking to kill him. In tlie text in question he tells them 1st. "Ye search the Scriptures," he then tells them the reason why they searched them ** for in them ye think ye have eternal life," thereby intimating their gross mistake. — He then goes on to shew them that though the Sci'iptui'e prophecies tes- tified of him by predicting his coming, yet that when he had come — these blind Jews rejected and would not come unto him the fountain of Light and Life that they might have life. ** And they are they that testify of me, and ye will not come unto me that ye might have life." Several of the best modern transla- tions of the Bible sanction this view of the subject, particular- ly that of the learned Dr. Adam Clarke, lately published in New York. — For want of room I must postpone a reply to his other arguments on this subject to a future number. Towards the close of his last essay Paul" brings a curious argument against the doctrine of ** Internal Light." He thinks the conduct of the Anabaptists of Munster — the errors of David George — Bockholdt, Munzei* — Swedenborg and Naylor a strong objection to the doctrine. This objection whatever force it may have is equally forcible against his own scheme ? for if we are to reject the Holy Spirit as a rule of action, because some professing to be guided by this Heavenly Teacher have misconducted tliemsclves. — On the same principle wc must reject 208 the Holy Scriptures, seeing that mamj who have professed to be guided by them, have been guilty of tlie grossest errors both in faith and practise. The Catholics cite them to prove that the material Body and Blood of Christ are really and substantially present in the Eucharist. ** This is niy Body, this is my Blood." Persecutors whetlier Papists or Protestants have attempted to prove by Scripture that killing of heretics is authorized by the Gospel. I would they were even cutoff that trouble you." Gal. v. 12. Wlien the people of New Eng- land persecuted the Ba})tists and the Quakers they professed to act upon Scripture authority. I will not pain my opponent by a recital of the cruelties of these people tov. ard the innocent dis- senters from their creed — neither will I be so illiberal as to say tlrese cruelties were the legitimate fruit of their Religion. No system is justly chargeable with the mal-conduct of its profes- sors, unless it can be proved that such mal-conduct is the neces- sary consequences of that system. What has the conduct of the Anabaptists of Munster to do with our principles ? Certainly nothing more than with tliose of my opponent with wliom tliey agree in more points than they do with us ! Stubnek one of their founders relied upon the Scriptures as the foundation of their doctrine. The practice of Muis zer bears a much strong- er affinity Lj that of our opposers, than to ours. He stood at the head of an army — We disclaim ail wars — He contended for Cardinal Ordinances under the new Covenant — We reject them all as being abolished by the unshadowv Dispensation of Christ. AMICUS, Saturday, J-jm 23, iZzz. LETTER XIX. ON IXTERXAl LIGHT. " Beloved, believe not every Spiiit, but try tJie Spirits whether they are of God.^^ 1 John iv. 1. As some persons, not aware of the tendency of your doctrine of Internal Light," doubt the imporlance of the present ques- tion, before proceeding farther in my arguments, 1 will briefly mention a few of the errors in doctrine and practice which it originates. 1. It leads you to deny the plenary Inspiration of the Apostles, and to teach that Christians now arc as much ins])ij'ed as Peter or John. 2. It leads you to ne^^lect the Scriptures not necessary t») a knowledge of the Divine will. 5. To question the authen- ficitij and correct}fess of our copy of the Bible. Hence you talk cf its having been made canonical by Synods and Councils ; 209 its having been WTitteii — transcribed — copied — re-copied — translated — printed — re-printed &c.'^ intimating that the stream has become muddy since it left the fountain ! 4. Therefore you take great liberties with the Bible, rejecting some of it as not in- spired, denying to it its proper names of the ** Gospel," '* Revel- ation," **\vord of God,*' calling its lively oracles" a *• dead letter," the ** mere words of John and Jude ;" You misuse its terms, such as Baptism, Lord's Supper, Justification, Rigliteous- ness of Christ, word of faitli, preaching, singing, praying: You reject its leading doctrines of Total Depravity, Vicarious Uighte- ousness. Trinity, Resurrection, Everlasting Punislunent, — all through your over- weaning co *fi(ience in internal light, 5. It leads you to oppose the 2ise of Divinely appointed means. It leads you to prefer a silent waiting to vocal Prayer, Whereas God has appointed the external ordinance as a means of excit- ing in our hearts aii internal spirit of supplication. Our prayers if social may be often times blessed to others as well as ourselves. It is the Divine plan to ni n e our spiritual^ through our intellectual and hodilij senses ; and were you oftcner engaged in outward prayer in the Sanctuary, in yoar families and i.i So- cieties, you would probably do more good to others, and receive no less blessing for yourselves than on your pi'esent plan. Preaching is another Divinely appointed means which your doc- trine leads you to neglect. Tiie Papists iiold tliat the efficacy of the sacrament depends on the ** intention" or piety of the ad- ministrator. You hold an equal absurdity in supposing that the efficacy of preaching depends on the livelij exercises of the preacher. NVhereas it. is not the mhiister tiiat is blessed to the edification of others, but theTro?*^ o/* God, or the doctrine preach- ed. The Apostle rejoiced that ** Christ was preached," though ti*om wicked motives, (Phil. i. 18.) because he knew that the " preaching of Christ" (not the preacher) was the means of sal- vation. The Apostle Paul never (that 1 read of) lield a silent meeting, or refused to preach wiien called on, or when people were assembled to hear. But you, preferring an imaginary light to Apostolic precept and example, preach only when you feel like it. Singing is anotlier means of grace which the Scrip- tures appoint, and internal light rejects. Col. iii. 16. — teach- ing and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spir- itual songs, making melody in your hearts unto the Lord." Here the Apostle advises to sing not only ** in their hearts," but aloud tiiat they miglit profit others. Baptism and the Lord^s Supper are also means appointed to exhibit truth, and thereby enlighten the mind and move the heart. The Sabbath also was ordained as an external means of calif 27 210 ing off our minds from the world to meditation, prayer and wor- ship. But the abundance of your internal light sets them aside. Christian Conversation is another means of benefitting our fel- low creatures which you neglect. Exhort one another daily," is the Divine Command ; *' wait till the Spirit moves" is yours. 6, To this doctrine may be traced your opposition to Bible and Missionary Societies, You are not anxious to circulate the Bible, because you do not think it necessary, as the heatljen have already stsvfficient guide in internal light. Accordingly Dillivyn in his Reflections page 173, says ** If there be not in all men a capacity (internal light) for receiving the glad tidings of the gospel, missions would be altogether absurd; and if such a ca- pacity is confessed, it is equally absurd to suppose it may not be as effectually reached by the immediate ivjivence of Divine grace, as by tlie medium of any instrnmental labour." Thus you leave Six Hundred Millions of your fellow creatures in igno- rance of the only Name under Heaven whereby they can bo saved ! For how shall they believe or hear without a preach- er ?" Rom. X. 14. Out of a thousand other evils resulting from your doctrine, I ^^ill mention but one more. — 7. It leads you to depreciate the Evil of Sin and tlic value of the Monement of Christ, Penitence for sin and gratitude for the death of Christ appear to me essential evidences of piety. But I find neither of these in your writings. Sermons or prayers. In ** Fothergill's Sermons," (a volume very popular among you,) I have looked in vain for the spirit of a Penitent, or the faith of a Believer. In Fothergill's dying exercises, there is not one word of Christ or of confession for sin I The volume contains five long prayers, in tlie last four of which there is but one sentence oi' confession / They are made up of Praise, Thanksgiving {not for Christ how- ever) for temporal blessings and for internal light and petitions for support in adversity, — just such prayers as an honest Deist would offer to his Creator and Preserver. The title under which you generally address the Deity is not Redeemer, but Creator," and the blessings for which you thank him are not the Atonement and Obedience of Christ, nor tlie Scriptures, but tlie internal light he lias sent into your hearts ! Now when we can discover, in your most pious men, nothing more of gospel doctrine and of gospel Spirit than this ; and when it is evident all this evil arises from the substitution of internal for external light as a Rule of Faith, who can doubt the importance of the present question ? Other Arguments — to prove tl.at Internal Light is not a suffi- cient, Universal and Divinely appointed Rule. 14. Because there are places on the earth where there is no spiritual light. Pro v. xxix. 18. ** Where there is no vision the people perish." Vision" in this, place must mean eithcp the Scriptures or internal light. If it means internal light, then internal light is not universal; for thei-e are i)laces where there is no vision." If it means the Scriptures, (as it probably does,) then it shows their iviportance and absolute necessity ; for without them the people perish/^ This text then jiroves two things, that light is not universal, and tliat the Scriptures are the light of salvation, without which people perish. 15. Where there is no external revelation the people are in darkness. Ps. 74, 20. **The dark places of the earth are full of the habitations of cruelty." Quere. Why are some places called **fZarA:?" If you say because they have no internal light," you sui-render your doctrine of the universality of this light. If you say because they have not the Bible or external light," you acknowledge that w itiiout the Bible the world is in darkness, in other words, that the Bible is our Light and Rule. 16. It is represented as X\\q peculiar and high Privilege oi ' Israel to have the revealed will of God. Deut. iv. 7, 8. ** What nation is there so great that hath God so nigh unto them ? And what nation is there so great that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law which I set before you this day ?" Ps. Ixxxix. 15 : Blessed are the people that know tiie joyful sound." Ps. cxlix. 19, 20 : He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation.'^ Rom. iii. 1,2: What advantage then hath the Jew ? Much every w^ay ; chiefly because unto them were committed the oracles of God.*' These texts speak unequivocally I the inestimable value of the Bible. 17. That there is not a sufficient light in every man is evident from the fact that some really think tliey are right w hen they are fatally wrong. Prov. xvi. 25 : There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end tliereof are the ways of death.'' , Now if as you say, the gift of the Spirit is universal, and its light as clear as when the sun shines," liow^ happens it that any man mistakes his way ? Can a man at noon day think he is travelling the turnpike, when he is climbing a fence or crossing : the fields ? — or think he is going up hill when he is going down ? Yet Solomon tells us there are men who really think they are I travelling the road to Heaven, when they are on the highway to hell ! How shall wc reconcile you and Solomon ? was he mis- taken ? If not, yon are ; — and there is no such thing as a sufficient, universal internal Guide. It is an ignis (not \^\ms")fatuus, — the delusion of a dream. 18. It is said in praise of Apollos that he was mighty in the Scriptures,'' and that he mightily convinced the Jews, showing by the Scriptures (not by internal light) that Jesus was the Christ," Acts xviii. 24, 28 : To say this of one of your preach- 212 ers would be considered a burlesque. Ajmllos or you therefore mis be roiig. 19. Our Lord referred the brethren of Dives, not to internal light, but to Moses and the Propliets. Luke xvi. 29, 31. « They have Moses and the Prophets, let them hear them. If they hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither would they be persuaded though one arose fi'om the dead." Here he speaks of Scripture as their appointed Guide, and exalts its testimony above a direct communication from the other world. 20. Peter speaks of Scripture as a Guide more sureihajx a voice from heaven. 2. Pet. i. 19. We have also a more sure word of prophecy unto winch ye do well to take heed until the day dawn and the day star arise in your hearts." The word of prophe- cy" in this verse is the same with **prophecy of Scripture" in the next verse and the prophecy which holy men of God spake as they were move(! by the Holy Ghost," in the xilst verse. It does not mean internal light, therefore, (as you pretend) but the external word, to wliich if we give earnest heed we may, in due time, hope for internal light, or the *' rising of the day star in our hearts." According to your interpretation we must give heed to internal light, until internal light dawn in our hearts; i. e, we nmst follow a light before we have it ! ! But if the " word of prophecy" here means the Script/iire, it follows, — the Scripture is our appointed Guide, — a sure Guide — wliich we are to follow that we may obtain the S}>irit. 21. The Holy Spirit submits IRs own influences to the test of Scripture : of course he would have all other light submit to the same test. 1 John iv. 1. Beloved, believe not every Spirit, but fry the Spirits wljetlier they are of God. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God, &c." And then, in the 3d and 6th verses, gives two written rules of judgment. Now if the Spirit of the Lord is willing to be tried by Scripture, who is your Spirit that he should refuse? Is he more honorable i\m\i the Almighty ? or does such a scrutiny make him afraid? PAUL. Seventh-day^ 2nd Mo. znd, 1822, LETTER XXI. A PROMINENT charge, brought against us by my opponent, is, that we ** dishonour the Scrij)tures." A charge, which if sup- ported by facts, would certainly Justify a severe rebuke — but whicli, if it remain unproved, must involve the accuser in the guilt of calumny. Let us now examine tlie evidence adduced to prove the truth of his positicm. First. He says, I am wilUng to believe the majority of your Society agree, that the Scriptures were written under the guid- ance of the word or spirit of god, and are thei'efore to be held in high esteem.^* Now I would ask, how can it ** dishonour the Scri))turcs" to agree, that they were written under the guidance of the Holy Spirit ? — I cannot conceive how we could honour any \Vriting with a higher honour ! — A more exalted character could not ])ossibly be given to any communication either from men or angels ! It is precisely the character which our blessed Lord a;ave to the lAoctrine which he preached. ** My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me." John vii. 16. It is precisely the character which the Holy Scriptures give of themselves. **No prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation, for the prophecy came not in old time (or as the margin has it — at any time) by the Will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.-' 2 Pet. i. 21. To affirm that the Scriptures were penned under Divine influence — under the guidance of the word or spirit of god is to grant them the most transcendent exrelh nee ! It is the ** ne plus lxtra" of any production, whether the agent be a mortal or an angel from Heaven ! — The truth is, that there is no society of people who can possibly hold them in higher estimation than we do — unless they pay them tliat honour, ** which belongeth to God only." Neither is there any Society wlio has more reason to esteem them — none, as I conceive, who is more indebted to them, for the support of their peculiar doctrines, than the Society of Friends. Whilst on many important points, others wholly dis- regard their direct import, and by means of the weakest so- phisms evade the force of the plainest Scripture truths. — We con- sider ourselves bound, in all cases, to act consistently with the clear testimonies of Christ and his Apostles. Secondly. My opponent says, *' You take from them every honourable epithet." Of the truth, or rather the falsity of this charge, our readers may judge from the former communications ef ** x\micus," as well as from the uniform testimony of the ap- proved authors of our Religious Society. With special reference to the Inspiration of the holy men wlio wrote them, we call them *'t\\e Holy Scriptures." With reference to the divine truths de- clared by them. We call them **the Scriptures of truth." See Dan. X. 21. 2 Tim. iii. 15. This is the highest character thai any of the inspired penmen give them, so that all the censure passed upon us, for not calling them by the various appellations which my opponent is pleased to give them, is a direct censure of the Prophets and Apostles, as well as our Lord himself, who never gave them any other title tlian simply the Scriptures." ** Some persons" says my opponent ** are not aware of the tendency of your docti-ine of Internal Light." This is very true, as all of the communications of *< Paul" addressed to us sufficr n4 eiitly prove — he is not aware that this Internal Light leads every experimental witness of its divine efficacy, into gj-eatliiimility — into an entire trust and dependance upon God for every religious qualification. It appears from his last communication, tliatthey . who reject the teaching, the leading, and guidance of the Holy Spirit, can preach, and pray, and sing psalms, and sprinkle their converts, and talk on religious subjects, just when they please — ^ in a word, that they can act without divine influence — can i-ctail their notions and opinions just w/im and where their oivn carnal Jieason may dictate. In this they clearly manifest the wide dif- ference between them and the divinely commissioned Apostles of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. If any man speak" said the Apostle ** let him speak as the oracles of God." In this sen- tence the Apostle alludes to the oracle of the sanctuary — the most holij place wherein the ark of the Covenant was deposited, where from between the Cherubims, God himself gave answers to his people when they consulted about momentous and imj)ort- ant matters, — See 1 Kings v. 16. If any speak let him speak as this oracle ;" that is, let him speak as the Instrument tlirough which God communicates divine counsel to his people — let hiin be so influenced by the Holy Spirit, that he may give to others, not^ his own carnal notions, not the opinions which he may have re- ceived in Colleges or Theological seminaries, put the pure coun- sel of God — " if any man minister let him do it as of tlie ability which God giveth," not which mati giveth, not which his educa- Hon giveth, but wliich the Holy Spirit giveth. This and this only is a pure Gospel ministry, let the dark letter-learned medler in scripture phrases, say what he may to the contrary. That this was the ministi'y of the primitive church is manifest, from many parts of the Apostolic \Yritings. **Now we have received not the Spirit of the world," not that Spirit which makes a mock of divine things, which treats the most solemn truths in a light trifling manner * 'but the Spirit which is of God, that we might know the things tliat are freely given to us of God." Here the Apostle clearly points to the only infallible means of attain- ing the true and saving knowledge of the things of God, Which things also 7ve speak, not in the words whicli man^s wis- dom teacheth," not in the words and phrases of a heathenish di- vinity, with which my opponent's communications abound, **but which the Holy Ghost teacheth, com]ydnn^ spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they slvq foolishness unto him," and, there- lore he speaks contemptuously of them — speaks evil of those rhings which he knows not" — ** neither can he know them, be- cause they are s])iritually discerned," 1 Cor. ii. 12. Jude 10. *^Jfy speech and my preaching^* says the divinely illuminated Vpostle, was not with enticing words of man's wisdom hut in 215 demonstration of the Spirit and of power 1 Cor. ii. 4. Now, I lay it down as an incontrovertible truth, that just so far as any ministry resembles the ministry here described, so far it is a Gos- pel Ministry, and no further, let those who contend for '* Inter- nal darkness," assert what they may to the contrary. It is observable in my opponentVs last Letter, that he passes over all the arguments in my former Essays to prove the reality and nniversality of Divine Internal Light" — to prove its snf- fciency for salvation to all mankind — My arguments were all drawn from clear Scripture tcstimon) — from evidence which I consider irrefutable — from a soui-ce which my opponent calls the '* supreme and only standard of religious truth." As he has not attempted to refute them by his own standard, I shall consider them as a monument of the truth of our principles, as well as an evidence that the tenets of my opponent are unscrip- tural. Instead of answering my arguments, instead of keep- ing to the points in controversy," my opponent takes a course that better suits his purpose. He makes a great number of weak or groundless charges, and leaves them unsupported by evi- dence. By gratuitous assertions and begging the questions in con- trovei'^y, he is enabled to make a great parade of consequences, which no more result from our principles than from the plainest Scripture doctrines. This course might have succeeded some four or five centuries ago, when a blindfolded priest-ridden people,\N ere persuaded to put their souls under the care of a selfsh clergy, who took care to get their money, but cared for nothing else. But it ought to be remembered that we live in other times I — in times w hen many are not only disposed to seek the truth for themselves, but, under the blessings of civil and religious liberty, have grown up into a capacity for reflection, and a maturity of judg- ment, which will secure them from such puerile attempts to im- pose upon them. I am much mistaken, if on religious subjects, my opponent he not a century or two behind many of his cotemporaries — Calvin who lived two hundred and seventy years ago, had some views on the subjects now* in discussion, which prove, that he had much clearer liglit than Paul" — which furnish evidence that his mind was illuminated to make a truer estimate of the nature and effects of Divine Internal Light" than my oppo- nent seems capable of doing. We say," says Calvin, that ** wc have received not the spirit of this world, but the spirit •* which is of God, by whose teaching we know those things that *^ are given us of God — the Apostle Paul accounts those tlic '* sons of God w ho are actuated by the spirit of God — but some ** will have the children of God actuated by their own spirits " without the spirit of God. He will have us call God Father, the spirit dictating that term to ns, which only can witness to 216 ^* our spirits that we are the children of God, These, though they cease not to call upon God, do nevei-theless dismiss the ^< Spirit, by whose guiding he is rightly to be called upon — He de- <^ nies them to he the sons of God, or tlie servants of Christ, who are not led by his spirit, but these feign a Cliristianity that needs not the spirit of Christ ! — He takes away the hope of a blessed resurrection sinless we feel the spirit residing in ^< us, but theseiei^n a hope without any such feeling,'' See Cal- vin, Inst. Chap. 2. What Calvin has said of some who in Ms own time feigned a Christianity that needed not the spirit," applies with equal force to all modern feigners of the same kind. If my opponent had had as much light as Calvin on the subject, he would not have written to us against a doctrine, which is the peculiar glory of Chnstianity — a doctrine which elevates it abo\ e any other Reli- gion that w as ever promulgated since the fall of our first parents from their paradisical state. His essays against this doctrine are so many Witnesses, commissioned by that awful Instrument, The Press," to go down to posterity, the Evidences of his dark and carnal state, whilst professing to be a Teaclier of tliat Religion whose peculiar characteristic is ** Divine internal Light." [This Letter was here divided in the Repository.] T@;— - SalurJay, Ffb. 9, iBiz. LETTER XX. ON internal light. any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of god." 1 Pet. iv. 11. For Amicus, both as a writer and as a man, the author of these Letters entertains an unfeigned esteem. Towards liim and to- \vards the other members of your Society, whatever you may think, he feels nothing but benevolence. Of the piety A' some of your members, I do not permit myself to doubt ; but your far- famed morality I attribute, principally to your rigid discipline. To the intended aspersions and insinuations of Amicus against the character of his supposed antagonist, no other answer need be returned than a quotation \a hich I iiope, for the sake of him- self and his readers, he will remember : As I shall attack no one's person, arraign no one's motives, but simply oppose princi' pics and doctrines ; no one need expect me to notice personal in- vective, hard mimes, suspected motives, nor any thing but sober ar- guments.'' Letter I. For your doctrines 1 confess, 1 have n it the least partiality, and from them I will not promise to withr hold any epithet which I think they deserve. 217 1 liave lately been struck very much with the similarity of youi* doctrine in regard to the Scriptures to that of the Socinians. Like them you profess a, §:mif respect for the Bible, but make little use of its contents farther than they suit your purposes. Like them you admit a degree of inspiration and Divine guidance, but deny a plenary inspiration. Like them you set up a standard superior to the written word ; they idolize Reason, you Internal Light. They deny the perfection of the present Canon; so do you. They are always prating about ** false translations," various read- ings," the ** ignorance," ** prejudice" and mistakes" of the Apostles; so are you. They reject the Mysteries of Scripture, the Trinity, the Atonement, Everlasting Punisliment, at least they say nothing on tliese subjects ; so do you. (There is every reason to fear you agree with tliem in the doctrine of Univei'sal Salvation. I never yet saw or heard a sentiment in your Books or Sermons which implied your belief in eternal con- demnation. And I call upon Amicus to avow your sentiments on this important subject. / challenge him to deny the cJiarge contained in this parenthesis.) In my last communication, besides bringing twenty-one Ar- guments against your doctrine of Internal liglit, (but one of which has Amicus even essayed to answer,) I showed the ten- dency of your doctrine in six particulars. With this statement your advocate finds great fault, and yet not a single charge does he explicitly deny ! In the first place, I asserted that it led you to deny the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, and to attri^ hute as much inspiration to Chnstians now as to Peter and JohnJ*^ He rejects the word " plenary" as unscriptural, and substitutes the equivocal word '* sufficient;" but with regard to the latter clause, says not a word ! Is not this a tacit admission of its truth ? Again ; I charged you with neglecting the Bible as not necessary to a knowledge of the will of God." He says, as the Socinians also do, we do not neglect the Scriptures, we have a high respect for the Bible, and inculcate its perusal on our peo- ple ; but lie does not say they are necessary to a knowledge of the will of God. The third charge of questioning the authefii- ticity and correctness of our present Bible" he does not touch, be- cause it cannot be denied. Again ; I charged you with denying to the Bible the names of the ** Gospel," '* Revelation," **Wortl of God;" and Amicus admits you give them no higlier title than the *• Holy Scriptures," and *' Scriptures of truth." The charge of rejecting some part of the Bible as ?iot inspired, he does not deny. The charge of denying the leading doctrines of the Scrip- tures, to wit. Total Depravity, Vicarious Righteousness, Trijii- ty, Resurrection, Everlasting Punishment he answers by call- 'ing them ** heathenish divinity ! ! !" 28 218 Yet, gentle reader, this is the very man who after fearing explicitly to deny a single charge, and after leaving twenty of my arguments unanswered, can accuse me of making ground- less charges," and not answeiing two or three of his last objec- tions ! Whether I have not generally taken all suitable notice of his arguments, and answered them effectually, let the public judge. Nothing but want of room prevented my answering those to which with such confidence he refers. Reader, here they are. Obj. 1. " In opposing tlie doctrine Internal lights you op- pose the Holy Spirit, the two being one and the same." (This is a general objection running through the whole of your essays.) No such thing. We adore the Holy Spirit, and acknowledge Him as our only Teacher; we oppose what you call ^' Internal Light," as a Pretender, Impostor and Usurper, whom your So- ciety and others have set up in opposition to the Spirit. The Holy Spirit teaches us through the Scriptures and according to their plain and obvious import ; Internal Light teaches you without the Scriptures, and as a necessary consequence, often against the Scriptures. The Holy Spirit commands us to bring Internal Light to the bar of the written word ; Internal Light refuses to pass the ordeal. They are by no means the same. Obj. 2. Christ promised the Holy Spirit to his disciples to teach them all things." John xiv. 26. True, and the promises extend to us as well as to the Apostles, but in a very different sense. As the Apostles were to lay the Foundation of the gos- pel church ; — to make many new revelations and utter predic- tions of events for centuries to come ; — as the most important truths tliey to teach, were not yet committed to writings and could not therefore be known by them in an ordinary way, — the Spirit was promised to them as an immediate, extraordina* rij and independent Teacher. In this they were as highly exalted above us, or above common Christians, as Isaiah, Jeremiah and Daniel were exalted above their cotemporary saints. Moreover, as the Gentile converts (not having as yet a written gospel) could not come to the knowledge of the truth in an ordinary way, upon them also was conferred an extraordinary portion of the Holy Spirit. Hence gifts of Miracles, Tongues, Prophecy were granted to many besides the Apostles in that day. But since all that the Lord Jesus and his Apostles taught, has been under the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit, committed to writing, the same extraordinary inspiration is no longer ne- cessary. We need only the common illumination of the Spirit to show us the trutli, the beauty and excellence of the written word. To call this common inftuence Inspiration," is belit- tling tlie term and confoimding what is ordinary with what is extraordinary. The gifts of Tongues and Miracles have cpas- 219 »?d, because, since Christianity being written, can address us in a rational way, these extraordinary arguments are no longer ne- cessary. For the same reason Inspiration has ceased. God is economical and will not waste his power, nor work a miracle to accomplish what may be accomplished by ordinary means. The Spirit no longer acts in us as an Independent Teacher, but instructs us instrumentally through his written word. But has not every Christian " an unction from the Holy One to teach him all things — so that he needcth no man to teach him?" 1 John ii. 20, 27. Certainly, every Christian who reads the Scriptures with a sincere desire to know the truth, has the witness of the Spirit to their truth, so that he needs no man to tell him " this is the word of God." For he beholds there the Image of God and is sure that they came from God, — more sure than any mere Philosopher can be, when he looks u])- on the heavens, that " God made the worlds." And this will explain some of your favorite texts : **Hethat believeth hath the witness in himself" — If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater" 1 John v. 9. 10. Thus our Loi*d's promise to send the Spirit is fulfilled without putting ourselves on a par with the Apostles in point of inspiration, or making internal light our rule. Obj. 3. " Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had not the Scriptures, yet had an infallible rule." Should we grant they had an ex- traordinary portion of the spirit it would not follow that we are to expect the same, and that the Scriptures are not our rule ; because before a written revelation was given such immediate instruction was more necessary than at present. But the whole argument is a mere quibble. If these patriarchs had not the Scriptures, they had what is the same thing external revelation : and their internal light was in exact proportion. The first light Adam ever had of a way of salvation was the external promise. Gen. iii. 15. The seed of the woman shall bruise the ser- pent's head." The external revelations given before the days of Moses were the only rule of faith in those days. And since they have been embodied in the Book of Genesis, the Spirit will never be at the trouble of revealing them again I And the same may be said of all the truths of the Bible, since the Spirit has committed them to writing, he will reveal them no more, but gives us the writing as a substitute for immediate inspiration. The Patriarchs had a rule addressed to their external senses as well as we. Obj. 4. Salvation is attainable without the Scriptures, the Scriptures therefore, are not the Rule of Faith." Let Amicus produce one instance (except Infants and Idiots and others in- capable of faith, or of being called in an external way) of a person brought to the knowledge of Clirist without an acquaiu- 220 lance with external revelation, and we will admit the force of his argument. Till then we shall deny the fact. Rom x. 14. Ohj. 5. You leave millions of mankind in a most pitiable state." Granted. We leave them (doctrinally) where your So- ciety would (practically) forever leave them, — without the light of Revelation, without hope and without God in the world ! — What a cruel doctrine is this !" — Is that argument drawn from Scripture^ or from feeling? Declaim as loudly as you please about the partiality, cruelty and tyranny of God," all this is no argument with those who make the Scripture their only rule. Yours is an argument drawn from feeling (or internal light) in direct contradiction to the word of God. You set up your- selves as .judges what it is right and ft for Almighty God to do: thus presuming to "re-judge his judgments, be the God of God !" In regard to the state of the heathen, you set up your internal light against both Scripture and facts. Facts (some of which I will detail hereafter) show that the state of the heathen now is the same as in the days of the Apostles, when describing their character, Paul strings twenty-three vi- ces on one string, (Rom. i. 29, 31.) And the nations which have not the Scriptures, have the same light which the ancient Ro- mans, Corinthians and Ephesians had before the Apostles came, in other words, they are ** without Christ, aliens from the com- monwealth of Israel, strangers from the covenant of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world." The only spirit that works in them, is the Prince of the power of the air, the same who now worketh in tlie children of disobedience Eph. ii. 2, 12. All tlie light they have is the light of Nature, Consrience and a few scattered ray.s of external revelation. — But why has not God sent them the Bible." — It belongs as much to you as to iis to decide that question. I would simply answer, for the same reason that he did not provide a Saviour for the devils, — that he leaves any of mankind to perish — that he denies the heathen science, civilization and liberty, — because his justice does not require him to bestow any blessing upon sin- ners, and because he chooses to do what he will with his own ; and I may add, because he works by means, and will call Chris- tenchmi to a strict account for not having long ere this sent the Bible and the Gospel to every creature. Obj. 6. *eak as that they may be believed vvitho^it an oath ! How consistent this with the doctrine of Christ, " Swear not at all," and with that of the Apostle James, "Above all things my brethren, swear not, neither by lieaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath." Solon taught to " observe honesty 243 ill roiivcrsation more strictly than an oath — to fly pleasure iov it brings sorrow — to meditate on serious things, ami in all things to take counsel of God." Chilon taught that ** good men were different from bad ones, ill that their hoi)es ^^ ere firm and assur- ed that God was tlie great touclistone or rule of action." Bias said Make profession of God every where, and impute the good tliat thou doest, not to tliyself, but to the power of God.'* Aptaxagoras taught the doctrine of One Eternal God, deny- ing the divinity of the Sun, Moon and Stars, saying, God was infinite — not confined to place — the eternal, elficient cause of all things — the Divine Mind and Understanding." Heraclitus had great and clear apprehensions of the nature and power of Gt)d, maintaining his divinity against the Idolatry of the times; God," says he, ** is not made with hands — the whole world adorned with his creatures is his mansion-his works bear witness of him. The soul is something divine, if my body be overpressed with disease, it'^must descend to the place ordained — however - my soul shall not descend, but being a thing immortal it shall ascend on higli where an heavenly mansion sliall receive me." Fi*om the foregoing authorities it clearly appears that the heathens have not been so ignorant of God and di^ ine tilings, as Paul would make us believe — tliese were the men, and I could easily quote examples of this kind from otiier heathen nations, ** who having not the law, became a law unto themselves, shew- ing forth the work of the law written in the heart," and who shall be numbered among those of every nation, kindred, tongue and people, whom John the Divine, in the vision of light saw even the great multitude, which no man could number, who stood before the thix)ne and before the Lamb, with w hite robes and palms in their hands, crying, Salvation to our God, which sitteth upon the throne and unto tlie Lamb." Rev. vii. 10. '•How happens it," says Paul, ** that the Bible has spread such light wherever it has come !" This question tliough not couched in the most appropriate terms, may, as to the substance of it, be easily answered. The reason then that light has been more distinctly felt and improved where the Bible has come, is this, that the Bible directs and e^ ery where presses its reader to attend to that divine Internal Light" that enlightens every man that cometh into the world." — lliis Divine Light shines in the souls of all men — the only cause why some men are more benefitted by its beams than others, is this — that some men pay Diore attention to it than others — •* Clirist is the true light that lighteneth every man that cometh into the world" — but what signifies it how much light we have, if we do not legan: it? Now the Scriptures teach us to ''walk in the light whilst we 244 liavc tlie ligbt, t'.iat we may become the cliildren of the light," consetjiiently, where tlie Scriptures have been received as the language of inspired penmen, those who tlius receive them turn their attention to this divine internal and blessed liglit of tlie soul, and therefoi*e they become divinely enlightened, or iu Scripture language they become children of the light." When the Bible was withdrawn, the times succeeded that were called the darkai^es — and so called by some of the Quakers too"' — very true — But not because the Bible was withdrawn, at least not solely on tliis account — It was piincipalhj because a cor- lupt mercenary priesthood had persuaded the people to turn their eyes from Christ the light of the world, to them, the dark min- isters of Antichrist ! thus the world became darkened — and thus it will ever be whilst like causes produce like effects — a merce- nary priesthood is the bane of Christianity — a reproach to the Gospel — it ever has and ever will injure the most glorious cause that ever was espoused by the true ministers of Christ — This will fully account for iUe fad, that the lo ver classes in Catho- lic countries are sunk so much deeper in ignorance, superstition and spiritual barbai'ism, than the same classes in Protestant coun- tries." In Protestant countries there are more of that kind of ministers, who ha ing "freely received" are concerned freely to give," who are bound to direct their hearers to Christ the di- vine and internal liglit of all God's rational family, than there are in Catholic countries, where the dark hireling has so much influence that he excludes the free ministry of the Gospel of Christ." Paul" thinks it a powerful argument against the doctrine of the Apostle, that all men have not pi'ofited by **the grace of God that bringeth salvation and which hath appeared unto all nien" — It is, however, easy to see that this argument is equally forcible against the Scrij)tures ! Have all men that have heard or I'ead the Scriptures j)rofited by them ? ** The heathens are great Idolaters," true, they are. But who are greater Idolaters than professed Christians? What is Idolatry? Is it only the bow ing down to sticks and stones ? Idolatry is the loving any thing more than God ! W ho then are greater Idolaters than those who I'ead the Scriptures ? How many Idols are worshipped in Christian countries? They are innumerable! We need not reproach the South Sea Islanders, the Chinese, the Birmans or the Hindoos! If any man love any thing more than God, that thing is as much his Idol as Juggernaut is an Idol to the native of Hindostan ! — And what ])eoj)le 0!i earth sacrifices as many human victims to their Idols as tiie nominal professors of Christianity ? The peo- ple of the United States offer up 3000 or 4000 victims every yem* 245 to the Idol of Sin'Htuous Liquors ! ! ! The Christian world, as it is railed, within the hist thirtv years, has sari ificed se\ e!-al p.;iI- lions of men to tlie Idol of War! ! ! And tiiis detestable Iv.ol, /ar worse than Juggernaut, is at this time woi's]iij)j)ed by professed friends of tlie Scriptures! ! ! Its assistance is openly implored in the public Newspapers as a means of sprea ignorant of the doctrine of tlii^ Trinity? The Bible sjK'aks of ** Three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word and tiie Holy Ghost, winch three are one." 1 John v. 7. Now how ha])pens it that their reve- lation never told them of this important truth ? 2. If their Re- velation be superior to ours, how happens it that not one of them says a word of Jesus Christ, of a Messiah— of a Mediator — or of a Saviour for sinners ? Is this a subject of no importance ? Why then has not their revelation taught it to them ? Let Ami- cus answer it. 3. If they have a Light superior to the Bible, how happens it that not one of their spiritual guides ever taught them to rest their hope of pardon on the Atonement of a Mediatorial substi- tute ? If they had so much light, why did none of them speak of such an atonement? 4. If they have so much light, how ' happens it that none of tliem teach the total depraritif of the human heart — the lial)ility of siniiers to eternal wrath, and the necessity of regeneration? These trutiis are essential to salvation. Now can Amicus quote one instance of a man ac- quii'ing a knowledge of tliese truths by Tnternal without Exter- nal revelation — Let him try. 5. Had the Light he suj)poscs to have been given to the hea- then efficacy equal to the Bible to purify the heart and life ? He will hardly deny there are some saints in Christendom, some who live a life of Penitence, Faith and Holiness. Now will he produce one instatice — only one — of a person destitute of exter- nal revelation who showed by his life that liis heart was holy and that he had felt the power of the g()S|)el ? Can you procluce one of all these e?j//^/ s of the efficacy and ex- tent of God's love and mercy ! ** I exhort" says he, that sup- plication, prayers and givitig of thanks be made for all vien, for this is good and accepti'ble in the sight of God our Sa- viour, who w ill ha^e all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth," — ** for there is one God, and one Me- diator between God and Men. the man Christ Jesus, who gave Jiimself a ransom for all.^* 1 Tim. ii. 1, 3, 4, 5. 6. In this text the efficacy and extent of the great Ji^eans of salvation are expressly declared ! ** He will have all men to be saved" — Christ gave himself a ransom for a//." This is in perfect consonance with the sentiments of the Apostle Peter, who, in one short passage doubly ]»roves our proposition ! P'irst, nega- tively. The Lord is not willing that any should perish :" — then aflirmatively, ** but that all should come to repentance," 2 Peter iii. 9. This passage again is in full accordance with the testimony of the eminently enlightened Apostle John, where lie says, IJ d'^m man sin wdiavc an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous, and he is the propitiation /broit7*si?i5, and not for ours only, but also for the sins oj' the whole icorW," 1 John ii. 1, 2. This divinely illuminated Apostle seems to have had in view the ca\illing objections of such men as my opponent, who appropriate all God's mercy to such as they sup- pose themselves, ** the believers" — the elect" — ** the saints" For here the Apostle exj)ressl} says, *' not for o?/r sins only" — not only a proj)itiation lor those w ho have beei] favoured w ith the external and internal evidence oi the truth, but also for the sins of the whole world*' — for the sins of those who never heard 553 of the Messiah — Because, as sin is a universal disease, so is the remedy. If anif man sin, we have an advocate" — Jew and Gentile, Scythian and Barbarian, Chinese and Mahometan, Hindoo and Birinan, African and Aniei-ican Indian — all ** have an advocate" — all through the internal ** manifestations of the Spirit, which is given to evei-y man to profit withal," have the means of reconciliation and redemption — all have the medicine, which is as extensive as the disease : and consequently, every man who is willing to accept the proffered boon may become an heir of Salvation. Paul" in his last address to us, quotes the Apostle to the Corinthians, where he says, ** iVfter that, in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the fool- ishness of j)reaching to save them tljat believe;" and tells us that *' it appears by this passage, that one design of Providence in leavmg the Gentiles so long without the Scriptures, was to ' shew that no other light wouhi be suificientfor man's salvation." One design of Pi'o\idence, then, in this experiment, by which, according to my opponent, innumerable immortal souls were thrown into liell, was to show 7ts, to convince ?ts, poor moths, that the Scriptures are necessary to salvation ; and after all, this awful experiment has failetl to produce the intended effect; and thus he makes a merciful God to tlirow millions of ne\ er dying creatures into a gulf of interminable misery, in order to convince us of what cannot be true, imless the plainest scripture testimo- nies are absolutely false. Thus the awfui gulf of endless tor- ment swallowed millions of helpless victims for four thousand years, in order to produce a conviction derogatory to every principle of Justice and mercy — in order to shew us that the most excellent, the most amiable, the most glorious Being, is a cruel tyrant, every way worthy of execration, instead of adora- tion and praise. If anv of Paul's" readers can digest such doctrine as this, I think we need not envy them their taste or understanding. But who has ever said, that "the world by its wisdom can know God r" I am sure Amicus has nevei' advanced such a sen- timent ! No man, whether he have the Scriptures oi- not, can ever know God but bv one medium. The Scriptures cannot give us this knowledge ! They may give us notions but not know- ledge! It always was, and always will be, a ti-uth that ** no man knoweth the Father but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him." Matt. xi. 27. Without immediate revelation," w iiich my opponent says has ceased, tliere can be no true know- leilge of God ! ! ! And without this we may talk and reason and 254 dispute about the nature of the Deity till death shall seize us, and yet be as ignorant of God as the most ignorant savage ! I quoted Tliales, Solon, Chilon, Bias and other heathens, to shew, not that they had attained to the true and saving knowledge of God by their own wisdom, but with the avowed intention of prov- ing that a measure or manifestation of the Spirit,'' according to the Apostle's doctrine hath appeared unto all men," and that by this Holy Spirit they had attained to sucli a knowledge of the divine nature, and of its operation and effects, both on them- selves and in tlie works of nature generally, as iio Book, no Writ- ings no Preacher, can possibly give — Books and preachers can only convince the natural understanding — it is the supreme and exclusive prerogative of the Holy Spirit — the Spirit that was in Christ, to impress the soul with the true and saving knowledge of God, " No man knoweth the Father but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him." This eternal truth is evinced in the most undeniable manner by our Saviour himself, where he says, Jolin xvii. 3. " Anti this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom tliou has sent ;" By this text it appears that the true knowledge, the internal experimental knowledge of God, and life eternal, are inseperably connected ; but such a know- ledge of God as can be obtained by reading the Scriptures, may subsist in the most vicious and depraved of the human family ; in the glutton, the drunkard, the robber and the murderer. But my opponent tells us that the true and sublime knowledge of God which tlie heathens obtained was the discovery of Rea- son, or the Light of JS/^ature or Conscience — Now if he mean by Reason, the Light of JS'*ature or Conscience, any thing that belongs to man as a natural animal — tiiis is absurd, because it is to make tlie effect greater than tlie cause — it is to give the natural faculties of man a power to unveil divine mysteries — to j)ene- trate heaven, and comprehend the things of God without divine assistance — which is impossible! How much more rational is the view of the great Apostle on this subject ! Let us hear him : For w hat man knoweth the things of a man, but by the Spirit of a man that is in him ? Eveti so, the things of God no man knoweth, but by the Spirit of God." 1 Cor. ii. 11. Here we see ev ery thing in divine order, ** the things of a man,'' every thing connected with liis animal or rational nature, is within the pow- er and com]>rehension of ** the Spirit of a man that is in him^'' is discernible by Reason, the Light of *Kature, Conscience: but Ihvigs of God no man knoweth,'' nor can possibly know but by the Spirit of God." — Any other knowledge of God is mere no- 255 tion — a sliatlowy false idea floating in the brain — as far removed from the reality, as is any notion of the nature of Light, enter- tained by a man, w ho never had any eyes ; as foreign from the tnith as the idea of the blind man, who, we are told, was once delighted with a supposed discovery of the appearance of purple; and who, on being asked what it was like, replied, that it was exactly like the sound of a trumpet ! Paul" tells us, tliat before Amicus attributes the doctrines of these heathen Philosophers to " Internal Light," he is bound to prove that the whole of their knoxvledge was not derived from tradition, &c." This is the first time that 1 ever heard that any man was bound to prove a negative !!! I think it would be more in order for him to prove the affirmative. But this he ne- ver can do — many of them lived before the greater part of the Scriptures were written, and they evince that kind of experimen- tal knowledge of God, that no tradition can possibly convey. My opponent thinks that because these Philosophers and pious heathen, did not in all things act consistently with the light so conspicuously displayed in their doctrine, that therefore, they had no divine light, — Now if this argument be good, we can easily prove that the most eminent Christians never had the Scriptures /// Luther, acknowledged the real presence in the Eucharist ! — Calvin signed a death warrant to burn Servetus ! Cranmer proclaimed the murderous Henry VII L as supreme Head of the Church ! The Presbyterians in New England, maimed, whipped and hanged the dissenters from their creed ! And yet, will any one say that these never had the Scriptures ? Or will he say that the Gospel sanctions these things ? Interest, passion, and prejudice, produce great inconsistencies of conduct, but it will not thence follow that those who do wrong act con- sistently with their principles. The Scriptures teach us that those who have the Light may not profit by it — ** He that doeth evil hateth the Light, neither cometh to the Light lest his deeds should be reproved." John iii. 20. This is the great reason why so mucb darkness pre- vails over the world ! This is the reason why boasted Chris- tendom with all its professions of regard for tlie Bible falls be- hind the very heathen in the essentials of true faith. Man is born into the world a poor dark creature — ignorant of God and divine things ! Gospel light, like the light of the natural day, is at first a very gentle radiance. It is compared by our Lord to " a grain of mustard seed" — to " a little leaven" — it requires a disposition to cultivate it — to suffer it to operate. Hence the propriety of the Apostolic exhortation, " Quench not the Spi- 25.6 rit man may resist it — may liate it — may turn away from it — may shut his eyes so that he ma> lose tiie heuefit of its heams ! and therefore our Saviour declares "if the Light that is in thee become darkness^ how great is that darkness,'* Like the seed tliat the Sower went forth to sow— it has to contend with hriars and thorns — with rocky ground — w ith the fowls of the air — and w ith the hcasts of the earth. If under all these unfavoui'ahle circum- stances, it has made no very considerable appearance, we ought not to marvel ! The world is in array against it. It discovers its pride, its sensuality, its selfishness. The protended follow- ers of Christ are against it — it discovers tlicir hypocrisy — the professed ministers of Christ are against it. It manifests their amhition, tlieir venality. Tliey decry it, they vilify it, they give it opprobious names, and do all in their power to turn the attention of their ]jearers/ro7»i it to them / Nevertheless, in spite of all opposition, it will prevail! It is the ** stone that was cut out of the mountain witliout hands," and will finally " fill the whole earth." Its progress, tiiough slow, is certain ! Mystery Babylon must fall ! and her aiei*cha!its who have been made rich by their spiritual traffick, will yet have to say, wiiilst tliey weep over the smoaking ruin^ ** Babylon is fallen, is fallen AMICUS. ^57 EDITORIAL NOTES. j-wis the foregoing JS^o. of Amicus^'' closes the first vol, of the Re- pository, and as through some miscalculation of the printer^ there would otherwise be two blank pages ^ we have taken the li- berty to add the following notes, from the Repository of Jan, 25, and July 7, 1821.] [We insert" John" (seepage 35) to show that we are favour- able to free discussion. At the same time we cannot refrain from dissenting from the opinion wliich he seems to express, in respect to the holy scriptures. We believe that every thing which in the least degree tends to weaken our belief in their di- vine oi'igin, and of course their being the infallible rule of life, goes to sap the true foundation of our faith ; and leaAes us like the frighted mariner in the storm, without either sail or helm. To the \s ritten law and Testimony we cling. Peter, contrast- ing the Scriptures with ocular demonstration, gives the prefer- ence to the former, and says, altliough we have ocular demon- sti'ation of the divinity of Christ, — '* We have also a moi'e sure word of prophecy, whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, &c." — and JoHX the Apostle says, (under the Spirit of inspiration, no doubt) ** If any man shall add to or take from the words of the book of this Prophecy, &c." If the Scriptures are not the rule of life, tlie infallible guide, why so severe a sentence against those who pervert them ! Christians, in their present imperfect state, will and do have different views of the same portion of Scripture; but wlien the time comes, tuat none need say to his brother know ye the Lord," then they will be enabled to dis- cover the beauty of many passages, w hich now appear to be en- veloped in mystery.] EDITOR. We have no desire to enter the field of controversy with ••John," but must in self-defence add a word or two. John" (in his last No. see page 34,) says, ** It is admitted that he (the Apostle John,) wrote his Gospel and Epistles after he wrote the book of Revelations. Scott, Doddridge, Henry, Gill, Brown, and most, if not all the leading commentators testify to the contrary : all considering it as tlie last written book of the Bible; and (hap. xxii. 18, 19, as applicable j9?'mari/ to the last book, hut generally to the whole of Scripture. It is of similar import with Deut. iv. 2. Ye shall not add unto the wonl ■which I commanded you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, &c." and Prov. xxx. 5, 6. Every word of God is pure — Add thou not unto his words, lest lie reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.'* Those passages have a two-fold meaning ; they teach us the infallibility of the Scriptures ; and also that the ** word of God" docs not mean Clirist, but is properly ai)plied to the Bible. See also Mark vii. 13. ^* Making the word of God of none effect thr-ough your tradition, which ye have deliv- ered : and many sucli like things do ye." — So also Luke iv. 4, — V. 1. — xi. 28. John viii. 47. Acts iv. 31. — vi. 2. — xiii. 44, 46. 2 Cor. ii. 17. — iv. 2. Heb. xiii. 17. and a hundred others, showing the ivord to mean the Scripture. In reply to Jolin's" remark on 2 Peter, 1.9, we give the words of Scott, in his comments on tiiat passage — The ** word of prophecy" is called *' more sure," because it is a more^en- eral and permanent proof, than tlie vision on the mount, whifli? though tlie s^ro?i^es^ evidence to them, is comparatively little evi- dence to others. In conrhision, we are sorry to say that ** John's" explan- ations do not go to remove tlie im})ressions first made, that he ^ too liglitly esteems the written word. Editor. ^59 ■ Saturday, April 13, iSii. LETTER XXIV. ON IXTERXAL LIGHT. How shall they believe in him of whom they hare not heard"? and how shall they hear xvithont a jfreacher, Rom. x. 14. The Apostle in the above passage declares his ignorance of any way in which tlie heathen can come to the knowledge of Christ without external revelation. And therefore, in the next verse, he says How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of them that ])reach the gospel of peace, that bring glad tidings? of good things!" Amicus, it seems, lias more wisdom, and as- serts that ** Solon, Bias and otiier heathen attained such a knowledge of God as no Book, no writing, no Preacher could possibly give !" To lighten his burden as much as possible, instead of com- pelling him to prove that every child of Adam has a sufficient revelation witliout the Bible, 1 will give up tlie argument if he will prove his doctrine true of a single individual of our race. If he will produce a single instance (except the Prophets and Apostles who had extraordinary inspiration) of a man who be- lieved" in Christ without having lirst "heard" of Christ in an external way, I will confess the Apostle mistaken and myself disappointed. And as he knows more of himself than any body else, I will risk the whole on his proving that he would have ev- er had even a glimpse of the Gospel and the way of salvation without the Bible and external teacliing. To assist him in his inquiry, I ask 1. How do you know that just God will ever pardon the transgressor of his law: Or that He has contrived a way of sal- vation for sinners. The Apostle says, ** life and immortality are brouglit to light through the gospel, of which I am appointed a preacher and a teacher of the Gentiles. Therefore hold fast the ft)rm of sound words which thou hast heard of me." 2 Tim. 11. 13. Now quere, did you not obtain your knowledge fronoi the Apostle or from some other human teacher? 2. How did you learn that Jesus of A^ax>areth was the only • Saviour ? by immediate revelation ? or by some Book or Teach- er ? ** Faith" in him generally comes by hearing," anu hear- ing by some preacher. 3. How did you learn that Repentance of sin and Faith in Je- sus Christ were the terms of salvation? Strange that none of your inspired heathen should have given tiie least hint of jaith 260 m Christ being a duty. The Athenians wlio were the most reli- gimis of all the Greeks, and among whom many of your pious'* philosophers lived, laughed at Jesus and the Resurrection Acts xvii. 18. Now how came you to look on Jesus Christ in a- different light? 4. How did you learn that no righteousness of your own could justify you at the bar of God, and that you must be saved, if saved at all, through the righteousness of a crudfied Mediator ? The ** cross of Christ" or sah ation through his death, was **to the Greeks foolishness;'' how came it to appear wisdom" to you ? 5. How^ did you learn the doctrine of the Trinity, the Divini- ty of Jesus, the necessity of Regeneration^ salvation by Faith, and the everlasting Punishment of the wicked ? If you have not learned these things you are ignorant of the elements of Christi- anity ; if you have learned them, / challenge you to prove yon have not learned them directly or indirectly from the despised Bible, To the doctrine, that where there is no external, tliere is no internal revelation, he objects, 1. Obj. — God declares himself unwilling that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance, and tiiat ^Hie has no pleasure in the death of the wicked hence it follows, he gives internal revelation to all." How very logical such rea- soning! Might I not just as well say, therefore he gives cx/^r- nal revelation or the Bible to all" — or therefore, he gives all the means of grace to all — therefore, he saves all ? These inferences would be as just and logical as the one he has drawn. The above texts prove tmiversal piety and universal salvation, as much as they do universal light and grace. These texts provc^ nothing as to the actual application of salvation, or they would pi'ovc Universalism, They only assert the fulness of the provi- sion which God has made, and show that it is not His fault, but the fault of his creatures, if any are not saved. God is unwill- ing (in tlie same sense) that there should he any sin in the world — that there should be any swearers, drunkards, heretics oi* im- penitent infidels on earth, for he has forbidden all these things. But does this prove there is no sin, no sinners in the world ! Just as much as the above texts prove that he gives a revelation to all mankind. There is a sense in wliicli God wills the salvation of the heathen,— he has provided a salvation exactly suited to their wants — he has commanded his people to send this gospel to every creature — and promised to sa\ c all of any nation, who will ir- pent and believe. This is enough to ac([uit Him, and justify the declaration in these texts. But there is so much Quakerism 261 in the world, such an obstinate notion that the heathen already have saving light, that the Divine commands are not obeyed, the divine benevolence is not seconded, and the perdition of the heathen lies not on Go(U hut on yonr Society and the other enemies of missions J God is not that **criiel, unjust and tyrannical Being" whicli you represent Him to be, but ijou, ye opposers of Preach- ers and of Bible Societies, yon are the cruel beings whom tlie heathen will accuse hereafte4'. God is unwilling,," but you arc willing the heathen should perish. He has not withheld, but has provided the means of salvation, but you^ you withhold them, and doom the heathen to destruction ! 2 Obj. — ** Where there is no law tliere is no transgression ; if therefore, the heathen have not Revelation they are not trans- gressors." (This is the point of his argument.) The heathen have a law, the law or light of A^ature, tlie law or light of Con- ' science, and the law or liglit of Tradition, which if they abuse they are transgressors. You might as well say, a child cannot in because he has not as much light as a man, or tliat a common itizen could not offend because he did not understand the laws sed by the great Apos- tle in this text, is 1 tliink, a positive proof that the love of God is extended to all his ratiimal family, that the means of salvation are as unlimited as the presence and power of the Deity, The doctrine of my opponent is at war, not only with the sentiments of the inspired writers, but with facts w hich d' monstrate in the clearest manner, the unbounded mercy and infinite justice, of our adorable Creator. It was an aphorism of our blessed Lord, " By their/ruifs ye shall know them. Men do not gather grapes of tliorns, nor figs of thistles." When 1 see an individual or a nation, bringing forth the fruits of goodness, mercy, temperance, patience, jus- tice, and charity, there methinks I see the work of God's good Spirit, and I am willing to acknowledge these, however they may differ from me in doctrines or opinions, as tlie subjects of Divine Grace. <* Every good and perfect gift cometh down from above." It is impossible for our weak human nature, un- assisted by Divine Grace, to produce these good fruits ! My opponent holds the doctrine of »* Man's total depravity." How then can he reconcile his doctrine with the fact, That those who never had the Scriptures, nor any outw^ard knowledge of Christ, have been eminently virtuous ? I think it can only be reconciled by admitting, that these pious heathen were largely assisted by Divine Grace ! The measure of God's mercy is not to be estimated by his outward gifrs and blessings ! He gives these to ** the evil and to the good." He has given the Scriptures to as ungrateful and rebellious a people as ever existed, not excepting the Jews ! He has withheld them from millions, who without them have manifested more of tiie fruits of sincere piety and devotion, 3^ 266 than those who have had this blessing ! This position may be considered by many as problematical, if not untenable. A re- ference to historical facts will, I think, confirm it. I am aware of the influence that interested men have had, to produce on their hearers a different sentiment. Many of the Authors of Books, Pamphlets, and Tracts, have been on one side of the question. We have had little but exparte evidence. There are two heathen nations, however, ot whose virtues we have had some small testimony — to which I shall refer, after giving a very imperfect view of the vices and enormities of those who hnve been favoured with the Scriptures ! It was not long after the exit of the Apostles, that professing Christians, with the Scriptures in their hands, and professing to be guided by them as the rule of faith and practice, quarrel- ed and shed human blood in torrents on the imm trifling differ- ence of sentiment. — Ii was sufBcient cause for the perpetra- tion of the greatest cruelties that one thought Easter should be celebrated on one day, while his brother thought it ought to be celebrated on another. — It was an occasion of the bitterest enmity, that one believed in the Unltif of the Deity, whilst the other thought that God was composed of parts, and hence as well as from other causes, the m<)St violent and outrageous measures were pursued that ever disgraced human nature, and hence it is doubtful, whether Christians by profession. Lave not shed much more human blood, than was ever shed by the heathens on religious differences! Hanging, burning and gibbeting in their simple forms are mercies in comparis(m of the tortures which have been inflicted by Christian professors on each other, merely on account of a difference of opinion with respect to the meaning of the Scriptures, <* the only and infal- lible rule of faith and practice," as affirmed by my opponent, and without which, as he affirms, there is no salvation. And these outrages upon humanity have not been confined to one sect of Christians — there is hardly any sect wholly free from the foul charge ! ! ! The Catholics under their Pope — the Cal- "vinists under their founder — tlie Episcopalians und»'r their Bishops and Arch-bishops, whether Lutheran or Calvinistic, and the Presbyterians under their respective sources of autho- rity and power. — And this is not all, their Clergy, the highest officers in their churches, have manifested a cruelty, an ava- rice, an ambition, a sensuality, wholly unparalleled by heathen professors, in some instances claiming a supremacy over their temporal rulers, in others making use of the temporal autho- rity to force people into a conformity with doctrines the most absurd ; and derogatory, not only to the character of the Deity, but to the plainest maxims of Scripture and common sense. 267 Now where will we find in modern history any parallel in atrocity to these ? Wlirre will we find any heathen nati )n who was so depraved as to persecute and shed the hii'od of a bro- ther for a difference of opinion ? If our Lord's criterion be a correct one, •* by their fruits ye shall know them" — liow shall we jud^^e of a people who have brought forth so plentiful a crop from thorns and thistles as Christendom has? — And yet, for- sooth, all God's mercy is to be confined within the number of the selfish, cruel, avaricious, sensual professors of Chris- tianity ! ! ! Oh what presumption ! — Poor debased Christen- dom— Instead of bowing herself to the earth, and laying her mouth in the very dust — she dares recount her good works be- fore the Omniscient — she claims an exclusive right to heaven — rings her weekly, her daily account of her alms deeds, in the ears of God and man ! ! ! — and is likely, I fear, to retire from the public display of her virtues, less justified in the di- i. vine sight, than the poor creature who dares not so much as lift his eyes to heaven, but smiting his breast, begs only for mercy from the f(»untain of universal Love ! My opponent seems much offended at my saying that " Chris- tendom talis behind the very heathen in the essentials of true JaithV By " true faith," Amicus" does not understand that faith which satisfies itself with preaching and singing, eating bread and drinking wine, dipping and sprinkling people. Of this faith, I believe the professors of Christianity may boast a greater share than any other people — except the Scribes and Pharisees. It is a faith that may be attained without the mor- tification of a single passion, the sacrifice of one darling lust. By true faith, i mean, that ** Faith that worketh by love Gal. v. 6.— that faith thsit actuates <* pious heathens" to deeds o£ mercy and acts of charity — I say pious heathen, without the least fear that any liberal Christian will deem the terms irra- tional or <♦ contradictory." To say there are pious heathen,'* " Paul" thinks as great an offence against propriety of speech, as to say there are such things as « wise fools" — this may be, yet I do not think it would be a very difiicult matter to shew that both these kinds of people are to be found within the human family ! The «* essentials of true faith,'' are ^oorf works. « Faith,'' says the Apostle, « without works is dead,'"* James ii. 17. *< By their fruits ye shall know them," says our Lord. This crite^ Hon, sanctioned as it' is, by divine authority, is certainly the best that could possibly be given to man for ascertaining the merits of his brother, yet my opponent prefers one of his own making ! ! 1 In order to shew that those fruits by which we may distin- guish the real adopted child of God from the vain boaster of his own works are not confined to those wlio have the Scrip- tures, 1 will appeal to facts, and in this appeal I have no doubt of being able to shew that while professing Christians of the highest stamp have produced the disgraceful fruits of the <* thorn," and the ** thistle," that portion of God's famil)' whom these high professors call heathens, savages, barbarians and idolaters, have far outstripped them in divine works of mercy, justice, and truth, I suppose it will be admitted, that there is no nation on earth, (except it be the Americans) who boast more of their religious attainments than the British. These high professors, these pretended disciples of that religion which breathes the lan- guage of peace on earth and good will to men, witli the Bible in one hand and the sword in the other, invaded the territory of the unoffending Hindoos, burned their towns and hamlets, butchered and starved innumerable multitudes of the rightful owners of the soil, and finally reduced sixty or eighty millions of people to a state ot subjection or vassalage. And this is not all, after making them taste the bitter fruit of that religion which prevails throughout Ciiristendom, and is falsely called the Christian Religion — after forcing them to wear the yoke of political slavery, they set every engine to work to bring them under the more odious burden of religious domination, Clau- dius Buchanan, a man known in tlie literary world as an au- thor, seeing the vast sums continually flowing into the civil purse, seems to have thought that the clergy had been ** ne- glected in the daily ministration" of wealth, squeezed from the labour of the po or oppressed natives, and therefore writes ** a Memoir on the expediency of an Ecclesiastical Establishment for British India." To those who understand what an Eccle- siastical Establishment means, any explanation of his motives is unnecessary ; but to many of the inhabitants of our highly favoured land, long exempted from the physical power of the Priesthood, it may be proper to say, that an Ecclesiastical Es- tablishment means, a power vested in the Clergy to force from every man (who will not voluntarily devote his time and labour to support a luxurious set of worldlings) the tenth part of his produce, besides various other demands of a religious, or ra- ther irreligious nature. Now what is the character of this nation whose territory we Christians invaded, whose inhabitants we butchered, and those we did not butcher have enslaved ? Truly, if we take their character from those, whose interest it is to villify theiUf they must be a very idolatrous, immoral people ! Through the me- dium of tracts, pamphlets and prints got up by men who were deeply C07tcerned, to reap the fruits of Hindoo industry, we have 369 liail the most disgusting picture of this poor people, that perhaps was ever drawn of human nature — and yet a picture very un- Jikc the original, if we may credit numberless disinterested authors who have from a long and intimate knowledge of that people, had thi^ best opportunities of knowing them. Abulfazel, Secretary to Akbar, the Moii;uI Emperor, who was deemed one of the most learned and best writers of the East, and who had much opportunity of knowing the Hindoos, gives the foHowing testimony of their character : *» They one and all, believe in the unity of the Godliead, and although they hold inmges in high veneration, yet they are by no means Idolaters, as the ignorant suppose. 1 have myself frequently discoursed on the subject with many learned and upright men ©1 this religion, and comprehend their doctrine, which is, that Images are only representatives of celestial beings, to whom they turn themselves while at prayer, to prevent their thoughts from wandering." Again, says he: ** they are religious, affable, courteous to strangers, cheerful, enamoured ( f knowledge, lovers of justice, given to retirement, able in business, grateful for favouis, admirers of truth, and of unbounded fidelity in all their dealings." What a noble character is this ! Happy would it be for Christendom, if one half as much could truly be said of her ; and yet we want to convert the Hindoos to our kind of religion ! Jn confirmation of this character of the Hindoos given by Abulfazel, a Bengal officer, in a pamplet describing their cha- racter, makes the following statement : '* An experience of seven and twenty years will enable me to do justice to their unexampled honesty and fidelity. Will it be believed in Europe, that a gentleman having twenty servants in his house shall entrust them with the care of his liquors, plate, money, jewels, &c. of all which, the keys remain in their hands, and shall leave his house for a month or more, and on his return find every article as he left it, undissipated, untouched and un- impaired?— I have myself been in this predicament — have had in my house at one time, more than eighty dozen of wine, three or four hundred pounds in gold and silv* r, besides plate and linen, all under the care of my Hindoo servants, who kept the keys of every article — yet I cannot witfi a safe conscience charge any of th"se servants with having ever purloined a single bottle of vine, the smallest article of plate, or as much as a rupee from the money thus dep<)sited ! ! ! Let me then ask the candid reader, let me ask Mr. Buchanan himself, who uninfluenced by the prospect of professional ad- vantage had possibly been less willing to vilify the Hindoosj whether in Great Britain, under such obvious circumstances 270 of temp^^ation, the master's property would have been safe for a s'ln^ia day ?" — *»1 trust that while sobriety, honesty, temper- ance, and fidelity are held estimable among mankind, the hum- ble possessor of these virtues among the Hindoos will be deem- ed not unworthy even of Christian emulation So far my author, who I think shews that as *« men do not gather grapes of thorns, nor figs or thistles,'' the Hindoos, if condemned in t(»to to everlasting torments, will not be condemned for being a worse people than their Christian oppressors! On turning our eye to scenes that have been exhibited on this side of the Atlantic, we see perhaps equal cause to abhor the conduct of Christian professors towards an innocent unof- fending people ! We see that men who fled from persecution and cruelty, inflicted on them by their fellow Christians, came on our shores, and after a friendly, kind, and hospitable recep- tion by the natives, begin and carry on the work of murder and destruction against their benefactors, until whole tribes, men, women and children, were swept from the face of the earth ! Now if the tree is to be known by its fruits, who were the barbarians in this case ? Let the reader answer the ques- tion to himself. And what was the character of the natives of this country, when they were treated with common justice by <* that good man, William Penn Kind, benevolent, hospitable, charita- ble, grateful, and so faithful to their engagements, that during seventy years they never forfeited their pledge, never violated their word, so that it has been observed that Penn's Treaty with the Indians, ratified without an oath, is the only one that never was broken. And yet, according to my opponent, these people were des- titute of divine grace — they produced the fruit of the good tree without any goodness in them — in other words, contrary to our Lord's express declaration, *< Men do gather grapes of thorns^ and figs of thistles ! ! !" But says my opponent, « there is so much Quakerism in the world, such an obstinate notion that the heathen already have sa- ving light, that the divine Commands are not obeyed, the divine benevolence is not seconded, and the perdition of the heathen^ lies not on God, but on your Society and other enemies of Missions.'* In this ebullition of zeal, ** Paul" has forgot one material point — he has omitted to prove that the heathen do go to perdition ! and before this is proved, he must prove that our Lord and the Evangelists and Apostles were totally in an error on this sub- ject. <* Amicus" has produced many of the plainest, most explicit texts of Scripture, to prove that " the grace of God that bring- eth salvation hath appeared unto all men." — «Paul" has not pro- 271 dueed ono clear passage from the sacred writings to prove the contrar}^, nor can he ever do it — and therefore he must still go on with his strained inferences, sarcastic remarks, and sophis- tical deductions, some of which 1 intend to notice in my next number. AMICUS. Saturday, April 27, 1822. LETTER XXV. ^'Idolaters shall have their part in the lake that hurneth with Jirt and brimstone; which is the second deathJ** Rev. xxi. 8. Until Amicus" can produce one heathen who was not an idolater, he must either give up his hope for them, or give up the Bible. For idolatry is in Scripture described as the great- est of all abominations in the sight of God. Therefore, when he talks so much about the * virtues,' the « piety,' the * truth, justice and mercy,* of the heathen, 1 ask him to name a nation or an individual not guilty of open and habitual idolatry. As murder implies a disposition to commit all lesser crimes ; so idolatry implies a heart at enmity with the only true God and disposed to commit all minor sins. It is in vain therefore to talk of the < virtues' or the * piety' of a man who is guilty of this most gross offence. But i will answer his objections more particularly. Objection 1. — "John saw a multitude which no man could number, of all nations, kindred and people, standing before the thnme," &c. Rev. vii. 9. Any one who will consult the passage will perceive that this refers to events which took place under the •♦sixth seal," or just before the reign of Constantine ; and is a prediction of the spread of the Gospel in that day. The Apt)srles and their successors, unlike your Society, went forth as Missionaries to all nations, and the consequence was, some of all nations then existing were saved. The Millennium also will verify this passage, by bringing in multitudes from all corners of the world. But you might as well say there is a ^Millennium in every age, or that there will be a Millennium without the knowledge of the Bible, as to say that this text is true of every age, or that some of all kindreds will be saved without the Bible. Obj. 2. — <* Some who had no external knowledge of Christ have been eminently virtuous, and therefore must have been largely assisted by Divine grace." Are not many of the Deists of our day equally «< virtiwus?'^ And will you say that these are 272 Christians, or endowed with saving " grace I challenge yoii to name a heathen who had more consistent notions of God, or showed more regard for Revelation, or for Jesus Christ, than many acknowledged Deists of our day. And can these be saved ? say, ** Amicus." Obj. 3. — •< Where shall we find a heathen nation so depraved as to persecute and shed the blood of a brother for a difference of opinion?" Has "Amicus" forgotten the Ten Roman Persecu- tions, and the millions of Christians that werje robbed, banished, hurned and murdered during the first three centuries, by these tender hearted pious heathens ? True, they seldom persecuted one another ; being of one family, why should they quarrel ? The Greeks and Romans tolerated all heathen religions, bore with idolatry in every shape ; but the moment Chris-vianity appeared, kings, phih)sophers, priests and people combined their arms against her ! Wonderful evidence of their <« virtue and piety!" Just so in your Society, Pelagians, Universaiists, Socinians, Deists and Atheists can dwell together in amity, each holding that it is ** no matter what a man believes so he is sincere;^' and every speaker declaring what doctrine he please, provided he does not preach the Gospel! But should the Apostles themselves appear among you and preach their old doctrines, you would all say Sit ye down, ye arc not called to minister," — and that charity which is readily indulged for heathen and infidels, would be denied to the followers of Jesus Christ. Obj. 4. — "These heathen have far outstripped your high professors in divine works of mercy, justice and truth. There are two nations who have been without the Scriptures, who have brought forth more of the fruits of sincere piety and de- votion than those who have had the Bible, — the Hindoos and our Western Indians,'^ With the invasion of India by the East India Company we have nothing more to do than with the wars of Bonaparte ; they are a set of infidel merchants who opposed the admission of Christianity into India with all their might. In 1813, when they applied to the British Parliament for the renewal of their charter, that Body refused, unless they would consent to an additional article, permitting Missio- naries to reside in India, so long as they behaved peaceably. The moti(m was opposed, upon the Quaker principle, that *♦ the Hindoo religion was as good as ours." It was during this de- bate, in which Sir Henry M(mtgomery and Mr. Lushington took the lead, that the latter gentleman, (the <* Bengal officer" whom you quote,) an avowed infidel, contradicted the state- ments of Dr. Buchanan, and made the assertions you have quoted. Dr. Buchanan, the holy man whose motives you join 273 w ith infidels to vility, but whose memory will be dear to India long after Quakerism shall have been abolished, and hostility to missions shall have ceased, — though on his sick and dying bed, wrote a memorial and made a statement of fads, w Inch con- vinced the Parliament and confounded his adversaries. So much for the statement of your ♦'Bengal officer." AhulJaxeU the other <* disinterested author," whom you quote, was Secretary to the great Mogul, — in a station where we do not generally look either for correct sentiments, or cor- rect practice in religion. He was moreover a Mahometan, an idolater himself, and therefore little credit is due to his testi- mony,— especially when it is in direct opposition to that of Sir William Jones, who spent much time in investigating the Sa- cred Books and institutions of the Hindoos, — in direct contra- diction to that of lord Tdgnmouth, who was for some time Governor General of Bengal, is now President of the Bible Society in England, is one of the assistant editors of the Chris- tian Observer, and a warm advocate for missions to India; in contradiction also, to the testimony of Charles Grant, one of the best men in England, a member of the British Parliament, and who has written a masterly Memoir on India, — as well as contradictory to that of all the Missionaries. Let the reader weigh the testimony of an avowed infidel and a Mahometan, against the following testimony of men whose veracity cannot be impeached, Dr» Buchanan says, the two prominent characteristics of the Hindoo superstition, are « Impurity and Blood illustrating his declaration by facts which he himself w'itnessed. William Ward who has been twenty-three years in India, and whose testi- mony if false may be easily refuted, states, that though the more enlightened Hindoos admit the idea of One God, they dofiot think him an object of worship^ And accordingly among 100,000,000 of people, there is not to be found one temple consecrated to the One God." They speak of their ^« 330 millions of deities,"— and some of these deities are «sin personified," It is remark- able that not one of all their numerous idols, represents a rirfwe.' The Greeks and Romans did dedicate temples to Truth, Jus- tice, Chastity, ^cc. but I defy Amicus" or any other advocate for Hindoo piety," to mention the name of a single Hindoo idol representative of a virtue. — or a single deity of a virtuous character ! Their very gods," says Mr, Ward, are monsters of vice, — their worship is full of abominable impurities,— their priests ringleaders in crime — their Scriptures encourage pride, impurity, falsehood and murder, and their heaven is a brothel Nor do any of the Hindoos die with the hope of future happi- **xcent those who drown or hum themselves." ^* Bj a 274 future state, a Hindoo understands nothing more than trans- migration;^' and common persons, therefore, when dying, <*have no hope but of passing into the body of some reptile." (v. Ward's Farewell Letters, Let. 5.) To speak of the fruits of "mercy" in a country where such a tiling as an Alms House or a Hospital, or a Benevolent Society never was known, — where children are allowed by their religion to txpt-se *heir aged parents to the Ganges, — where mothers throw their in- fants to the alligators, — where the eldest son kindles the fune- ral pile of a widowed mother, — where children tread the earth into the grave around a living parent, — where idols are pdeased with human blood, — and wliere the multitude set up a joyful shout when infatuated victims sacrifice their lives ; to produce these as ** works of mercy," shows a curious taste ! But hear another witness. The Mbe Dubois, a Roman Ca- tholic, who resided many years in India, whose work was ap- proved by Col. Wilkes, Governor of the Mysore country, was purchased by the Madras Government for 2000 pagodas, was afterwards published by the East India Company, and recom- mended by some of their members as " the most comprehen- sive and minute account extant in any European language of the manners of the Hindoos," gives the following testimony. After stating that much <rance and impiety of those in Christian liinds who sivt partially deprivKi of the Bible and the o'her exU i oal lights. Go into those districts of our country wl.ere there is no public worship, no preaching, no organized Christian So- ciety— or go into those families in this bor*»ugh who neglect the Bible, (if they have it in their houses) who neglect preaching and other means of external light, — and witness their igno- rance and wickedness. Talk to them on the subject of salva- tion, they are almost as ignorant of themselves, of God and of Jesus Christ as the brutes around them, if you doubt the fact make the experiment in this same borough, (where you will ad- mit there is more than usual ** Internal light") and you will doubt no longer. Now what is there in a heathen atmosphere that should render the inhabitants more enlightened than in the United States! If people here are so ignorant, how benighted must they be in heathen lands! 2. Account for the ignorance of our Western Indians, You have selected them as an example of lifcht and piety; but wherein is either of these manifested ? They acknowledge, it is true, a Great Spirit, but like all Deists, they have no notion of his holiness or justice, do not believe he interferes with mortals, and pay him no worship ! On the other hand they do worship the devil, and vindicate their conduct in so doing upon the principle that the good Spirit does not need to be propitiat- ed, and only the Evil Spiri' is to be feared. They universally sacrifice to the snake, and are so superstitious, tliat sorcerers and wizards are the most influential men in their tribes. The savage and revengeful ferocity with which tliey torment, and even eat their enemies, is well known. Not two years have elapsed, since we had an account in the newspapers of one of the tribes on the Missouri impaling a little infant^ as a sacrifice to the evening star! — and nothing but her flight saved the mo- ther from a similar fate! As to tlieir « light," David Folsom, 28u one of the Choctaw chiefs, in a letter dated Sept. 3, 1820, says : Brother, I am thankful to the good people in your coun- try in sending Christian people to us to lead us out of darkness to the light. Brother, we Choctaws has heen in darkness and ignorant so long, that we have suffered much ; the Choctaws know there is a God who is a Maker of aU things, hut no know- ledge of Jesus Christ, and therefore the wicked ways were our path, we had no one to tell us in what way we should serve God. But now I hope my nation have found a true fri(>nd, and forever more our children may live together as hrothers and sisters, and worship the true God of Israel." Rel. Rem. p. 92, 1821. Again; a half breed Cherokee, brother to Catherine and David Brown, a young man of some intelligence, called on the Missionaries at Dwight on the Arkansas, July 9, 1821, who was deplorably ignorant of all spiritual things. He said he had never been told, and never knew but that men died like beasts; that man has a soul which exalts him above them, and should exist after death ;— or that there was a beloved Book which informed us of a future state. He said, he rather thought in himself that men did not die as beasts, but that they lived some- where after death, but how or where he knew not/'* Boston Recorder 1822, p. 38. Now how is this consistent with your doctrine of an Universal Light superior to the Bible ? 3. How is it that none of the heathen converts speak of their previous light? They all with one consent testify against their old religion, and own their former total darkness. The conse- quence of sending the Bible to Otaheite and the Georgian Is- lands has been, that " their old gods are destroyed, the Morais demolished, human sacrifices and infant murder abandoned, and the people are every where calling for missionaries." Pomaree, the king writes : « I wish you to send those idols to Britain, that they may know the likeness of the gods that Tahiti wor- shipped. I wish you every blessing, friends, with success in teaching this bad land, this foolish land, this land which is igno- rant of good, this land that knoweth not the true God, this regard- less land,'* V. Wilson's Memoirs. The king of Raiatea writes : I and all my people are rejoicing because you compassionated us and sent missionaries to our dark land, a land of darkness ; and they liave made known to us the true light, even Jesus Christ, by whom we all must be saved. We have known Satan's deceit and lies, therefore we have cast down our Morais, and burned our gods in the fire. I had covered up the evil spirits well, in order to send them to England to you ; but some men said that I had taken care of the evil spirits, and that was the reason 1 was overtaken with sickness. I was requested by The people to burn the evil spirits, and I said burn them. Orr> 281 and Hiro were the two evil spirits that were burned. fVe have lived in darkness and in the shade of death under the deceitful influence of Satan; man} kinejs have died and .e;one to the Po, (hrll) and now 1 am made acq (tainted with the true God." Bos- ton Recorder 18i*2, p. 50. Now qupre, are not the heathen con- verts as jSi"(»od judf^rs of th" hjifjt which thcv liad before they heard tin' Gosjn I. as aii\ in ihis distant land ean be? 4. ll his head." To the character of the Hindoos, as an honest, hospitable, benevolent and amiable people, 1 could bring further proofs than those contained in my last number ; even from the pens of those who have joined with interested m^n in vilifying them : Pinkerton, who paints his caricature of them in colours furnish- ed by Catholic and Protestant priests, is yet reluctantly forced to acknowledge, that ** they are at present in general highly civilized, and of the mt)st gentle and amiable manners." « Paul" endeavours to invalidate the testimony I adduced in favour of the Hindoo* character, by saving, that « Abulfazel was a Mahometan," and the <* Bengal officer an avowed infi- del."— Now, if all this were granted, 1 cannot perceive that in matters of fact thcv ought not to be credited! Jf no historical evidence were admitted, but that furnished by Christians, we must reject nearly all ancient history ! Herodotus, Livy, Thu- cydides, Tacitus. Plutarch, and a hundred others must be wholly laid aside. Abulfazel. though a Mahometan, was a most learned and respectable author. " His Co!>:pendium of the Philosophy of the Hindoos'Mn the Ayeen Acbery, is quoted as authority by the best writers, and his statements respecting the Hindoo faith 2S7 and manners, is amply confirmed by the most creditable mo- dern travellers. As to the Ben,^al officer, his writings give the strongest evidence of his belief in the doctrines of genuine Christianity. It will puzzle my opponent to prove that he ev er avowed himself an infidel — until ''Paul" give better evidence than mere assertion, we shall take the liberty to disbelieve him There is, however, one trait in th<- character of my witnesses, which gives great weight to thrir trstiinony : they were disin- terested men ! It would have better served the cause or detrac- tion espoused by my opponent, if his evidence had bei n of this character. With a view to a bishopric, Buclianan was betray- ed into many inaccuracies, his statements respecting tfie gene- ral moral character of the Hindoos are unworthy of credi(. It is probable, that his anxiety fur «* an Ecclesiastical establish- ment in British India," led him into many errors, and inri(»us, that whenever the aborigines of any country have long had the manners and customs of the professors of Christianity to copy after, they become vicious — they degenerate from their original simplicity and moral excellence ! Of this truth, many striking examples might be adduced. *< Their very gods are monsters of vice, says Mr. Ward.'* This is not the only instance of Ward's insincerity. — No one who is acqiiainted with the worship of the Hindoos, can be de- ceived by this assertion ; the characters of Bramah and Vishnu — the crea-ive and upholding energies of the Deity, are by no means ** monsters of vice." Tliey believe in one Su- preme Being, the author, the preserv er and governor of the world ; his attributes are described under various allegorical representations ; but the most enlightened Hindoos never lose sight of the fundamental doctrine of the unity of God. The Pundits" declare, that ** it was the Supreme Being, who, by his power, formed all creatures of the animal, veg<*table and ma- terial world, to be an ornament to the magazine of creation ; and whose comprehensive benevolence, selected man the centre of knowledge, to have dr^minion a»ul authority over the rest, and having bestowed upim him judg'iient and understanding, gave him supremacy over the corners of the world." From the « Mahaharat," Wilkins has translated a short episode, en- titled the Baghvat Geeta," which was ** designed to esta- blish the doctrine of the unity of tlje Godhead, aufi from a Jiist view of the Divine nature, to deduce an idea of that kind of worship most acceptable to a perfect being." Colonel Dow" 288 f|Uotes a passage from one of the sacred books of the Hindoos, showinj^ their sentiments concerning the Divine nature and per- fections : they say, <« As God is immaterial, he is above all con- ception ; as he is invisible, he can have no form, but trom what we behold of his wt>rks ; we may conclude, that he is eternal, omnipotent, knowing all things, and present every wherf." x\len capable of forming such ideas of the Deity, must ijavc perceived, that it was cmly by sanctity of hei^rt anei purity of manners, they could hope to gain the approbation of a being perfi'ct in .c/H.'?ness/' The misrepresentations of Ward are so gross, that tliey scarcely deserve a serious refutation : " Their scriptures," he says, ** encourage pride, iuipuritv, falsehood, and murder, and their heaven is a brothel." Unless my opponent can give ex- tracts from their scriptures to support these charges, I shall consider Ward as a wilful calumniator, and " Paul" as an accessary after the fact." 1 can give large quotations from the Veda," which go to prove that their scriptures encourage humility, purity 9 truths and the most sublime benevolence, not only to their friends and neighbours, but even to their enemies! and also that their heaven is a place of pure and spiritual enjoy- ment! But Ward's character has been rendered so suspicious by his recent conduct in India, that I admire my opponent should venture to rely on such *< a broken reed" for any sup- port to his views respecting the Hindoos ! ! ! The Abbe Dubois, a Roman Catholic priest — an interested witness — can hardly be viewed in a better light. His state- ments, that the Hindoos have «< little respect for parental au- thority, and little filial affection," are libels on their character, and may be easily refuted by authentic documents. — When he sa} s, that *< falsehood and p(»rjury are considered virtuous, when they tend to our own advantage," he is rather depicting his own character, than the character of the people he professes to de- scribe ! It is hardly too much to say, that there is scarcely a people further removed from these crimes than the natives of Hindostan ! ! His other statements are equally inconsistent with the best established facts ! — As to " Paul's" quotations from the ^< missionaries," I beg leave to consider them useless in the present discission ; it is a maxim pretty well established, that wAe7i a witness has any interest at stake in the decision of a question, he is incompetent / They are too deeply interested in the present case to be admitted as evidence. I have been amused at modern missionary ingenuity in the pursuit of money: there has certainly been nothing like it ex- hibited since the suppression of the Begging Friars ; and a very prominent feature of their scheme, is to represent foreign 2S9 nations as in the lowest state of moral degradation and wretcli- edness ; nations whose greatest miseries have arisen from their intercourse with the professors of Chris tianit}^^. For this pur- pose the^ have sent out innumerable pamphlets, pictures, bal- lads, sermons, and tales, calculated to work upon the benevo- lent affecrions, and all containing pathetic appeals to the PURSE ! ! — ^The country has been inundated by spiritual men- dicants, with every varit ty of pretext for raising money, with every species of argument to prove, that without money the world must everlastingly perish, and the Church of Christ be totally annihilated. In a publication lately made in one of the eastern states, a certain zealot in this cause, has undertaken to show how many millions of dollars it will take to " evan- gelize the world," and how reasonable it would be for the in- habitants of America and Europe to supply the enormous sum- The whole amount demanded by this modest missionary, may be estimated by the sum to be raised in the United States, which is only seven hundred and forty-eight millions three hundred and twenty-three thousand dollars !! a sum which I suppose, at a mo- derate calculation, must be seven times as much as the whole specie in the territory of the Union ! ! ! I said I had been amused at missionary ingenuity — it is true, the folly and extravagance of these men have sometimes ex- cited a smile — but on the whole, their conduct has excited the most painful reflections. It is calculated to produce on the pub- lic mind a most unfavourable impression resppcting the nature and genius of that blessed religion, which was introduced and propagated by our Lord and his disinterested Apostles ! It is calculated to produce a belief, that the divine nature and pow^- erful spirit of the Gospel, is utterly insufficient to effect the great purpose of the Deity, without the aid of a mercenary set of men — men, as different in character from the primitive min- isters of the church, as the character of Simon Magus was different from that of the Apostle Paul ! I have coveted no man's silver or gold,'' said the Apostle ! Modern missionaries covet every man's silver and gold! These hands," said he^ have ministered to my own necessities and to those that were with me." Our modern apostles depend entirely on the la- bours of others, and demand millions besides to aid them in their work ! ! ! — Ministers made by men must be supported by men — and ministers thus made and supported, have in all ages of the church, been stumbling blocks in the way of honest in- quirers after divine Truth. AMICUS. 37 290 Saturday, May 25, 1822, LETTER XXVII. ON MINISTERIAL SUPPORT. This controversy, if it has had no other, has had already one good effect. It has opened the eyes of the cointuunit}' to the danger of your doctrines. Many persons, who at tlie com- niencemt nt of this discussion were prepossessed in favour of your society, have expressed themselves surprised and asto- nished at the d'ictrinesyou avow. And I am persuaded the more your sentiments are known, the more will Cliristians be con- vinced your system is fundamentally erroneous. Between you and us there is a great gull fixed, which forever forbids our union in this world, if not in the next. Whenever you will give us your ideas of the Trinity^ I think Christians will be con- vinced \ou worship a different God. On the subject of ** internal light,'' wx might employ the year round, but I again offer to rest where we are, and proceed to the subject of the 1 rinity. After you have openl} prefer- red the religion of the Hindoos and of our western Indians, to Christianity ; — after you have denied the worship of Vishnu and Brahma to be idolatry 5 — after you have allowed the deists to have "saving grace — alter you have said "the religion of Christendom is falsely called the Christian religion," — and that "the heathen have always been made worse by the professors of Christianity," — the public will need no farther justification of all the charges I have brought against >ou, nor doubt your partiality for heathenism, and hostility to the religion of Jesus Christ. I think I have clearly proved that your doctrine of internal light," is an " ignis fatuus" in point of delusion, — a deadly poison to the spirit of Missions, and a deceitful sup- planter of the Scriptures of truth. On the subject of the Trinity, I have frequently and with sufficient fulness expressed my sentiments, and now wait for yours. Besides, the doctrine of Trinitarians is clearly and fully stated in all their Confessions of Faith ; but with regard to your sentiments, your writers and preachers say nothing, or only just enough to testify' your rejection of the commonly received doctrine. What your general sentiments on this subject are, is evident from the silence of your Catechism and Apologies , and from the late declaration of " Amicus," when speaking of the disputes between the Arians and Trinitarians of primitive times^ he says: "one believed in the Unity of God, the other thought the Deity was composed oj 'parts! No. 2, Chris. Rep. 1822. No candid reader will doubt, and I challenge " Amicus," to 291 tieny, that by the latter expression he meant to condemn and stigmatize the doctrine of the Trinity , — of course he sides with the Jlrians! .... If I am mistaken, explain yourselves, satisfy the public on this subject. Whil*^ waiting for your sentiments on the subject of the Tri- nity, 1 will by way of episode, notice another hobby of yours^ that of ministerial siqyport. It is impossible lo hear many of your sermons, or read many pagf^s of your books, without being struck with your indiscrimi- nate opposition to all ministers of the Gospel who are not of your own society. Your chief objections to other societies seem to centre in their ministers; and such is your «♦ charity" for the ministers of other persuasions, that mnc of your members can attend their preaching but on peril of your high displeasure. The chief objection brouglit against the preachers of other denominations, is that they receive a regular pecuniary support from the people, to whom they minister. On this subject 1 sub- mit the following co'isiderations : 1. Ministers cannot live on air. They are «men of like pas- sions" and necessities with other people. They cannot well do without food and raiment, and lodging for themselves and fami- lies. Now, for these temporal wants they must themselves pro- Tide, or others must provide for them. 2. They ought not to be necessitated to provide for them- selves, as such employment will always interfere with that Avork, which ought to employ all their time. True, if they never trouble themselves about the flock, except on the sabbath ; if they bestow no other labour on their people, than simply to rise in meeting once in a while, and talk at random for an hour or two; if they make no sacrifices for the church, and for six days in the week are wholly engaged in their own temporal concerns, reason says they have no claim to support. But if, like David, they will not "serve God with that which cost them naught;" if they labour in the word and doctrine, are instant in season and out of season, preaching the word ; — if as good shepherds they are employed in watching the flock, — as stewards distributing bread to the household, — as watchmen guarding the walls of Zion ; if they visit the sick and the inquiring, go into the highways and hedges to compel people to come to the Gospel feast; in short, if they "do the work of an Evangelist and make full proof of their ministry," they will have labour and care enough without the care of a store or farm upon their shoulders. 3. The Apostles refused having any thing to do with the temporal concerns even of the church. " It is not reason, that we should leave the word of God and serve tables. We will give 292 ourselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word,^^ Acts vi. 4. And Paul exhorts Timothy, Meditate upon these things, ^ire thyself wholly to them, that thy profiting may appear unto all," 1 Tim. iv. 15. I'he worls. of the ministry is as im- portant and as arduous now as eighteen hur^dred years ago. But ministers cannot now, any more than in primitive times, **give themselves wholly" to these things, « he continually in prayer and the ministry of the word," unless their temporal neci ssities are supjdied by others, and they are relieved from worldly cares. Therefore they ought to he supported. 4. God commanded the old Testament church to support their ministers^ therctbie it is the duty of the church, now to sup- port her ministry, Num. xviii, 20, 24. The ministers of religion under the Mosaic dispensation were to be entirely devoted to the ministry, and to be entirely supported by the people. The Le- vites had no inheritance with ihe other tribes, but only forty eight cities for their habitation ; they were to have no landed property, except a few acres about their cities for their gardens and cattle, and were to lieve on the contributions of the people, Kum. XXXV. 2, 3. The Israelites v.ere commanded not to for- sake them. <*Take heed that thou forsake not the Levite go long as thou shalt live upon the earth," Deut. xii. 19. In the days of Nehemiah, the Levites being neglected, had to resort to other labours for their support, for which the people were reproved, Neh xiii. 10. "And I perceived that the portions of the Levites had not been given them, for the Levites had fled every one to his field ; then contended I with the rulers, and said: Why is the house of Godforsaken? Then brought all Judah the tithes. &c." Now. though the letter of these laws is repeaU d, the spirit is still binding I do not say it is the duty of the spiritual Israel to give the same amount or the same pro- portion, but it is still their duty to support the ministry. The church is still obligated so to provide for its ministers, that they may not be compelled to **go into the field" to procure bread, but may "give themselves wholly'"' to their appropriate work. But lost you should say, it is unfair to reason from the Law to the Gospel, I observe, 5. I only follow Apostolic example. In the 9th chapter 1st Corinthians, the Apostle pleads his right to a temporal support, in a way that no gainsayer can resist. " Say I these things as a man, or saith the Law the same also ? For it is written in the Law of Moses : Tiiou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen ? Or saith he it alto- gether for our sakes ? For our sakes no doubt this is written, that lie that plougiieth should plough in hope. If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing, if we shall reap 293 your carnal things ? Do ye not know, that they which minister about holy things, live of the things of the temple ? and they which wait at the altar arc partakers with the altar ? Even so hath the Lord ordainedf that they which preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel,^' 1 Cor. ix. 8, 18. In these verses, it is evident, that the Apostle reasons from the Law to the Gospel, or fi* nn the Mosaic to tlie Christian dispensation, and infers that as they who ministered at the altar, iivei! bv the altar, so they who preach the Gospel, should live by the Crospel. In other words, they should be wholly given" to the service of the sanctuary, and be <* w!»ollv supported^ by the oftVrings of the sanctuary. 6. Our Lord positively forbade his Apostles to make the least provision for their temporal supports Malt. x. 9, 10. *• Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, nor shoes, nor yet staves." — Why ? — " For the workman is worthy of his meat,'' Here we are taught two things : first, that ministers ought to be intent only on the work of the ministry, not providing in the least for their ' temporal support ; and secondly, that the people for whom they I « work," are obligated to give them ** meat," or proper main- ' tenance. The argument needs no application. 7. The common sense of all denominations has led them to devise the means of supporting the ministry. There is not a church in Christendom, however it may cry out against <* sala- ries" and" hirelings," but always feels itself bound in common justice to defray the expences of those, who serve them in spi- ritual as well as in secular things. It is perfectly unreasonable to expect a man to ** go a warfare at liis ow n cliarges ; — or to plant a vineyard and not eat the fruit thereof; — or to feed a flock and not eat the milk of the flock," 1 Cf)r. ix. 7. Those churches, if there be any such, wiio require from their minis- ters no sacrifices, either of time or labour, — which have no wish that , that it is lawful for //im, to receive what is nect^ssary and convenient. 1 liat which we •oppose in this matter is, First, that it should be ccmstrain^d and limited. Secondly, that it shoidd hi superfluous, chargeable and sumptu- ous. 1 hirdly, the man:lVst abuse thereof, &c," Ap. p. 3^2. As to ** constraining" a salary, 1 know of no such practice in this country, or if ii exist it would fiod no friend in me. As to a superfluous and sumptuous" salary, it is neither to be expect- ed nor demanded. And as to the abuse" of this or any other privilege, it is wrong tooff*er it as an argument against the thing itself. Lastly ; Four own practice ought to teach you more charity on this subject. You will not deny that the expences of your preachers are defrayed ; and when they have a family to sup- port, and feel themselves *< moved" to travel and visit the churches, yt)U feel yourselves bound to pay not only their per- sonal expences, but to contribute sufficient for the maintenance of their family. I do not blame you for this. To do less would be a sin against comnum honesty, would be as unchristian and unjust as to take mimey from a poor preacher's pocket, when he was poor and you were rich. But I blame you for condemn- ing others, f(»r doing that, which you do yourselves. Your PREACHERS NEVEK SUFFER FOK WANT OF TEMPORAL SUPPORT. Among those denominations whom you condemn for paying salaries, nine out of ten of the ministers are in a temporal point of view, continual suff*erers. A poor preacher, who should come down from Philadelphia to Wilmington, to perform a labour of love among you, even though he should not utter one word, would probably receive double the compensation from your society, that a preacbrrof any other denominaMon would re- ceive from his stfciety for sioiilar services. And yet you are continually exclaiming ae:ainst *< hirelings," ♦• salary men,*' <* dark letter-learned clergy," •< mercenary priesthood,"-— in reff-rf-nce to men w ho, to say the least, are as free from covet- ousT»ess, have as muc)) disinterested love for souls, and are as willing to spend and be spent, as any preachers of your deno- mination. PAUL. 295 Seventliedatft 6th mo. 1, 1823. LETTER XXVIII. One of the early cliarges brought against us by our modern "Paul," is, tliat we ** disluui' nr the v'-criptures." 1 think e\evy candid reader of tlie essa>s()t Amicus will by this time perceive tlie faiiatv ot this charge. Happily for the society whose views i advutate, its doctrines, its mmisti}, its various testimonies are s<» p» rfectly in acc(»rdanc«^ with the sentiments of the inspired peninen, that our distinguishing peculiarities as well as those truths which we hold in C(»mm«m with (»ther Chris- tians, are not only supported by the general tenor and spirit of the Holy Scriptures, but by the most lucid, the most positive Scripture tex's. Amicus, in support of these testimonies, has been careful in the present disi ussion always to refer to the sa- cred records. The great mass of auth(»rities which 1 have quoted from this source, remains unanswered by my opponent — and I will venture to say, must ever remain unanswered! To the Holy Scriptures we refer for the support and confirmation of every tenet that we hold ; and by their clear unequivocal testimony, we are willing the> should stand or fall. Our reli- gion is the religion of Christ and his Apostles, stripped ot the absurd and awkward appendages wifh which pnesicraft and superstition have shrouded it in the night of ignorance and apf^stacy, from <« the faith once delivered to the saints." Now, I know of no set of men who so much dxsiionour the Scriptures as my oppon^ nt and his adherents. Their general practice exhibits little less than a constan' scene of dishonour to the Scriptures! What is the language their creed proclaims to the world ? Does it not say, that the holy penmen were in- competent to express the ideas communicated by Divine inspi- ration— and that the language of the Bible is so obscure that it cannot be understood, without the aid of a company of priests? And what better language do their Catechisms and Confessions of Faith hold out to the world? Do they not declare, that our Lord and his Apostles were too ignorant to convey by their ministry and writings, a clear idea of the truths they wished to communicate? And therefore, ihat it was necessary that a set of theologians should, by tlie introduction heathenish terms and new fangled words, help them to express their meaning! !! Now, if these proceedings do not *• dishonour the Scriptures," I confess I do not understand how they can be dishonoured ! To reject the Scriptures altogether, would not throw a thou- sandth part of the dishonour upon them that priestcraft has done ! The man who should declare his disbelief in the Bible, would tell us that such was the dark and prejudiced state of 296 his own mind, it could not be convinced by the most demonstra- tive evidence ; and I cannot perceive that he would thus throw any more dishonour on the Scriptures, than he would throw on the philosophy of Newton, by telling us that he did not believe thaf the w^orld was round ! But for tlie professed friends of the Scriptures to tell us, that the Scripture-writers were too igno- rant clearly to express their meaning, is to do all they can to dishonour thern ! The mischief that has been done to the cause of Christianity, by the officious conduct of these men, is incalculable. It was a powerful means of involving the church in Cimmerian dark- ness— in a deep and deadly apostacy from the true and living faith ; an apostacy from which she has yet but very partially recovered ! It was a means of introducing her into those scan- dalous scenes of war, bloodshed, persecution and bigotry, which have turned away more souls from Christ, than all her avowed enemies, by a thousand fold ! And what have the creeds, adopted by the churches since the reformation, done for the cause of Christianity ? — No man, who is tolerably' well versed in the history of the church, for the two last centuries, can be at a moment's loss to answer ! They have made more dissentitm and schism, than will be healed for ages ! They have made more infidels than Hobbes, Hume, Paine, and all the host of deistical writers, and their adherents, put together ! ! ! The introduction of the two words " Trinity'* and »* Sacrament," the former of theological invention^ the lat- ter the name of a Romish military oath, has produced more mis- chief, more jangling, more disc{»rd, than any other single cause ! — And all this is done by the j^'^ofessed friends of the Scriptures ! ! ! By tliose, who tell us that " the Bible is the su- preme and only standard of faith and practice /" Now I appeal to the sober sense of my readers, of every reli- gions denomination, if there can be any conduct more inconsis- tent, more absurd, more mischievous, than this is ? I think it must now be evident, that however my opponent may profess to venerate the Scriptures, he dishonours them in practice. If I be not mistaken, his conduct and temper are as unlike the candid, benevolent, amiable, and affectionate spirit of the Evangelists and Apostks, as his doctrine is inimical to theirs ! Not content witli consigning three-fourths of the hu- man family to everlasting destruction without a crime — in his last number, he has assumed the seat of Abraham, and fixed a great gulf between himself and a large community of Chris- tians, ^< which forever forbids our union in this world, if not in the next,'^ The plain meaning of which is, that i/" there be no future state of purgatory^ we can never come together in any 297 world ! And as lie lias placed himself on tlie liappy side of this gulf, WE must all go with Dives into eternal perdition ! ! ! What a notable spirit of ciiarity does this champion of Calvinism ex- hibit to the world ! Now, with such tempers and opinions as these, I think (on our own account) we need not be much afflicted if we never come together — with notions so gloomy, and doctrines so unscriptu- ral, I believe his company would tend to damp the enjoyment of his companions in any state ! I sincerely wish him the bless- ing of a little more " internal ligiit." I would, before 1 proceed further, wish explicitly to state, that in exposing the absurdity and inconsistency of my oppo- nent's doctrine, 1 do not intend to cast any reflectitm on the re- ligious society of which he is a member. I have the pleasure of being intimately acquainted with a number of that religious community, who abhor the doctrine of" Paul" as much as I do; and I fully believe, that a large proporti(m of them are too en- lightened to feel any gratitude for his public appearances in the present discussion, i know tiiat many of their most respecta- ble members, entirely disapprove his sentiments. The march of truth, though slow, is certain — it must prevail, and will pre- vail. The doctrines advanced by Amicus, I believe, are Scrip- tural ; if they be so, they will correspond with the impressions of truth in every mind ; they will accord with the discoveries of that Divine " internal light that lighteth every man that eometh into the world which, as it is yielded to, will remove every prejudice, and fill up that " gulf" which " Paul" would Jjit" between us. I will now notice a few of my opponent's remarks in his last number : *< You," says he, << have openly preferred the reli- gion of the Hindoos, and the western Indians, to Christianity." If my readers would see how untrue, how uncandid is this as- sertion, I would wish them to consult the preceding numbers of Amicus ! — I referred to the Hindoos and Indians of America, merely to show, that their moral character and religious senti- ments, gave proof, that God had not left himself without a wit- ness in the hearts of those people ; but that, according to the Apostle's assertion, '* the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to ail men." This was the whole drift of ray argument, and not to prove that the religion of the Hindoos and western Indians was preferable to Christianity. I had pre- pared myself with authentic documents, to illustrate and con- firm my views, which, as ** Paul" has abandoned the subject, need not now be presented to the public, but which may here- after enrich tlie columns of the <* Repository," and will fur- nish a rich feast to all who delight to see the evidences of the S8 298 love and mercy of our adorable Creator, through Christ Jesus our Lord, to his rational family ! « Christianity," stripped of the extraneous matter, which, in the dark ages, has been attached to it, by politic priests and interested" men, is the pure truth, to which nothing can be preferable ! — It is " undefiled religion" in all its native h)veli- ness ! — It is the love of God manifested to man ! — It is the Holy Spirit, working in him all amiable tempers and holy disposi- tions ! — It is the pearl of great price, for which the spiritual merchantman is willing to sell allf that he may buy it. — It is, in fine, a religion as different from the noisy, pompous, fashion- able religion of the present day, as the religiral excellence." And I appeal to tlie histor} nf every European settlement of any standing, for tiie truth of the assertion. Amicus is prepared to prove his position, if *» Paul" dares to deny it! My opponent thinks he has clearly proved, that our doctrine of •» internal light" is an ignis faruus in point of delusion. Now, 1 think, tlnit if he has proved any thing, he has proved that himself is involved in great internal darkness," In- deed, the wliole scope of his addresses to us seems to be in ac- cordance with this idea! But " our doctrine is a deadly poison to the spirit of mis- sions." Now, what are we to utiderstand by the spirit of mis- sions? If by it we are to understand the spirit of making money by a professed zeal for missions; then, 1 suppose, we must admit that our doctrine is a deadly poison to this spirit ! It is a poison to Simony in all its forms. Wherever money is introduced into the church as a compensation for religious service^ there the spirit of Simon Magus has come again from his place! A spirit that was severely rebuked by the Apostle, on its first appearance in the church ; a spirit that is contrary to every precept and example of the primitive believers — Simon the sorcerer excepted ! I would not, however, be understood to mean, that the so- ciety of Friends are inimical to missions under the direction of the Great Head of the church. That society has, perhaps, more missionaries abroad, than any other society of Christians: if we accept the word *• missionary" to mean those who travel abroad in the ministry of the Gospel, Ever since its first ap- pearance as a society, its ministers have been remarkable for their indefatigable zeal in propagating their views of Divine truth. No human laws could ever prevent them from endea- vouring to labour in the Gospel of Clirist — no persecution could deter them — they have encountered every difficulty, they have made every sacrifice in the performance of their religions duty in this respect, as the annals of Great Britain and our New- England colonies will abundantly testify. And they have ever preached ** without money and without price." The next observation of ** Paul" that I shall notice, is the following : « It is impossible to hear many of your sermons, or 300 read many pages in your bonks, without being struck witli your indiscriminate opposition to all ministers of tUe Gospel who are not of your society." In this case, my opponent manifests either a want of candor or discrimination; our testimony is di- rected not against any Gospel minister ! It is levt lle 30>i First : The doctrine of the Trinity is a fundamental poinL And upon tliis we have a right to know ^^our sentiments before we aeknowledge you as Christians. That it is a fundamental point is evident 1. From ?he arguments produced in my XlVth Letter, to which for the sake ot brevity, the reader is referred. 2. From the unanimous sentiments of the primitive church. On this subject I would refer «» Amicus" to a small volume now in his hands; to wit: ^^MilLer^s Letters on Unitarianism,^ in which he will find a detail of facts, and an exhibition of quota- tions from Barnabas, Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Theophiius, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen and Cyprian, demonstrating that the doctrine of the Trinity was not only held by the early Christians, but held as essential or fundamental to Christianity. Letter iv, 3. That this doctrinii is viewed as fundamental, is evident from the unanimous concurrence of all the Creeds in Christendom. Not a single Confession of Faith can be mentioned, in which the doctrine of the Trinity is not recognized, and not only recog- nized, but set in the very vafi of the phalanx of truth. It is un- necessary to make particular quotations, until you will dare to contradict a fact so universally acknowledged. Barclay's Apo- logy and Catechism, for their si/e7ice on this subject stand alone, and for that silence have alwa^^s been suspected of some secret rottenness by the Christian community. Upon this subject, as on the great doctrine of Jltonement, which depends upon the Tri- nity, he observes a silence, which is irreconcilable with Chris- tian frankness and honest dealing. Secondly : The rejectors of this doctrine, when detected, have ever been excluded from the church. Cerintiius, Marcion, Ebion, Theodotus, Artemon, Noetus, Sabellius, Paul of Samosata, Arius, Macedonius, and all in early times who infringed on this doctrine, were at once if ministers, deposed from the minis- try and excommunicated from the church. On this subject the author above referred to remarks : (Let. v.) ** Indeed 1 can can- didly assure you, that after devoting much of my life to reading of this kind, I cannot recollect a single instance in all antiquity in which any individual, or body of individuals, who were known to deny the Trinity of persons in the Godhead, were regarded as Christians, or suffered to remain in the communion of the church," p. 170. "Those who considered the Saviour as a mere man,- those who regarded him as the frst and most ex- altedof all creatures ; those who held a mere nominal, and denied a real Frinity, that is, who held to a Trinity names but not of persons, were each pronounced in their turn, by the universal church, to be corrupters of the truth, and were publicly treated 305 as such." — It is a fact, that such heretics were not only ex- cluded from the Catholic or general church, but their right to the name of Christian was solemnly and formally denied." All this he confirms by a particular detail of facts. — Now, quere, if t/oit reject this doctrine, are we worse than the primitive church in denj'ing to you the name of Christian," and refusing to consider your society as any part of the Christian chiirch? Of your various Apologies, Catechisms, Treatises, in which you have published your religious creed to the world, this doc- trine, upon which the whole system of salvation rests — this doc- trine, so dear to the primitive church and to Christians in every age, forms no part ! It is unreasonable, therefore, to suppose that you believe it. Had you attached the least importance to it, it could not but have been mentioned. The « God" of Bar- clay has not an attribute peculiar to the God of Israel, not an attribute to distinguish him from the God of the deist ; and the relie:ion which he advocates, is simply wMiat is called natural religion, dressed up with a few scriptural terras by way of orna- ment ! I defy you to prove the contrary. Thirdly : Heretics on this subject, anticipating excom- munication as the consequence of an avowal of their doctrines, have always studiously concealed their sentiments ! In proof of this I would refer to the very popular volume above named. My position is, and I believe most sincerely that it may be maintained, that in all ages, from the time of Ebion to the pre- sent hour, when the mass of the surrounding population was orthodox. Unitarians have manifested a disposition to conceal their sentiments^ to equivocate, and even solemnly deny them when questioned, and to disguise themselves under the garb of orthodoxy, to a degree which no other sect, calling itself Chris- tian, ever manifested," p. 245. The truth of the above charge he fully proves in his seventh letter. Irenaeus says : it was the practice in his day, for those who denit-d the Trinity, to ** use alluring discourses — to pretend to preach like us — and to complain that although their doctrine be the same as ours^ we call them heretics," In like manner, Paul of Samosata^ who also denied the doctrine of the Trinity, when suspected by his brethre n, and examined on the subject before a general coun ti!. ** mani- fested so much skill in the arts of concealment and equivocation, that for a considerable time they could do nothing in his case. In the first council that was convened to try him, he went so far as to declare oii oaea and yes; between a drab coat and a black one between giving to a minister because he is poor, and giving to him because he is a minister; between paying a preacher behind the curtain, and paying him in open day! How much more important to be thus **tything mint, t anise and cummin," than attending to the weightier matters of the law !" Reader, I am not disposed to trifle either with your time or J patience, in noticing his last address ; but would proceed im- mediately to a new subject, did I not know that this is just what <* Amicus" wants, who would immediately make it the occasion - of concealing still longer his sentiments on the subject of the Trinity. He and the society to which he belongs, would gladly have you believe, it is of little consequence what God a man worships, " Jehovah, Jove, or Lord," provided he gives him the title of God. And so long as you trust in " Christ" for sal- vation, that it is of little consequence who or what you mean by this title, whether a distinct person of the Trinity, or mere conscience. And provided you talk a great deal about the Spirit," it is of little consequence whether you mean the Spirit of God, or a false spirit. In short, provided you use Scriptural termSf it is not essential you should hold one Scrip' tural idea. Should " Amicus" condescend to tell us any thing upon the subject of the Trinity, he will probably endeavour to evade — 1. By finding fault with the term, as not found in Scripture. The same fault may be found with half the words used in preaching or in religious conversation, and our language would be barren indeed, and preachers very much fettered, if they could never use a word but what the Apostles used. So long as we confine ourselves to the doctrines of Scripture, we are at liberty to I choose the most expressive terms. And if you do not deny the ' doctrine of the Bible T)n this subject, we care little about the term. Any evasion, therefore, on this point, the public will ob- serve. The question is, do you hold the doctrine which Chris- tians express by the term Trinity ?" 2. He may evade, by saying, *< we believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." Answer ; so did Socinus, hut he denied the divinity of both Son and Spirit. " But we acknow- 40 314 ledge the divinittf of the Son and Spirit.'* Answer ; so did Sa- bellkis, yet he held there was but one person in the Godhead. Tiie same Person who in Heaven is called the Father, (accord- ing to his system,) when incarnate, is called the Son, and when diffused among Christians, is called the Boly Ghost. (This, I think, is the common sentiment among your society. But any one will perceive at a glance, that this at once destroys all idea of atonement, unless the same person could atone to himself, and also nullifies other fundamental truths.) Many other eva- sions he may make, if so disposed ; but if he is willing to make a fair statement of your sentiments on this fundamental point, let him state distinctly what he understands, and what your so- ciety understand by the terms ** Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.'* Do you understand them to be three distinct names of the same person? or three distinct ;;erso?is of the same Godhead? There are two things in his last address which I would no- tice at this time, were I not afraid he will take advantage of any other subject I may touch, to waive the subject of the Trinity. I will, however, run the risk. The first regards his remarks on the subject of " war, the- atres and slavery,'' all of which are very good in their place ; but in relation to this controvervsy are mere waste paper, and are no more in point than a dissertation upon drunkenness. On these subjects we have no dispute. On these subjects, so far from bringing any charge against you, in the very commence- ment of this correspondence, I avowed my approbation of your doctrines. I will thank Amicus" to observe his own rule, to answer old charges, before he takes up those of recent date" — or takes up charges that were never brought. His whole design in taking up these trifling subjects at this time, appears to be to divert the attention the public from a subject on which he feels himself severely pinched ! The above sub- jects, strictly speaking, are no part of religion, any more than the buttons of your coat are a part of your soul. A man, on principles of mere humanity and sound policy, may be as strong- ly opposed to oaths, slavery and war, as any of your society can be, and yet be a deist or an atheist. What should hinder? Your opposition to these civil and political evils, therefore, does not prove you a Christian society, though I fear that the greater part of your " Christianity" lies in such superficial virtues. The other thing which I would notice, is the high compliment he pays the Christian religion ; he calls it *< the purest and best religion that was ever revealed to the human family!!" He does not consider it the only religion that ever was reveal- ed ; but of the many systems which have been revealed, he he thinks this the « purest and best." Accordingly, some time 315 since, he ridiculed the idea of attempting to convert the Hin- doos to our kind of religion." And 1 have one of your Tracts lyin^ by me, entitled Thoughts on Reason and Revelation, especuillij the revelation of the Scnptures,^' All which are in- dicative of your lax sentiments on this subject. Now, a per- son of your style of sentiment, might go on to say, <* of all the Gods ever worshipped, Jehovah is one of the greatest and the best !" — *• Of all the Saviours ever trusted in, Jesus of Naza- reth is one of the safest and best, — not excepting Mahomet, Confucius, or George Fox:'' — Of all the Bibles in the world, that of the Jews is by far the finest and best." Nosv, what Christian does not abhor such compliments ! ! ! Cliristianity ab- hors such comparisons, and condemns all other ** religions," as mucli as truti) does a lie. The Gospel pronounces all other systems, and those who preach them, "accursed." Gal. i. 6. The Bible does not say, ** there is no better name," but " there is NONE oTHEK name given under heaven whereby we can be saved." And to deny Christianity this exclusive divinity, has always been considered equivalent to a total rejection of her au- thority. The public will forgive me for occasionally noticing such in- cidental declarations of my opponent ; as it is from these ex- pressions, w hen your writers are off their guard, your secret sentiments are betrayed. You always appear, especially in controversy, as all heretics love to appear, en masque ; and it is only when in an unguarded moment the mask drops olf, w^e can detect your real character, and put you to the blush ! On the subject of ministerial support, if *• Amicus" chooses to re- new the subject, after we shall have discussed the doctrine of the Trinity, I will correspond with him till he is tired. PAUL. Seveiiih'day^ Gth mo. 29, 1822. LETTER XXX. « But this I confess unto thee^ that, after the way which they (the priests) call heresy so worsJiip I the God of my fathers, believ. ing all things which are written in the law and the prophets,^^ Acts xxiv. li. It is no new thing fortliosc who hold up the truth in opposi- tion to the errors of interested men, to be charged with hercs?!. So early as the time of Christ-s ministry, we find "the chief Priests and the Pharisees*' in council against the Lord's anoint- ed, saying : if w e let him thus alone all men will believe on 316 him, and the Romans will come and take away our place,^' John xi. 48. This was a pinching circumstance for these mercenary priests ! To them " all Judah brought the tithe of the corn and the wine and the oil." — It was their place to receive these offer- ings under the old Law. — But when Christ came to introduce a more excellent ministry, which was established upon better promises," Heb. viii. 6. teaching the doctrine, freely ye have received, freely give," — •* from that day forth they took counsel together to put him to death." To lose one's place is a serious consideration under any circumstance ; but for a luxurious idle set of men, unaccustomed to honest occupation, to lose their place, is intolerable ! — And a woe, as far as may be in tlieir power, shall be denounced and inflicted upon every individual or society that dare to deprive them of it ! In proof of tliis position, we refer to the conduct of Ananias the hi^h priest, toward the Apostle Paul, Acts xxiii. This dis- interested Ap(»stle had been engaged in his ministry, to shew, that by the coming and death of Christ ** the handwriting of ordinances was taken out of the way," the priesthood that took tithes was changed; a pure, spiritual, and /ree ministry sub- stituted, and consequentK that Ananias and his colleagues must lose their places. Now mark the conduct of the priests, and we sliall see that it presents us with a perfect model of their into- lerant proceedings in all the succeeding ages of the church 1 At this time the territory called *» the holy land" was under the civil authority of the Romans; of course the priests had little more than the power to censure or vilify their opponents ! This want of power thev endeavoured to supply by injluence I As they could not inflict corporeal punishment on Paul, they used every means to induce the civil authorities to do it for them. — For this purpose they hrought *« a certain orator, named Ter- tullus," who, well skilled in the sophistry of their theological school, was selected as their mouth- piece. But this college- bred rhetorician, though a willing instrument in the hands of the priests, had a difficulty to encounter which put him to his wits end. — The civil p«)wers could not punish opinions, they sought for facts, whereon to ground a legal process, some overt act at least, which had a tendency to subvert the Roman govern- ment or injure the constitution of ci^ il society. — INow every part of the Apostle's conduct — every principle of his religion were directed to promote the peace and hapi)inessof man, both in this world and in thatwMiich is to come, and poor Tertiillus, like my oppiment in our case, had to point to the horrible con- sequences of his faith — had to tell the chief cajitain that the Ap'»stle was <* a pestilent fellow" — *« a mover of sedition" — **a ring leader of the sect of the Nazarenes." — Like a skilful 317 orator, lie deals first in general charges, reserving his heaviest accusation to the last — A ring leader of the sect of tne Naza- renes !" heresy ! heresy ! In his first address ** Paul" tells us, that he "should do in- justice to himself and us, not to acknowledge his approbation of our general character. Of our morality and amiabiliiy, our civil integrity, alftctionate manners, examplary simplicity, our prudence and economy ; and, he adds, of our efficient inter- nal discipline, he has the highest admiration !" In a subseqcient production, page 62, he acknowledges his " full belief, that there are amongst us real saints It seems he can find as little fault with our character as Tertullus found with that of the Apostle ! But all this will not do ! If w e cannot sub- scribe to the absurd and unscriptural doctrines of the Athana- sian Creed, if we cannot believe impossibilities, we cannot be Christians, and like Tertullus, our redoubtable opponent raises the cry of heresy ! heresy ! It is well for us, that here his power terminates I But though his power terminates here, he fondly hopes bis influence may extend a little further. — He has endeavoured to prepossess his reader with an idea that we are not only heretics, but conscious heretics — that we not only hold erroneous doc- trines, but know them to be erroneous I that lest our errors on this subject should come to light, we have, since the days of our founder, generally maintained a suspicious silence/' In pub- lishing to the world such a sentiment, ** Paul" has either been guilty of wilful misrepresentation or of inexcusable igno- rance, as the writings of our most distinguished authors, pub- lished more than a century ago, will abundantly demonstrate. George Fox in his *• Great Mistery Unfolded," is very full and clear on this subject; Francis Howgill, Isaac Pennington, Thomas Story, William Penn and maiiy others, very explicitly declare our abhorrence of the doctrine, which supposes the distinct existence of three persons in One God." For our op- ponent to say we have never dared to avow our sentiments on the subject of the Trinity," is to shtMv that he is grossly ignorant of the society he professes to describe, I know of no people who have dared^ through the most inhuman persecution, inflicted on them by the orthodox Trinitarians^ so fully to avow their senti- ments on this subject ! as I expect by quotations from their writings clearly to demonstrate. Whether we "dare at this time" to speak plainly to this question will soon be seen. As truth needs no disguise. Amicus has no fear to expose her — as error needs only to be seen in order to be rejected by disinte- rested men, so Amicus will be gratified by this opportunity to bring her to the light. As to the cry of « heresy," — the last 318 resort of a mercenary clergy — the last refuge of a waning priestliood, it were perhaps too hard to deprive then™ of it, even if we might ; we will therefore leave them, in the undisturbed possession of all the comfort, which, in this enlightened age, it is calculated to afford them ! ?! 1 now proceed to consider *< Paul's" three queries contained in his xxviiith address to us, pages 304,305, — tow hicii, when he clearly and honestly explains himself, I shall he very glad to give •* an honest unevasive answer!" — And first: <*Do you believe the commonly received doctrine of the Trinity ?" Now I honestly declare, that I never knew that there was any eommonly received doctrine of the Trinity ! The Trinitarians are so split to pieces, and widely divided on this t«co7?ijjre/ie7i- sible doctrine, that it requires more discernment than has fallen to the lot of Amicus, to discover what is ** tlie commonly receiv- ed doctrine," or whether there be any such ! Are ** Waterland" and the rest of the Athanasians orthodox, who assert, that «* there are three proper distinct persons entirely equal, and in- dependant upon each other, yet making up one and the same Being? — Or is <* Howe" correct, who supposes there are three distinct eternal Spirits — or distinct intelligent hypostases, each having his ow n distinct intelligent nature, united in such an in- explicable manner, tliat, on account of their perfect harmony, consent, affection, and mutual self consciousness, they may be called one God, as properly, as the different corporeal, sensi- tive, and intellectual natures united, may be called one man ; or, are Owen" and the bishops ** Pearson" and " Bull" in the right, who are of tlie opinion, that, *• though God the Father is the fountain of the Deity, the whole divine nature is communicat- ed from the Father to the Son," (and so the Father must have no divine nature left !) and the whole divine nature is commu- nicated from the Father and the Son to tlie Holy Spirit," (and so the Father and the Son must have no divine nature left !) and yet the Father and the Son are not separable nor separated from the Divinity, but still exist in it, and are most intimately united to it ! ! ! — Or is *♦ Burnet" in the true faith, who main- tains that there is one self existent, and two dependant beings in the Godhead ?" and asserts, that, the two latter are so united and inhabited by the former, that by virtue of that union, divine perfections may be ascribed, and divine worship be paid to them. — Or is Wallis" a safe guide to orthodoxy, who thought the distinction between the three persons was only modal ! ac- cording to the opinion of archbishop Tillotson ! !" Or was *< Watts" sound in the faith when he maintained, that there is One Supreme God dwelling in the human nature of Christ — which human nature he supposes to have existed the first of all 319 ( features ! — and wlien lie spoke of the Divine Logos as the wisdom of God, and the Holy spirit as the Divine power — or the influence or effect of it ? Or are all these learned theologians wrong ? — and are we tosuhscrihe to the Roman Catholic creed of Athanasias, in order to be orthodox? As I very much doubt whether there ever has been any commonly received doctrine on this fundamental," this all-important'' point, since the day when fire and faggot were the portion of every man, woman and child, who did not yield a full and unqualified assent, to every proposition of a cruel blood thirsty priest-hood, I shall expect my learned opponent w ill condescend to give us ample instruc- tion in the case, that at least, we may not <* perish for lack of knowledge ! ! !" Secondly — Do you consider Anti-trinitarians as in a funda- mental error ? In other words, do you believe that all who do not believe that God is divided into three parts, " three divine persons," and yet not three persons, but one Divine person, are fundamentally wrong, and consequently go to the bottom- less pit, because they cannot believe impossibilities? Answer; I confidently believe we hold no such blasphemous opinions! We should be very sorry to think that such men as the excel- lent Isaac Newton, John Locke, Dr. Lardner, Dr. Samuel Clarke, Hoadly, Law, Blackburn, Emlyn, Lindsey, Price, Jebb, Wakefield, Chandler, Taylor, Benson, Cappe, Kippis, Bishop Clayton, Abernethy, Leland, Lowman, Palmer, Tyrr- whit, Disney, Kenrick, Simpson, Toulmin, Reynolds, Estlin, Enfield, Bretland, Turner, Elwall, Biddle, Firman, Hopton, Haines, George Fox, Robert Barclay, Francis Howgill, Wil- liam Penn, and many others who might be named, were all con- signed to eternal perdition for disbelieving what, in truth, no body can believe, who retains the use of his rational faculties, unless it be possible to believe contradictory propositions ! Thirdly — Can you justify your silence on this subject?" If my readers wish to know how silent we have been on this subject, let them consult George Fox's " Great Mystery Un- folded," small folio 16h9 ; Robert Barclay's Truth Vindicate ed," folio ; « Howgill's Works," folio ; " Isaac Pennington's Works," quarto ; William Penn's " Sandy Foundation Shaken," and his Select Works," folio, all published more than a cen- tury ago I These works will convince the most obstinate ad- versary, that the people w ho my opponent says, « never dared to avow their sentiments on the subject of the Trinity," have not generally maintained a suspicious silence,'* and I trust they will convince many of a different character — many who are seeking the truth as it is in Jesus," that our doctrines on this point are « the doctrines of the Mw Testainent,'' sustained 320 by sound reason, and with a strength of argument which no sophistry can withstand. For the satisfaction of those who may not have the opportunity of perusing these writings, I in- tend to quote some parts of them in my future essays on this subject. AMlCUti. Saturday J July 6, 1822. LETTER XXX. ON TBE TRINITY. « Great is the mystery of Godliness.'^ 1 Tim. iii. 16. I CONGRATULATE *» Amicus" and the public, on the frank- aess and boldness of his last communication. There is a mean- ness in tlie ccincealmt nt of our religious sentiments, which every Christian should disrain. In his distinct avowal of his heresy, (so far as candor is concerned,) he has done well. I V hope he will proceed, and not (miy tell us what your sentiments are not, but what they are. As he seems in every essay to be tremblingly afraid of fire and faggot from a ♦< cruel, mercenary and blood-thirsty priesthood," I would gently remind him that the days of blo')d and fire are now out of date, and that all the "persecution" he or your society may expect at this time, is simply to be thrust through a few times with ** the sword of the spirif, which is the word of God," — a weapon which however it may kill heretics, never yet injured a Christian. His quotation from the Apostle Paul, Acts xxiv. 14, would have been very much in point, had he not mistaken the most important part, the application. This Apostle, for preaching the resurrection of the dead, and the Divinity and atonement of Jesus Christ, was arraigned by certain men who denied all these things, who trusted to their own righteousness for salvation, and pr( ferred an unwritten to a written law as their rule in religion. By only changing sides, therefore, the quotatiim has great force. That we may have no doubt of his rejection of the Trinity, he speaks of the absurd and unscriptural doctrines of the Athanasian creed." He calls it an ** incomprehensible doctrine," an " impossibillity, a <* contradictory j)roposition," a *» blasphe- mous opinion," and says that Howgill, Pennington. Story, Penn arid many others, have explicitly declared our abhorrence of the doctrine which supposes the distinct existence of three persons in one God! And again, speaking of Lardner, Lindsey, Clarke, Price, Firman and others, who denied the real Divinity and 421 atonement of our Lord Jesus Christ, he says: " wc cannot be^ lieve they are consigned to perdition for not believing what in truth no ma7i can believe who retains the use of his rational faculties, unless it be possible to believe contradictory pro- positions,^^ A very fine compliment this to Trinitarians! — that we have not the " use of our rational faculties," or that we do not be- lieve" what we profess to believe ; and that the doctrine of a Trinity in Unity is a*< contradictory proposition ! But though « Amicus" is thus explicit in his statements, that your other standard writers have fully explained your sentiments on this subject, I shall take the liberty to doubt, until <« Amicus" proves it by quotations. I do still therefore prefer the charge of a suspicious silence" and disingenuous concealment. I will now notice some of his objections. The Trinitarians," says he, " are so split in pieces, and so widely divided on this in- comprehensible doctrine, that it is hard to tell what is the com- monly received doctrine." This, I presume, will be new to most people ; I confess it is so to me. And after looking over the phrases used by Waterland, Howe, Owen, Pearson and Bull, as stated by my opponent, it will puzzle common readers to discover much diversity of sentiment. They all held to the existence three co-equal, co-eternal and co-essential persons in the Godhead. If in their more private explanations, some pre- ferred the word " Spirits," others Agents," others " Hypos- tases," the difference is of no moment. All these were as far from the doctrines of Lardner, Clarke, Lindsey, Price, Wake- field, Kippis, Firman, Barclay, and others of your ejjcellent" Arians and Socinians, as Christianity is from heresy, or wor- shipping the Creator is from worshipping the creature. Jrians will admit, that the Father, Son and Spirit are three distinct persons, but they deny the equality of the three. The Sabellians acknowledge the equality and eternity of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but they deny that these are Three Di- vine Persons, and hold that these are mere names or attributes, or offices of the One Person of the Godhead. Macedonians deny that the Spirit is a person at all, or any thing more than an attri- bute. Thomas BurneVs system of " one self existent and two de- pendent beings," though you speak of it as orthodox,'* is not Trinitarianism, but an abomination. Now to all these notions, tlie commonly received" doctrine of the Trinity is diametrically opposed. In opposition to Sabellians, we hold that the Fatlier, Son and Spirit are not three attributes, but Persons ; — in op- position to Arians, that they are three Divine Persons, co-equal and co-eternal; and in opposition to Tritheists, that these three are co-essential or of one substance. 322 What authority Amicus" had for placing J\*twton and Locke on the Unitarian list, I know not. This much is certain, if they were not Trinitarians, they were arrant hypocrites, for they were members of the Episcopal church, and habitually used a Trinitarian liturgy ! And now, as you have explicitly denied the doctrine of the Trinity, it is proper I shoul(i adduce the arguments in its favour. But, 1. Let me observe it is an infinitely important siibject. Upon it the whole Christian system hangs. The Divinity, ihe Atonement, the Intercession^ with the whole character and work of Christ, — the Divinity and work of the Holy Spirit, the in- spiration (jf the Scriptures, and all our hopes of salvation live or die with the doctrine of the Trinity. The dt cision of this question will determine whether you or we are idolaters. 2. We acknowledge it is a mystery, the greatest of all mysteries. And when you have proved this you have proved nothing, until you have proved that nothing mysterious is to be believed. 3. We rely for proof solely on revelation, using reason no farther than to determine the authenticity and tlie grammatical and logical sense of that revelation. 4. We shall not attempt to prove the Unity of God, but take that for granted, as no Trini- tarian ever intended to deny it. 4. We shall not attempt to prove that the word person," when applied to the Deity, means precisely the same thing as when applied to men ; but simply, that no other word will do so well to express the distinction between the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. These things being premised, I proceed to show, first, that God is 2L plural Being; secondly, that he is a triune Being ; and thirdly, that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are properly con- sidered and styled three divine « Fersons.^^ First, God is a plural Being. If I understand you, you are not particularly opposed to the number three, more than to two, or any other number. But you hold to ?7m^^ in opposition to all plurality in the Godhead. If therefore you are compelled to admit a plurality, you will have no objection to admit a Trinity of persons. Now, 1. If God be not a plural Being, how do you account for it, that he has a plural J^ame ? The most common name of the Deity in the Old Testament (in Hebrew) is Jlleim, or Elo- him^ a plural noun ! How do you account for this ? And if this plurality is not also consistent with unity, how do you account for it, that this plural noun is often nominative to a singular verb ? Thus " God created," {Dii creavit,) God said," «God called," « God made," « God blessed," phrases which occur twenty nine times in the very first chapter of the Bible, exhibit the mysterious anomaly of a plural nominative to a singular verb ! Does it not denote that the Jgent is plural but the ac- tion one ? Bui you will perhaps say : ^< the name is not plural, it is the idiom of the languai^r." How th("n do you account for it, that this same nanie is soijietun* s nniuinHtivv to a plural verb, and connected with plural adjectivts ? Thus Gt n. xx. 13, " It came lather's }M)use, &c." (^Deus me errare Jactrent) Here the verb »< caused" is in the plural number, agrt^eing with its plural nominative. Josh, xxis . 19, ** He is an holy God" (ipse Deus sancti,) Here the adjective *' hol^ " is plural, agreeing with its substantive God." How can you account for this ? 2. W'hy has he plural ;ow, if Dr. Maelaine be correct, and I think his statement will not be dis- puted— then, as ever} production is of the nature of its parent, and as heresies of the very worst kind were produced by the terra <« Trinity," it must, \ think, be very heretical to adopt it at all as a representative of any part of our faith. At any rate, it is unscriptural, and they that use it, so far depart from what my opponent calls the supreme and onbj standard of faith and practice ! ! !" Some may suppose it is unimportant what terms we use to convey our meaning on religious subjects. This, how^ever, is a pernicious error ! They who think so, know very little of hu- man nature — are very ignorant of the power of names ! We have not only the testimony of Dr. Maelaine, " that the term < Trinity^ produced heresies of the very worst kind the uni- form acknowledgement of Ecclesiastical writers, and our own experience, show that it has never served a better purpose, than to produce division and contention ! In the early ages of the church, it was a prolific source of wars, bloodshed, and the most shocking cruelties. Since that time, it has ever perplex- ed and divided the most learned and pious professors of the Gospel — and at the present day is held up as a standard of or- thodoxy, round which, not charity and peace, but the very worst passions of depraved human nature seern delighted to rally ! Ami yet, as if to manifest the inconsistency of the professors of Christianity, this same fatal term, wliich was never dictat- ed by the Holy Spirit, is tenaciously adhered to by the very men who tell us, that *. Paganism, atheism, popery and deism, have each had their day ; each has fought its battle with the Gospel, and has left the field. The great enemy of truth at the present day, is *^ Unitarianism'' — the same old enemy, under a new shape. The Bible has gained such ascendency in the world, and Chris- tianity has become so popular, that no religionist dare show his head without acknowledging the inspiration of the one, and the divinity of the other. Unitarianism accordingly assumes the name of Christianity, but inculcates none of her peculiar doc- trines ; professes to receive the Bible as a revelation, but tears it to pieces by biblical criticism, conjectural emendations, denial of plenary inspiration, and subjecting all its incomprehensible mysteries to be hewed and squared, and levelled by self con- ceited reason. Milner, the Ecclesiastical historian, has well described it as <^ an admission of Christianity generally, and then denying all those things in which Christianity consists/' In general, they have no creed — but to be opposed to creeds and to hate the " doctrines of grace." Their system has been cor- rectly stated in the form of negatives, by the editor of the Evan, and Lit. Magazine of Virginia. "1. They do not believe the doctrine of the Trinity. 2. They do not believe the divini- ty of Christ," (as a separate person from the Father.) " 3. They do not believe the divinity and personality of the Holy Spirit. 4. They do not believe the doctrine of atonement. 5. They do not believe the doctrine of original sin. 6. They do not believe the doctrine of justification by faith. 7. They do not believe the doctrine of everlasting punishment. 8. They do not believe the plenary inspiration of the writers of Scripture." He might have added ; 9. They do not believe in the existence of evil spi- rits. 10. They reject all mysteries. 11. They make charity and indifference to truth the same thing. 12. They make little or nothing of baptism and the Lord's supper. 13. Like the In- dians, they seldom show themselves in the open field. The cardinal principle of this system, the rejection of the Trinity, Amicus" in your name has already avowed. You will hence- forth, therefore, stand before the Christian public with the name of « t'liitarianism'* on your front. I will now notice some of your objections. Obj. 1. " The term < Trinity' is not in the Bible." This puerile objection has been already answered. We are not dis- puting about the term, but about the doctrine. The term is a very simple and a very happy one to express the Three-one God. Refute the doctrine, and we will renounce the term. Obj. 2. «* We arc ready to subsci'ibe every genuine text of Scripture — can any Christian d^'sire more ?" \es ; David Hume would do the same, and yet reject the whole. Every Socinian professes the same, and yet denies that Jesus Christ is any thing more than man. He will reject as <* spurious" every text which does not tally with liis system, and cannot be tor- tured into conformity to his doctrine. Is lie therefore ortho- dox ? An Universalist will subscribe the text, " the wicked shall go away into everlasting punishment," and yet rise up immedi- ately and preach a limited or temporary punishment. Tliere is not a Pelagian, Swedenborgian, or Shaking Quaker in the land, that will refuse to subscribe every genuine text," — only let his own imagination decide what texts are genuine, and what are not. Your society will « subscribe" to the texts about bap- tism, the Lord's supper, the resurrection, the Divinity of Christ, and yet deny tlie plain and obvious doctrine of these texts. You w'lW adopt the words, but not the obvious sense Scripture. !Now, it is of little cons( qu«*nce, comparatively, what words you use in preaching or in writing; the doctrine, the meaning is that at which your hearers and readers look. And it is this and not your terms (for you use, or rather abuse, many Bible terms) that we condemn. We do therefore desire something more than that you should quote the texts of Scripture — Ave de- sire you to admit and preach the plain and obvious meaning of those texts. You might as well subscribe to the Koran as the Scriptures, if you have no regard to the sense o{ either. The words of Scripture, from an essential defect of language, are capable of being wrested" to a very erroneous and injurious sense ; now, the only way to know whether you use the text in a natural or unnatural sense, is to require of you the adoption of other nneq^iivocal and explanatory terms, Obj. 3. ♦* If God be one, lie cannot be three persons." An- swer. If God be one, he cannot be two persons, — and now where is your Divinity of Christ?" It is no more " impas- sible," « contradictory" or *» inco:nj>rehen«<:ible," that there should be three in one, than that there should be two in one; and you must hold to two in one or renounce the Divinity of Christ, which yon say you " reverently acknowledge." Please S33 reconcile the Divinity of Christ as a distinct person from the Father, with the doctrine of but one person in the Godhead ? Obj. 4. ** Three distinct and separate persons are three Gods." Answer. Upon the same principle, two distinct and separate persons are two Gods. And W yon will show how Jesus Cinist and the Father, two separate persons, can be two and yet one, I will show vouhow the Father, Son and Holy Ghost can he three and yet one. Obj. 5. « The term < Trinity' was not invented till the church had made great advances in the apostacy.'' Suppose this as- sertion was true, (which certainly is not,) it is a matter of no consequence ; we arc not disputing about a /erm, but a doctrine^ which is as old as revelation. The term, however, was in- vented at a season, when modes of self-defence are usually in- vented, when the enemy threatened an attack. When Arius, Noetus, Sabellius and others, under pretence of preaching Christianity, began to undermine Christianity, it was neces- sary for Christians to start a countermine. This and other terms on the subject would have never been invented but in self-defence. They were invented by men who feared God and reverenced the Bible much more than their adversaries, and were found the only contrivances, by which they could defeat and baffle their subtle foes. We may say of creeds what the Apostle says of lawSf they were « not made for the righteous, but for the lawless and disobedient." The wicked, if left to themselves, would never make laws to hamper and punish themselves ; neither would heretics, who wish to believe any thing and every thing, ever invent creeds to tie them up to truth Laws never injure honest men, neither do creeds trouble a Christian. The public will soon see, that the way and the only way to dis- cover your real doctrine, is to compel you to express yourselves in the unequivocal terms so long used in the church of Christ. Obj. 6. " Dr. c^^/acZai/ie condemns the use of the term." Dr. Maclaine shows through that wiiole work, that he was not well affected towards the doctrine of the Trinity, and this will readily account for his objection to the term — <* But Jlfos/iem condemns the controversy, and says it arose from vainturiosittj, &c." An- swer. It did arise from vain curiosity," not of Christians, how- ever, but o^Arins and others. For had not heretics begun to spe- culate on this mysterious subject, and to publish their "vain curiosity" to the world, the ortliodox would have invented no terms to prevent similar curiosity in future. Real Christians never feel justified in indulging any curiosity on the subject ; but wish to rest in the plain doctrine of the Bible. And here they would have rested but for tlie vain curiosity" #f heretics. On the subject of a Trinity, Christian?? 334 have never had but one creed, the Nieene or Athanasian creed. The words chosen one thousand five hundred years ago by above three hundred representatives from Europe, Asia and Africa, to express the views of the universal church on this momentous subject, have served to express (not originate) the sentiments of the church ever since. On the other hand ** it is worthy of notice,'* (says «* Adams' Rel. World Displayed," Art. Arianism) that the friends of Ananism drew up seventeen different Confessions of Faith within forty years after they had rejected ri»e Nieene doctrine, and after ail would abide by none of them." From the day they jegan to exercise their ♦* vain curiosity," they had no rest, they could not fix a creed, until at length they became sick of creeds^ and left their people to float about between the Scylla of Arianism and the Charybdis of Socinianism. Remember, the orthodox exercise no CMrios% on this subject ; all the curiosity is on the side of those who will set reason to speculate on matters of pure revelation. Obj. 7. It is an incomprehensible doctrine, and to talk or write on the subject is to darken counsel by words without knowledge." Does « Amicus," never talk of things he does not fully comprehend ? Perhaps he has read Materia Medica, And did he find no mysteries in medicine ? Few words are more commonly used than fever,^^ and does Amicus" know any thing more about it than a few of its properties, causes and effects ? Does he perfectly comprehend the nature of the thing itself? Can he explain all the wonders of pharmacy and che- mistry ? If he does not know every thing about them, according to his own doctrine he should not say any thing about them, lest he darken counsel ! The cook in the kitchen cannot tell why fire makes the kettle boil, or how salt keeps the meat from corruption, but she does not doubt the fact, nor cease to talk about it day by day. A child cannot explain why a stone falls downward rather than upward, but he can admit the/acf as well as if he knew the whole mystery of gravitation. So we can understand and talk about the fact of the existence of three in one in the Godhead, because it is revealed, without presuming or wishing to unaerstand the mode of existence. Obj. 8. " The argument drawn from one of the numerous anomalies of the Hebrew language is below criticism." This is a very convenient way of getting over an argument which you cannot refute. Thus some people get over the account of the Fall, it is all a figure, an allegory." And others, over the doctrine of everlasting punishment, " it is all a figure an hyper- bole, &e." Thus Dr. Clarke, when he cannot manage certain texts which assert the divinity of Christ, sets them aside at once, with « Oh it is only a manner of speaking !" So when I 335 show an Unitarian that the name of God is plural^ his titles plural, his attributes plural, that he speaks of liimself in the plural number, and inspired writers speak of Him as a plural Being, "Oh it is all an anomaly, an irregularity of speech!'' Unless **• Amicus" can show other passages paralled to these— uni?ss he can prove that the rule of all other languages — that a ver*> must agree in number with its nominative, and an «jdj;-c ive with lis substantive, does vsor hold good in the Hebrew, ne roust acknowledge that the Bible +t acbes Go4 is a plural Being, That the ancient Jews unders; M»d the passages I have quoted, as alluding to the Trinity, is abundantly evident (roro their ancient commentaries, though they now deny the doctrine from oppo- sition to ''the Gospel. As »* Amicus" is not satisfied with the four arguments brought in my last to prove this point, I add, 5. That God is a plural Being is evident from Prov. ix. 10, «The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom ; the know- ledge of the Holy O^es is understanding." Here it is evident to all acquainted with the reduplicative style of Scripture, that *f the Lord" and the " Holy Ones" refer to the same Being. The inference is irresistible,— in God is a plurality in unity. The same thing is taught, Hos. xi. 13, « Judah yet ruleth with God, and is faithful with the SaintSy'^ or as it ought to have been rendered, the "Holy Ones.'' 6. In Isa. xlviii. 16, a person who calls himself in the 12th and 13th verses, the <• First and the Last," who says, his hands " laid the foundation of the earth," and who of course is God, says : " and now the Lokd God and his Spibit hath sent me." Here is either more than one God, or more than one person in the Godhead : take your choice. But as you have such objection to Hebrew anomalies, I will bring you some from another lan- guage. As you dislike the Old Testament so much, 1 will see if you like the New any better. 7. What think you of John i. 1, « In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God • the same was in the beginning with God." Now here is certainly a plurality of somtthing, and if the name <• God" denote siperson, here is a plurciiHy of persons in the Godhead. For it is said : God was with GodJ'^ Now one cannot be with another, unless he be in some respect distinct and separate. You have no alter- native but to deny the divinity of Christ or admit a Divine plurality. 8. Again ; is not Jesus Christ equal with God the Father ? Phil, ii. 6, « Let the same mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus ; who being in the form of God thought it no robbery to be EquAL with Grod." And again in the 10th verse : *< at the name of Jesus eyery knee should bow, of things in heaven and 3S6 things in earth, and things under the earth ; and every tongue confess that he is Lord, to the gh)ry of God the Father." Here is a person "in the form of God," — "equal with God" — con- fessed to be " Lord," the object of universal worship, and yet distinct from «* God the Father." Now either Jesus Christ is not God, or there is a pluralitv of pei f^- ns in the Dei(y. 'I'he same doctrine is taught in the parsli'^l passage : Zech. xiii. 7, " Awake, O sword, '»gainst my shepherd ; smite the man that is my feMow, (i. e. fqual,j saith the Lord of Hosts." Here the Lord of Hosts" speaks of another who is his " fellow," or equal, in other wordj^. who is also God ! There is one way, and but one way of getting over this argument, and that is by styl- ing the whole an anomaly !" 9. God the Father speaks to the Son as God : Heb. i. 8, " And unto the Son he saith, (God saith,) thy throne, 0 God^ is forever and ever. God, even thy God, hath anointed thee. And thou Lord, in the beginning has laid the foundations of the earth." Now it is evident from this passage, first, that the Father is God, and that the Son is God : and secondly, that God the Son is a distinct person from God the Father, or such an address would be absurd. Both the Old and New Testament teach that there is but one God ; but both the Old and New Testament teach that there is more than one called by all the Divine names and titles, and set forth as an object of supreme worship. It is impossible, therefore, for any believer in the inspiration of Scripture, to doubt there is a plurality of persons in the Deity. The public will judge whether I have not answered all his arguments ; let them now observe if he answers one of mine. PAUL. ^» : imn Seventh-day, 7th mo. 27, 1822. LETTER XXXIL « Paganism, atheism, popery and deism, have each had their day ; each has fought its battle with the Gospel, and has left the field." So says my opponent ; and happy would it be for the world, were it only half true. Paganism yet sways her ebon sceptre over a large majority of mankind, and will long reign triumphant, unless attacked by other than the puny wea- pons of my opponent. It needs other power besides "the lite- ral and logical sense of the Scriptures," to change the heart, and give a victory to the pure spirit of the Gospel. If atheism and deism have «* left the field," never to return, it is cause of rejoicing; but I am much mistaken if the Gospel soldier will not be again called to buckle on his harness and engage these 337 enemies of Christianity ! When I read religious newspapers, and observe almost every enterprize of a religious nature, coupled with a scheme for raising money, a cunningly devis- ed" plan of beggary, and contrast these proceedings with tliose of our Lord and his disinterested disciples, methinks I see the enemy scattering widely and thickly the seeds of infidelity and unbelief. As for pf»pery, whilst it has so many defenders amongst Protestants, whilst its errors and absurdities are pub- licly vindicated by my opptment, I can see little ground for the assertion, that it •< has left the field." They who defend the doctrine of " three distinct and separate persons in the God- head,'* are striving to maintain popery in one of its distinguish- ing characteristics. " The great enemy of truth at the present day is Unitarian- ism." So says " Paul his assertion, however, is gratui- tous! it is miserably begging the question! — If by the term « Unitarianism," we are to understand simply a belief in but - one Godf I think it will puzzle <• Paul" to prove this belief in- imical to truth. Ever> man who believes there is hut one God, is in fact a Unitarian in the strict sense of that term ; he that believes in the existence of three Gods may be a Trinitarian or Tritheist, it is not much matter which term we use, they mean the same thina:, as may very easily be proved ! ! ! But, says Paul." Lnitarianism *« inculcates none of the peculiar d»»ctrines of Christianity. It professes to receive the Bible as a revelation, but tears it to pieces by biblical criticism !" Here aerain he begs the question ! Is not the doctrine of one God a peculiar doctrine of the Bible . — And is there any sect who tear the Bible to pieces by biblical criticism, more than the Trinitarians? If biblical criticism be a crime, I know of no people who are more guilty of it than they ; nor do I know any people who take greater liberties w ith the Scriptures ! My opponent has made a pompous display of his learning in a tedious account of what Unitarians do not believe. This state- ment, which is wholly foreign to the point in discussion^ is a religious fraud. In the first place, as applied to Unitarians ge- nerally, it is untrue. In the next place, it is intended to con- found the religions society I advocate, with others who hold different sentiments — an attempt unworthy the character of a professor of reliction, bu* more odious when coming from a pro- fessed minister of the Go'^pel. It is, however, what we might expect from such a source. Therdot^ieal seminaries may make preachers, but they can neither confer Divin** grace, nor those amiable tempers which characterize a genuine minister of the Gospel. " The cardinal principle of this system, the rejection of the 43 35$ Trinity, Amicus in your name lias already avowed ; you will henceibrth stand before the Christian public with the name of * Unitarianism* on your front." Now, if " Unitarianism" mean simply the belief in only one divine Bting, we shall not object to this application of it. it is certainly much more rational, as weM as more Scriptural than the <* Tritheism" of my opponent. Tue idea of one Mmighty, Omnipresent, Infinite Being, seems to us to be accordant with Scripture and reason. The idea of three, with neither ! ! The word Unitarian," dressed out as it pleases my opponent, looks ill indeed ! but « Tritheism" looks worse, in its own naked deformity ! ! ! .1 would not willingly brand the system of my opponent with a worse name than it deserves; but I think it so evidently " Tritheism," or a belief in three Gods, that no unprejudiced person can doubt it for a moment. In order to show that this sentiment is not expressed without due reflection, I will state a few arguments in its defence. The first of which I will extract from the writings of the celebrated William Penn, founder of Pennsylvania, published in 1668, under the title of "The Sandy Foundation Shaken." If there be three distinct and separate persons [in the God- head,] then three distinct and separate substances, because every person is inseparable from its own substance, and as there is no person that is not a substance, in common acceptation among men, so do tlie Scriptures plentifully agree herein ; and since the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Spirit is God, (which their opinion necessitates them to confess,) then, unless the Father, Son and Spirit are three distinct nothings, they must be three distinct substances, and consequently three dis- tinct Gods,^^ « It is further proved, if it be considered, that either the di- vine persons Are finite ov iiiflnite ; if the first, then something finite is inseparable to the infinite substance, whereby some- thing finite is in God 1 — If the last, then three distinct Infi- nites, three Omnipotents, three Eternals, and so three Gods ! ! ! < if the Divine nature be inseparable from the three persons, or - communicated to each, and each person have the whole divine nature, then is the Son in the Father, and the Spirit in the Son— unless the Godhead be as incommunicable to the persons as they are reported to be among themselves ; or, that the three persons, have distinctly allotted them, such a proportion of the divine nature as is not communicable to each other, which is alike absurd ! Much more might be said to manifest the gross contradiction of this Trinitarian doctrine, as vulgarly received, but I must be brief." If we look into the Athanasian Creed, as it is called, we shall find the existence of three distinct and separate persons in the Godhead asserted and defended ; to each of which, in their separate capacity, is attributed eternity, incomprehensi- bility, omnipotence, equality ! Now, if they be distinct and se- parate, and possess these attributes, then, it inevitably follows, that there are three Gods ! It only aggravates the absurdity to tell us they are one ; for if they be distinct and separate, this is impossible ! ! ! Now, how do the Trinitarians get over these palpable conse- quences of their contradictory scheme? Why, after writing volumes in its defence, and finding themselves swamped at last, they gravely tell us, «< it is a mystery," that is, it is impossible to understand it! — This is all very well, and if they had rested here, modestly professing a belief of what they acknowledge they know nothing, we might pity, but could not blame them ! < thing be more than one, and only one at the same time ? The proposition involves a gross absurdity ! ! ! In order, however, to make us relish absurdities, he attempts to garnish them with Hebrew Scripture ! But what do his ar- guments prove ? Nothing at all, as 1 shall endeavour to demon- strate. He tells us Elohim ((iod) is a phirul noun, and he finds it nominative to a singular verb. Now, what is there wonder- ful in all this? He ought to know, if he knows any thing about the Hebrew language, that it is a circumstance by no means uncommon, to find plural nouns used with singular verbs, and vice versa ; for the truth of which 1 refer him to Buxtorf, Park- hurst, Castellus, Robertson, Simonis or any other good writer on the Hebrew language. If ** Paul's" theological notions have no better foundation than such anomalies, they will be very easily blown away ! as he may rest assured, that Moses did not much concern himself with the niceties of modern grammarians ! But how does ^< Paul" know that Elohim is a plural noun ? If Elohim be plural, how does it happen that the hay be not dropped ? Every novice in Hebrew learning knows, that singular nouns ending in hay thrown it away before the plural termination yod mem ; as is the case where *' Gods" is in- tended. Exod. XV. 11, Who is like unto thee 0 Lord, among the gods." In this place the word Elim without the hay is used. El is the singular as well as Elohinif and when plu- ral, Elim. Elohim appears to be used as a masculine singu- lar noun — the yod mem constitute it an hemantic noun. Some 342 copies have it without the ijod, for the yod as well as the vauf is often a masoretic point — in the one case, a long chi- rick, in the other a cholem. Moreover, if Elohim be used to indicate '* three persons in the Godhead,'* how does my learned opponent account tor tlie use of this word in reference to an idol ? as in Exod. xxii. 20, He that sacrificeth unto any god, (laeJohim) save unto the Lord only," &c. 1 Kings xviii. 27, ** Elijah mocked them, and said— -cry aloud, for he is a God, ' &c. (Elohim.) — See also Judges xvi. 23, and many other passages ! And, how again, does " PAUii" account for the use of this term in reference to aman, as in Exod. xxi. 6, and in other places ! In this passage, where our translators, with- out any warrant from the context, have rendered the word plural, Elohim is used for a judge ! Now, what are we to infer from all this.^ Are we to conclude that idols and men are Trinities ? With respect to the passage quoted by my opponent, John xxiv. 19, in which the adjective " holy" is 'plural, it is only ne- cessary to oppose to it, 1 Sam. vi. 20, and Psalm xcix. 9, where the same adjective is connected with Elohim" in the singular^ to shew that nothing of the kind intimated by Paul," could have been intended by the inspired writers ; but that it is plainly an idiom, an irregularity of the language, which had not then been made to submit to the arbitrary rules of modern grammarians. That Elohim sometimes occurs as a plural noun, I shall not deny, but this is only one among the many proofs of the irregularity of the Hebrew language! Elohim is used with adjectiveSf pronouns, and verbs, both plural and singular I See Judges viii. 33,-1 Kings xi. 5, 33, where it is applied without any change to a goddess, Baalberith, the idol of the Shechem- ites and Astarte, or Ashtoreth, the goddess of the Zidonians. That must be a weak cause indeed, which requires for its support, the grammatical construction of a language, replete with so many anomalies. If, as **Paul" asserts, a plural noun be used to shew, that God is a plural Being, and that plural noun be nominative to a singular verb, to shew the unity of this plurality, how does it happen, that in other places, the same noun is used with a plural verb as in Gen. xx. 13 ? Instead therefore of proving, what my opponent wished, this fact alone is sufficient to overturn his whole argument ! Had there been a design on the part of the inspired penmen, by the use of a plural noun with a singular verb, to teach the doctrine of « three persons in one God," the evidence of that design would be uni- form and invariable — the contrary clearly proves the absence of any design of the kind. But if they had such a design, they S4S were extremely deficient in a main point ; for it' they prove any thing about plurality of Gods, (or persons, if Paul" pre- fer the term,) they as much prove Jivz^ or Jixe thousanay as they prove " ^hree,'* since there is not a word in any of the pas- sages implying /Aret;/ 1 will now reciii to some of " Paul's" other arguments, which seem intended to prove tliat Moses was mistaken when he said : " Hear () Israel, JEHOVAH our God is one JEHO- VAH." Deut. vi. 4. In his proof No. 4, Letter xxx. be says: " The person who appeared to Abraham in the plain of Mamre, (Gen. xviii. 1.) and who is called JEHOVAH fourteen times in that single chapter, is spoken of in the xixth chap, ver, 24, as a distinct person from JEHOVAH in Heaven." Thus in his gross and carnal conception he makes one JEHOVAH to stand upon earth, and call down fire from another distinct JE- HOVAH in heaven ! — As if he, who fills heaven and earth, whom the heaven of heavens cannot contain," and who is there- - fore equall} present in all places, could be divided !!! — As this is an absurdity and impossibility, Paul" consequently be- lieves in a pltiraiity of Gods! If " Paul" will be *« honest" to himself, he must perceive, that so far as he had any definite idea, when writing the above paragraph, it was that of at least two distinct Gods, the One in heaven, (somewhere in the clouds, I presume, as that is where the fire and brimstone seems to have come from,; the other on the earth, this little planet, this speck in the immensity of God's works ! ! ! From the sentiment expressed by " Paul" in the above re- cited passage, it is undeniably evident that the " persons" which constitute his compound Deity, slvp finite/ One caw be in one place, whilst the other is in another / And as he is pleased to allow his *• triune G(jd" the attribute of infinity, it follows of course that three finite persons can make an hifinitc one ! ! I Ad- mirable logic ! " The name JEHOVAH, it is well known, implies self-exis- tence, independence, immutability and eternity, and is there- fore the incommunicable name of the onlv God." So says •'Paul!" and yet he tells us that the JEHOVAH to whom Abraham prayed, is a distinct person from JEHOVAH in heaven ! of course, there must be two self-existent, indepen- dent, immutable and eternal Jehovahs ! ! ! " But why has God plural titles, and plural attributes, if He he not a plural Being?" Fhat is, why has God more titles than one, or more attributes than one, if he be not a compound Being ; if he be not three persons, and yet not three persons, hit one per- son? If there be any meaning in this question, it is, that plu- rality of titles or of attributes implies a compound mode of ex- 344 istence ! And so, when we find a man who has the attributes of understanding, will, and memory, and the titles of L. L. D. F. R. S. F. S. A. M. P. &c. attached to his name, we are to con- sider him a plural Being — a kind of a trinity ! ! ! Upon " this infinitely important" kind of logic, « Paul** thinks "the whole Christian s>'stem hangs." Amicus has a better opinion of the Christian system, than to suppose it hangs upon absurdities. The divinity, the atonement, the interces- sion of Christ, the divinity of the Ho\y Spirit, the inspiration of the sacred penmen, and hope of salvation'' through Christ, are all consistent with the unity of God — they were believed by the primitive church, long before the doctrine of three per- sons in one God was invented, and they will remain to be the faith and consolation of the experimental Christian, when it is swept away among the other errors and inventions of popery and the popish church ! <^ We acknowledge [the doctrine of three persons making one person] is a mystery !" If he had been candid enough to acknowledge it was an absurdity, a contradictory propositiorif his cause would not have been more injured, than by his at- tempts to defend it ! *« We rely for proof solely on revelation, and only use reason to determine the grammatical and logical sense of that revela- tion." It appears, however, that he relied upon the revelation of Athanasius the bishop of Alexandria, instead of the Bible! and has used or rather abused his reason in the defence of ungrammatical and illogical propositions, <«that three are one and one is three, and yet that three are not one nor one three. We shall not attempt to prove the unity of the Deity, but take that for granted." But no sooner does he take it for grant- ed, than he attempts to prove that the Deity subsists in three dis- tinct and separate persons ! all having self-existence, indepen- dence, immutability and eternity ! ! ! « We shall not attempt to prove that the word 'person,'' when applied to the Deity means precisely the same thing as when applied to men, but simply, that no other word will do as well to express the distinction between Father, Son, and Spi- rit."— <* Paul" has done well to tell us what the term person does not mean! But he would have done better if he had told us what it does mean ! It means, I suppose, an indefinite some- thing, for Trinitarians to use as a kind of trumpet, through which to try heresy," and defame their sober Christian neighbours ! But is it not surprising that those orthodox pro- fessors who pretend to make the Bible the supreme and only standard of faith and practice," who tell us about the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, should have the boldness to insi- 345 iiuate, that this supreme standard, this only rule, and the inspu red penmen, are all so defective, as to give us no other word that will do as well as a term of their own invention — and which, after all, that champion of Trinitarianism, Dr. Miller, tells us he does not understand ? The other arguments of <« Paul" shall he answered in a future number, if life and health permit. Want of room and a fear of <* prolixity'' prevents me from doing more at this time : — Yet I have said enough to shew, that henceforth the Trinita- rians will stand before the Christian public with the name of TRITUEISM on their front ! AMICUS. Saturday, Aut^ust 3, 1822. LETTER XXXII. ON THE TRINITY, " Ml men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Fathek.3' John V. 23. Christianity is distinguished from Polytheism hy the be*- lief of one God ; from Mahomedanism, Judaism and Deism by the belief that this one God exists in three persons. As to the followers of the Arabian imposter, it is well known that the Trinity is the greatest object of their opposition ; and it is also a fact, that the prevalence of Sabellianism in those once Christian countries, was one occasion of Mahomet's success. The Jews, as is abundantly evident from their ancient writings, i once held the Trinity. Even after the coming of Christ, in the second century. Rabbi Judah Hakkadosh, the compiler of their ancient doctrines, sums up their views of God in these words: I « God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, Three in ' Unity, One in Trinity.'' But in later periods, from opposition to the divinity of Christ they have been led to deny the Tri- nity. That all Deists oppose this doctrine, I need not say. If therefore it be any argument in your favour, you certainly have all the Mahoniedans, Jews, Deists, and Pagans in the world on your side ! As an evidence how little difference there is on this and other points between Unitarians and Mahome- tans, Leslie has preserved in his "Theological Tracts" a let- ter from the former to the Moorish ambassador then at London, proposing an union with the latter. But with the Bible on our side we have no fear of the event. I have frequently charged you with denying every pecnliftr 44 3^6 doctrine of the Gospel, and " Amicus" asks ; "Is not the be- lief in one God a doctrine peculiar to the Gospel ?" 1 answer, in the Trinitarian sense, Yes ; but in the Unitarian sense, No : for all the infidel sects above mentioned are thorough in the belief, that God exists in one person. It is an occurrence so uncommon for ** Amicus" to notice my arguments, that 1 am bound in politeness to notice his re- plies. Obj. 1, He has a long and learned argument to prove that Meim is not a plural but a singular noun. As I write for plain English people, I shall not enter into a learned criticism, which few could understand ; but in confirmation of my former as- sertion, would simply remark, 1. Our translators reridcr it "gods" nearly two hundred times. Any one who will turn to Judges X. 6, will find what « Amicus" calls a singular noun rendered gods" five times in a single verse : " And the chil- dren of Israel served the gods (Aleim) of Syria, and the gods of Zidon, and the gods of Moab, and the gods ut' tiie children of Ammon, and the gods of the Philistines." 2. It is nomina- tive to a plural verb, Gf-n. xxxv. r, He built an altar there and called the place El Bethel, because there God appeared unto him" (literally the Aleim were revealed unto him.) Here the verb « appeared" is plural. And I defy ** Amicus" to quote an instance in any language of a noun nominative to a plural verb, when the noun does not contain the idea of plurality. The name " Aleim," therefore, does teach that there is a plu- rality in the Godhead. 3. It has plural adjectives. Deui. iv. 7, What nation is there, that hath God so nigh unto them ?" Here the adjective "nigh" (in Heb.) is plural, agreeing with Aleim. 4. Parkhurst, whom ''Amicus" particularly recom- mends as " a good writer on the Hebrew language,'' says ex- pressly that Aleim is a " plural noun, denoting tlie ever blessed Trinity." He also refers to the Jewish Talmudists to prove that they held the same idea. As to *< Simonis,'' another author of whom " Amicus" speaks, I have not been so happy as ever be- fore to hear his name. (Can it be tirat this profound Hebrew scholar is so ignorant of Latin as to mistake a genitive for a no- minative case, and after all by this term mean nothing more nor less than Father Simon of France ?) 5. The Septuagini translators render the word Aleim by the Greek word theoi (gods) about one hundred and eighty times, v. Trommius' Con- cordance. Yet when applied to the true God, to remind the Gentiles of the divine Unity^ like our English translators, they have always rendered it theos (God.) 6. Lastly, to remove all doubt, we have the infallible authority of our Lord himself. John X. 35, quoting from Ps. Ixxxii. 2 and 6, he renders Aleim 34r »* gods." " If he called them gods to whom the word of God came," &c. This is decisive. It is therefore a plural name. And if there be any meaning in the name which the Holy Spirit has applied to the Supreme, He is a plural Being. But the inspir- ed writers use tliis term sometimes as nominative to a singulurp and sometimes sl plural verb, which shows they had no design to teach piuraJ.itij." •* It shows they intended to teach both plurality and unity in God, and not the one without the other. — •* But this name is sometimes applied to an idol, and sometimes to a man; does this prove that these are a Trinity ?" Answer. Just so the English titles «• lord" and <• god" are applied to noblemen and to Sataiu (He is called the « god of this world."j Does this prove tliat earls and dukes and devils have all the attributes of the Supreme! The Hebrew, like the English terms, are so ' applied by a sort of accomniodution. Obj. 2. ** Plural titles applied to God no more prove him a plural Being, tiian more titles thun out affixed to a man's name prove that man a plural being." Here he purposely confounds a plural title with a number of different titles I The Meim^ for in- stance, nre called, as I have before proved, «* Makers,"** Crea- tors," *< Watchers," ** Holy Ones," which to me is proof of a plurality. He thinks it no more a proof of plurality in God, than the titles of L. L. D. F. A. S. M. P. doctor, esquire, &c. affixed to a man's name prove him a plural being. W ho does not see the quibble ! Call a man, an individual, *' doctors," esquires" or any other title in the plural number, and you will at once see the absurdity. Common sense says such titles imply a plu' rality wherever they are affixed ; and as plural titles are affixed to God, it is plain the Bible intended to teach that there is more than atie in the Godhead. Obj. 3. « The term < plural being' conveys no definite idea — is a contradiction in itself! Phiral means more than one^ a being is but one. Now can any thing be more than one and only one at the same time ! The proposition involves a gross absurdity!'* This objection will be best answered by an example of his own. He says in page 343 : " That Aleim is sometimes used as a plural noun T shall not deny." A " plural noun !" Does this contain any definite idea ! Plural means more than one. A noun is but one. Now can a thing be more than one and only one at the same time! «< () yes: the noun is not plural in the same sense in which it is singular." Neither is God. *« The noun is singular in one respect and plural in another,^* We say the same of God. He is one in essence, plural as to persons. If there be no contradiction in the term " plural noun," there is none in th« term " plural being.'' Obj. 4. " Penn's Arguments." These are so much metaphfj" sical nonsense ! ! — unworthy of a distinct answer ! He first begs the question by supposing the three < too curious- ly concerning the doctrine of Trinity in Unity before the clergy, Arius opposed him, and hence arose the Arian controversy ! ! ! Theodoret" in his Ecclesiastical History, lib. iv. chap. 1, con- firms this sentiment, as does « Constantine" in his letter to Alexander and Arius ! 6th. But " Paui." not only unchristians the bishop of Alex- andria, but himself and his tritheistical brethren also ! — as will appear from the following sentence: «rea^ Christians never feel justified in indulging any curiosity on the subject." — Now there is no sect who have indulged juore curiosity on the subject than Trinitarians ! — as will partly appear from the opinions of Waterland, Howe, Owen, Pearson, Bull, Burnet, Wal- lis and others, as stated by Amicus, — and further by the anxiety which my opponent has manifested, to exhibit the fruit of his own vain curiosity in the present discussion ; like a bra- vado repeatedly daring us to appear before the public against him ! ! ! — Consequently Trinitarians are not *< real Christians.^' Their precise species 1 will leave to *«Paui." to define ! One thing, however, may truly be said of them, they do not float about between the Scylla of Arianism and the Charybdis of Socinianism," they have fairly landed on the shores of Tui- THEiSM ! A land which, from its first discovery, has produced more fruits of persecution and fanatical intolerance, than any other that can be pointed to, on the religious atlas ! ! ! 7th. To the incomprehensible and contradictory nature of my opponent's scheme, which 1 alledged as objections to it, " Paul" says : Does" Amicus never talk of things he does not fully com- prehend ? Does he find no mysteries in medicine ? Does he know any thing more about fever than a few of its properties, causes and effects, &c," — Answer. To know the properties, causes and effects, of any thing, is good ground to believe in its ex- istence! When « Paul" can give as good reasons to believe that the infinite, omnipresent JEHOVAH is a compound Being, consisting of three self-existent, independent, immutable, om- nipotent, eternal persons, finite or infinite, which he pleases, then I will embrace Tritheism ! — until then he must excuse me if I remain a believer in only one God ! ! ! That the doctrine of the Trinity,'* as expressed in what is called " the Atha- 365 nasian creed," involves contradictory propositions, is certain, and Amicus has been taught to beiieve, that of two contradic- tory propositions both cannot be true ! Sth. «* Paujl" tells us, that as he « writes for plain English people, he will not enter into a learned criticism on the Hebrew word < Elohim,' which few could understand." After introducing the subject himself, and occupying a large portion of two essays with borrowed matter to enforce his views, he now begins to feel great delicacy for his unlearned readers ! It does not, how- ever, require much learning to perceive that he has other rea- sons for avoiding the argument ! Delicacy is not a sin that he need fear to be charged with. To use his own language, This is a very convenient way of getting over an argument he cannot refute ! ! !" But our translators render the word < Elohim' Gods, two hundred times." True, and they render it God many hundred times ! and can there be a stronger evidence of the truth of my assertion, that the use of this word both as a singular and plural noun is an idiom, an irregularity of the language. Ac- cording to Paul's" logic, Ashtoreth, the goddess of the Zido- nians, and Baalberith the idol of the Shechemites are plural beings, a kind of Trinities! — Can any thing be more absurd f Many words are used with tlie plural termination in Hebrew, which we are accustomed to express in the singular. Thus in Ps£(Im xi. 7, " righteousness is put in the plural." For the Lord loveth righteousnesses (Zedakoth,) literally righteousnes- ses." Many examples of this kind could be produced if neces- sary, to show that no reliance ought to be placed upon « PaulV whimsical theory grounded on Hebrew anomalies. « Paul" thinks the text, Prov. ix. 10, proves that God is a <^ plural Being," and that the term ** holy" refers to God ! He gives us no authority for this opinion, but his own ; which from his ignorance of the original, manifested in a number of his remarks, we cannot rely on. Though king James's bishops some- times blundered in their attempts at translation, they under- stood the Hebrew too well, to translate this text to suit my oppo- nent ! The true meaning of the original would be better ren- dered thus : « the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the saints is understanding." <*The knowledge that begins with the fear of the Lord, and ends in making men holy, truly deserves to be called « understanding." But in quoting Hosea xi. 12, (as it is in our translation) why did not our wily disputant go back three verses in the same chapter ? He would have seen the term (Kadosh) " Holy One," applied in the singular to the Divine Being, which, to suit his own purpose, he, in the 12th verse, translates holy ones," 356 but which the betkr learned translators have very properly ren- dered ** saints." The meaning of the original is, ** Ephraim compasseth me about with lies, and the house of Israel with deceit, but Judah yet has power with God, and is yet reckoned among saintsJ' I'hough ** Paul," in quoting this passage, has failed in his object, yet he has plainly proved that his notions of the original are all borrowed from Trinitarians, and of course are unworthy of any credit in the present controversy. If he will please to get somebody to look for him in the original Hebrew Bible, he will find there is but eleven verses in the xith chapter. His quotation is in fact the 1st verse of the xiith chapter ! If, out of near fifty instances, where (Kadosh) holy, or holy ones, oc- curs as a noun in the Old Testament, it is a few times put in the plural, what then ? He must have wonderful discernment that can find in this circumstance a ** Trinity ! ! !" The term ** Holy One," as it occurs in Psalm xvi. 10, is generally admitted to apply to Christ — it is so applied by the Apostle, Acts ii. 27, and yet this same term has the plural form in the original, <* Thou wilt not leave my soul in the grave, nor suffer thy Holy One,^' (chasideycha,) thy holy or sanctified ones, " to see corruption." Now, how can *« Paul" account for this ? Is there a *« trinity" in Christ also? — if my opponent replies in the aflirmative, as William Penn says, " the three persons will soon increase to nine; if in the negative, his whole nieory built upon Hebrew anomalies, falls to the ground ! In reply to William Penn's arguments, Paul" calls them metaphysical nonsense" — unworthy of a distinct answer ! !" This is an easy way of getting over unanswerable arguments ! Now, in order to prove Penn*s arguments metaphysical nr»n- sense," let Paul" answer these plain questions : not by his own nonsense, but candidly and jdainly. Are the three persons that constitute his triune God" distinct and separate substan- ces or not I" If they are not substances, what are they ? and are ihey finite or infinite? He tells us, Penn knows nothing of his subject." — Paul" will now have an opportunity of showing what he knows of it ; or whether, like Dr. Miller," he knows nothing about it — not even so much as the meaning of the terms he uses ! ! ! « Paul" endeavours to alarm his readers by telling them, that unless God is divided into three parts, they can have no Saviour ! Now the Scriptures tell us plainly, that God the Holy One is our Saviour ! " I am Jehovah, beside me there is no Sa- viour." Isaiah xlii. 11. The great difference between us, is, that <* Paul" makes one third part of the Deity *^ a Saviour ;" we ascribe salvation to an undivided Deity — to <^ God manifest in the flesh" — to God in Christ reconciling the world unto 357 liiinsell !" to " the only wise God our Saviour !" His followers have much more cause of alarm, to see their benighted shep- herd exerting all his influence to lead them into the dark re- gions of Tritheism, ** the land of darkness and the shadow of death," of lifeless forms, and inefficient ceremonies ! AMICUS. Saturday^ August 17, 1822. LETTER XXXIIl.* ON THE TRINITY. *• And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever ; even the Spirit of truth.^^ John xiv. 16. From the arguments advanced in former numbers, it will be evident to every unprejudiced and humble inquirer after truth, that there is a plurality of persons in the Deity. I will now proceed to show, that this plurality is a Trinity, consisting of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, Three persons in One God, 1st. John xiv. 26, " But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name. He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, what- soever /have said unto you." This text, which we suppose " Amicus" w ill allow to be genuine, affords a clear and convincing proof of the truth of the doctrine for which we contend, and is amply sufficient of itself, to withstand the whole battery of Socinian objections. The first person mentioned, is the Comforter, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father should send in the name of Christ, and whose office it should be, to console the disciples of Jesus during his absence — to teach them all things — and to bring to their re- membrance whatsoever they had heard from the lips of their Divine instructer. Now, can it be said of any thing which is not a person — He shall teach — He shall bring all things to your remembrance — whom the Father will send? He mustsurelv be a person who is sent — who teacheth — who is a Comforter, and a Renumhrancer, The second person'm the text is denominated the Father, who was to send the Holy Ghost in the name of Christ. He who sends another, must be a distinct person from the one ♦This and the two succeeding numbers were written by another hand. 358 wFio is sent; but the Father sends the Holy Ghost, they must therefore be distinct, and as they cannot be distinct nothings," they must be distinct j?mons. The third person spoken of in this passage, is the Lord Jesus Christi in whose name the Father should send the Holy Ghost. He must be ^person in whose name another is sent, and he must also be distinct from the other two, (i. e. from the sender, and the one sent.) No language could possibly more clearly con- vey the idea of three distinct agents, than does this text ; and he must have a very simple mind indeed, who can porceive but one. We must either acknowledge that there are three persons spoken of in this text, or we must maintain that no person is mentioned, for it is equally plain that there are three, as that there is one. In discussing this passage, I have dwelt particulai*ly on the distinct personality of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, because it is only necessary to prove that three persons are mentioned, to establish the doctrine of the Trinity ; fur you have already ac- knowledged the Divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost. 2d. Another convincing argument may be deduced from the baptism of our Saviour, as recorded in the 3d of Matthew, 16 and 17 verses : And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water, and to ! the heavens were open- ed upon him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him; and to J a voice from heaven, saying, this is my beloved Son, in whom / am well pleased." The interjection, « lo !" which here occurs twice, is used to de- note something remarkable and worthy of special attention. In this text, as in the former one, it is evident that there are three distinct agents, to each of whom a distinct act is ascribed. Jesus is coming out of the water — the Father speaks from heaven — and the Holy Ghost descends in the appearance of a dove, and alights on Christ. If this passage does not teach the doctrine of three persons in the divine nature, it teaches nothing, and is entirely without meaning. Amicus" censures us for not being content with the language of Scripture in expressing our ideas of the Divine Being, and intimates that the Holy Ghost has been sufficiently accurate in the choice of words by which to express the will of God. Let <^ Amicus" now adhere to his own rule, and give us his ideas of this passage. We are afraid he will be obliged to remove this text also from the Word of God ; or perhaps he will say, « it is a figure of speech" — " a Greek anomaly." I would here beg leave to propose a question similar to one which « Amicus" has already asked : If the Holy Spirit had not intended to have taught the doctrine of a trinity of persons 359 jii the Deity, would he have used language so obviously calcu- lated to inculcate this doctrine ? To say that the Holy Spirit " did not much concern himself with the niceties of modern grammarians," would dishonour the God of truth ; and yet, such in effect is the language of ** Amicus;" for did not *Moses, as well as other holy men, speak as he was moved by the Holy Ghost ? In this second text, (Matt. iii. 16, 17,) the doctrine of ihrte persons in the Deity, is more clearly asserted than in John xiv. 26 ; for, in addition, there are the appearance of a dove, (representing the Holy Spirit,) and the voice from heaven (pro- ceeding from the Father.) *< this is my beloved Son." Amicus" may, if he pleases, again ascribe to us "gross and carnal conceptions," in perceiving the doctrine of the Trinity in this passage ; but he must excuse us, if we are ob- stinate enough to prefer the plain sense of Scripture to all his refined notions, and if vve should venture to assert that our op- ponent, after having acknowledged the divinity of the Son and Spirit, will never be able to persuade the people of God to re- ject the doctrine under consideration, to embrace his unscriptu- ral sentiment. 3d. 1 he form used in Christian baptism, as laid down by our Lord himself, ccmstitutes our third argument. Matt, xxviii. 19, Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,^^ This language is very emphatic, and expresses the idea of three persons as distinctly as words can express it. If the Father is a person, (which "Amicus" will not deny,) then the Son also is a person, and consequently, the Holy Ghost; and on the con- trary, if the Son and Spirit are not persons, then the Father is not a person; for it is necessary that the same things should be understood of each; namely, their dmni^t/, and the Christian's reliance on them as the God of our salvation. If " Amicus" should be permitted to rejine this passage, we conceive it would read thus : " Go ye not, therefore, and teach NOT all nations, baptizing them not in the name of God, and of * mortal flesh,' and of a divine influence." We rejoice in the belief, that the Christian church is not pre- pared to adopt a creed which does such violence and dishonour to the Scriptures of truth. 4th. We appeal to the Apostolic benediction, in proof of the doctrine of the Trinity. 2 Cor. xiii. 14., " The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen." The observations which I have already made on the three preceding texts, are equally applicable to this. Each of the sacred persons is dis- tinctly mentioned, and an appropriate blessing prayed for from 360 each — grace from the Son — love from God the Father — communion from the Holy Ghost The only difference between this and former texts, is, that the word God is used, instead of the Father, which circumstance tends to strengthen our argument. 5th. There are few texts more directly opposed to the opinion of " Amicus" than is John xvii. 5 ; and indeed the whole of this chapter : And now, 0 Father ! glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which / had with thee before the world was^ Here is the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who declares that he possessed glory with the Father, before the world was. Now, the human nature of Christ, the «* mortal flesh" had no existence four thousand years after the world was created — it could not then be mortal flesh" which possessed glory with the Father. It was then the divine nature of Christ, which was with the Father, and possessed glory with him before the world was. But surely he is a distinct person from the Father, who prays to the Father for that glory which he had with him^ before the world was, (i. e. from everlasting.) If the divine nature of our Lord Jesus, is not a distinct person from, the Fa- ther, then the text just quoted is absurd and unintelligible ; but, by keeping this distinction always in view, (not only this pas- sage, but) the most difficult Scripture passages, relating to Christ, are easily solved." 6th. The last direct passage which I shall at present adduce in support of the doctrine of the Trinity, is, 1 John v. 7, « For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one." This text Amicus" has pronounced «* spurious ;" but Christians will not be disposed to expel it from the Bible on his bare asser- tion. This passage is so unequivocal a proof of the doctrine .of the Trinity, that it is no wonder that it has been assailed by the enemies of truth — and that they have exerted all their inge- nuity to prove it an interpolation. Amicus" by calling it « spurious" without attempting to prove it so, is merely begging the question ; — we shall there- fore put him to the trouble of bringing forth his arguments against its authenticity, before we think it incumbent on us to step forward in its defence. If WE are not content with Scripture terms, « Amicus'^ is not content with Scripture itself ; but by reiterating tlie So- cinian cry of ^spurious!" he endeavours to expunge a part of God's Word from the Bible. Socinians and others of the same stamp, will not acknowledge this passage as genuine, for should they do so, their cause would be lost. 561 We advise " Amicus" to be very careful how lie pronounces a part of God's Word ♦< spurious," lest he should comuiit that sin, which would ** take away his part out of the book of life." (Rev. xxii. 19.) The toregoinj^ arguments will derive additional weight in every pious mind, from other doctrines peculiar to the Gospel — such as — ilie atonement of our Saviour — his intercession with the Father — and his being appointed by the Father the judge of the world — together witli the oSice of the Holy Spirit as the regenerater^ comforter and sanctifier of God's people. From what has now been advanced in favour of the doctrine of a Trinity of persons in the Godhead, we think it will be as clear as day to every candid mind, that this foundation of the Gos- pel." whic!i Penn calls sandy," is firmly built on the rock of trurh, and that it is in no danger of being *< shaken" or subverted by the feeble assaults of its foes. It has trinmphantly withstood the repeated attacks of the enemy of souls for the space of eighteen hundred years — its believers and advocates are constantly increasing — and it will remain the doctrine of the Bible and of the church of Christ, when the tongues and pens of its adver- saries are heard and move no more. Before closing our present number, we shall notice a few prominent things in the last communication of " Amicus." 1. His abuse Trinitarians, He calls us ** Tritheists," i. e. worshippers of three Gods, — He accuses us of •* malice"— of "falsehood" — of *< self-interesi" — of mercenary" motives in defending the truth — of popery" — and of wilfully *« aiming from the beginning of the present controversy, to vilify and de- fame the Society of Friends." Tiiese terms of reproach and unjust charges, come with a very ill grace from the ?neefe, the charitable and /ori7i^ Friend, who is continually complaining of our want of christian love. In callina; us ^' Tritheists," *' Ami- cus" is inconsistent with himself. — In one of his essays, (page 327,) he calls •* Wickliffe, Luther, Calvin, Zuinglius, Melanc- thon, and others, faithful sons of the morning,^^ and yet those who maintain the same doctrines with those reformers, are sons of darkness, — drir/c" — "letter learned clergy." Why did not "Amicus" call Luther and Calvin, "Tritheists." Again, " Amicus" calls John Newton a true minister of Christ, (page 311,) but if Newt(m were alive now, he would only be " a mercenary priest." We advise our opponent, hereafter to imitate the example of our Reedemer, " who w hen he was reviled, reviled not again,^^ 2. We notice the misrepresentations of" Amicus." His whole drift in his present essays, is to ndic?t/e the doctrine of the Tri- nity, by endeavouring to persuade his readers that we bclierc 46 362 in the existence of three Gods, To this purpose lie falsely re- presents us as believing that, ** God is divided in three parts,^^ — that there are three persons and yet but one person*' in the Dei- tiff (page 343.) Now we deny that we ever believed, ov proj'es- sed to believe, such absurdities ; and we hope that »* Amicus,'* on consideration, will be ashamed that he has thus misrepre- sented our faith. Here we will humbly answer the questions, which " Amicus," towards the close of his last communication, has proposed. We believe tliat there are three persons, (not three substances) in the divine nature or Godhead. But it will be asked, " What are those persons?" We answer : This is the point on which " real Christians never feel justified in indulg- ing any curiosity." It is enough for us that the Scriptures plain- ly teach tlie Trinity of persons in the Godhead — we do not therefore attempt to decide, *♦ what those persons are;'^ — or how they are consistent with the unity of Jehovah ; both of Avhicb, however, we firmly believe. 3. The equivocation of *• Amicus. He frequently makes men- tion of the <* divinity of Christ" — of his being the ** Saviour,^^ the *« Mediator,^^ the <* Redemer," the " Intercessor" — of his <^ atonement,^* &c.^but he takes care to say little or nothing with respect to the meaning which he attaches to these terms. We request " Amicus" to tell us explicitly, what he means, and what his society means by the terms just mentioned. 4. We notice Amicus '" want of information. He still per- sists in denying that there is any commonly received doctrine of the Trinity* And he has given us quotations from eight or nine individuals, to prove that all the Christian world disagree on this doctrine !! ! Admirable logic!!! Will any man in his senses believe that nine individuals compose the vast multitude of Trinitarians ? If " Amicus" can believe this, one would think he might also believe the doctrine of the Trinity, if it were even as absurd as he wishes to make it appear. If my op- ponent has a desire to know what is the commonly received doc- trine, let him consult the « Confessions of Faith" of tlie Epis- copalians, Presbyterians, Independents, Bapfists, Congrega- tionalists, Dutch Reformed, Methodists, and others, and he will ftnd that they all express the doctrine of the Trinity in nearly the same words. Here then we have almost the whole Christian Church, who agree in their ideas of t he Trinity, and use the same forms of expression ; and yet " Amicus" thinks (or ap- pears to think,) that there is no commonly received doctrine of the Trinity. Let " Amicus" have the fairness to appeal to our Confessions of Faith, and not attempt to mislead his readers by quoting individuals. 5. Amicus" says : That the Jews ever held the doctrine 363 of the Trinity, is a slander against them, and all the Scriptures of the Old TcstHiuent." Now men as learned as our opponent, and men the most learned m the Christian world, have given quotations from the most ancient Jewish writings, whieh prove that the Jewish raohic's and doctors, before the coming of Christ, believed the doctrine of the Trinity. (See Maurice's In- dian Antiquities — Dr. Allix's reslimonies of the Jewish church, and others). That the modern Jews do not belirve this doctrine we ^rant ; but let »* Amicus" jirove that this was not the faith of the ancient Jews. PAUL. Seveiith-day, Btk mo. 24, 1822. LETTER XXXIV. In that day there shall be One Lord^ and his name One,^' Zech. xiv. 9. *' I am God and nut man, the Holy OJV'E in the midst of thee,^^ Hos. xi. 9. / am Jehovah ; beside me there is no Sa- viour, Isa. xlii. 11. Amicus has now a new opponent but not a new writer to deal with. His first appearance in the ** Repository," indicates more talent than his predecessor had any claim to. I hope he may manifest more candor. It is painful to Amicus to expose the disingenuousness of his opponent — to give, as I did in my last number, the evidence of wilful misrepresentation. With our writings in his hands, his gross misstatement of our doc- trines cannot be imputed to ignorance, Paul" charges me witli using " terms of reproach," and making unjust charges." If I have used such terms, the blame should attach to those who have fairly earned them. The justness^ of every charge preferred against my opponent and his doctrines, has, I think, been shewn. My assertions have been supported by authentic documents, or proved by fair in- duction. If " Paul" think otherwise, and will point out a single error under these heads, I will promise to give him further satisfaction. I will either prove my premises, or ac- knowledge my mistake. It is, however, cause of satisfaction to perceive that my pre- sent opponent thinks itblamableto use <* terms of reproach,'* and to make <« unjust charges." In admitting this sentiment he passes a very severe censure on his forerunner ; and I would gently remind him, that his own essay is not immaculate in these respects. I will, however, do him the justice to acknowledge that while his address has more argument, it has less abuse, than those of his predecessor. S6i, I shall hereafter revert to his proofs, that God is a compound Being — in other words, composed of ** three distinct and se- parate persons," when, I think, we shall see, that the hum- ble inquirer after truth" must be extreme!)' ** prejudiced," before he can embrace a doctrine which contradicts our reason, makes language useless, opposes the views of the inspired pen- men, and leaves us in a labyrinth of mystery and darkness from which the Trinitarians can furnish us with no means of escapc^gAl In every well conducted argument, the parties first ascer-"' tain the precise ideas to be attached to the terms they use. If truth is their object, this is an indispensable preliminary. In my last essay, in order to arrive at this point, 1 requested " Paul" to answer some questions respecting the nature of the 'persons which compose ins *« triune God," but as he has evaded a/it// answer, I shall have to seek it from his former positions. My first query was ; '* Are the three persons that constitute his triune God, distinct and separate substances or not?" To this question he replies : <* We believe that there are three per- sons, not three substances in the Godhead?" — "Not three sub- stances !" — then the ** three persons" in their distinct and sepa- rate capacity, must be unsubstantial^ notreal, mere ideal forms — subsisting only in the imagination ! ! ! — What blasphemy does this conclusion involve ! Now how can three unsubstantial persons , when put together, or rather when kept distinct and separate, be ONE SUBSTANTIAL BEING, the Creator of innumer- able worlds — the Maker and Preserver of all things? The idea is preposterous ! — the doctrine is absurd!!! — To have a Sa- viour at all, he must be a real substantial Saviour. — If he be unreal or unsubstantial he can be no Saviour! My sec(md and third queries were : <* If the three persons are no/ substances, what are they?" and "Are tliey finite or infinite.^ These questions he evades in the usual way with Tri- nitarians, by telling us, that *< this is the point on which real Christians never feel justified in indulging any curiosity !" — « We do not attempt to decide what those persons are !" This is a mere shift to get over a difficulty — to evade a conclusion which would blast their scheme, and accelerate the downfall of a doctrine, invented by men who had lost <* the power of god- liness," and apostatized from Christ the true and living Head of his spiritual body, the church ! But I would ask "Paul," — How is it that " real Chris- tians" begin to feel a check to their curiosity at this precise point? — Is it consistent with the character of a " real Chris- tian to indulge his curiosity" so far as to examine into the nfl- hire of these « three persons,'* and induce him to decide that they are unsubstantial $ and yet inconsistent with that charac- 365 ler, to determine whether they iire finite or infinite? — Is it less criminal to determine on the nattire 9 than im the measure of their being? — Every "unprejudiced" and rational *» inquirer after truth," must perceive that the objection to answer my query does not arise from any scruple of conscience, biit from a con- viction tliat to answer it, either way, will involve them in dif- ficulty, from which they cannot be extricated. *« Paul" admits that the Deity is infinite. If therefore, he had said, the three persons which compose the Deity finite, it would inevitably follow, that thvve finite persons may make an infinite God J — If he had said, they are infinite, then every one would see that he is a TRITHEIST— -a believer in " three Gods ! ! !" In the first case he would be involved in a palpable absurdity — in the other in idolatry ! ! ! — Well therefore, may my opponent endeavour under the cover of a tender conscience to escape a dilemma so fatal to his cause ! ! ! But though **Paul" is now very tender on this one point, though «' he will not [now] attempt to decide what those persons are," yet it is strikingly apparent, that this tenderness is of a re- cent origin ! In his xxxth Letter, p. 324, he tells us, the per- son who appeared to Abraham in the plain of Mamre, (Gen. xviii. 1,) to whom Abraham prayed, and whom he addressed as the Jndge of all the earth, w ho is called JEHOVAH fourteen times in that single chapter, is spoken of in chap. xix. verse 24, as a dis ; 2 Peter iii. 9 ; Rev. v. 9, &c. &c. &c. And though we believe in but one divine Being, yet we be- lieve in the divinity of Christ, " God," saith the Apostle, ** was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself." 2 Cor. v. 19. This text, with many others that might be adduced, give us a clear and consistent idea of our Lord's divinity ; for as it is not possible that there can be more than one Divinity, so we are taught by the holy penmen to believe, that God in Christ is the true and proper divinity of Christ/ for "in Him dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" — or, as it should be rendered, *< substantially.'* Col. ii. 9. «*For HE, whom God hath sent, speaketh the words of God, for God giveth not Ve defy our opponents to shew that this faith is absurd. They may misrepresent and quibble as much as they please, but let them remember that quibbling^ misrepresentation and ridicule, are not argument. «* Amicus" in his concluding remarks, has confounded the terms, Father^ Son and Spirit, making them to «« mean the same thing when applied to the Deity." It follows then from this explanation, that when it is said, that ** God sent his Son into the world," it is only meant that *« God sent himself/ / /" That when it is said : *< the Father will send the Holy Ghost" — it is meant " the Father will send himself / 1 The absurdity of such an interpretation of Scripture will fully appear from John xvi. 7 ; Christ there speaking to his disciples, says : It is expe- dient,' &c. (see the whole passage.) Now if Christ and the Com- forter or Holy Ghost, mean the **same thing," then if Christ had not gone away, the Comforter or Holy Ghost would have been with the disciples ; for Christ and the Holy Ghost (ac- cording to "Amicus") mean the same thing. But according to the text, the Holy Ghost or Comforter was not present with the disciples; for Christ says: If I go not away, the Comforter will 710^ come," and " if / depart, I will send him unto you." Christ and the Holy Ghost must then be distinct and separate, for the Spirit is called another Comforter, he is not, therefore, the same with Christ. From this it is plain that the interpre- tation of « Amicus" is as opposite to the text, as darkness is to light. " Amicus" has given us his view and the views of your so- ciety, on the divinity of Christ; we hope he will be kind enough to proceed and let us know what you believe concern- ing the " atonemtnt^^ — *< mediation''^ — " intercession," &c. of our Saviour, and other subjects connected with them. If " Ami- cus" should feel any reluctance to proceed to these subjects, especially to the " atonement,^^ we would remind him that ** truth does not fear the light." PAUL. 376 Seventh-day, 9th mo. 7, 1822. LETTER XXXV. In my present opponent I had Iioped to find an antagonist prepared to meet me on the ground of argument, to discuss any point relating to a doctrine, which he tells us ** is \Qvy import- ant, and ought to be well understood /" ** Paul" had manifested an usual degree of anxiet)' to bring it before the public. He seemed to forget the Scripture admonition : « Let not him that girdeth on the harness boast himself as he that putteth it off," 1 Kings XX. 11. He seemed to triumph as a victor, ere the battle was begun ! ! ! If my readers have any curiosity to vSee the most singular specimen of gasconade, that perhaps a century has produced, let them consult his xxixth Letter, page 312 ! — Instead, however, of meeting me on tlie ground of fair argu- ment and rational investigation, he evades or tries to evade all my deductions by saying : ** Amicus appears to be determined to go on with his quibble on the words person and substance. He occupies more than a third of liis essay in attempting to prove that we must either believe in the existence of three Gods ()v of no God.^' — Now can " Paui." be so weak as to believe, that this kind of answer to my arguments will satisfy a discerning pub- lic ? Does he suppose that his character as an anonymous writer will have so much weight with our readers, that they will for his sake reverse the order of things — call argument «* a quibble,'* and dignify a quibble with the title of aririimentr According to our best lexicographers a quibble is an equivocation^ an eva- sion Is the *< more than one third of my essay'' alluded to, an equivocation ? — Ls it an evasion — an attempt to escape the force of my opponent's arguments? It is ridiculous to affirm it ! ! ! But it is very clear that this reply to arguments which he cannot refute is a mere quibble — an evasion of the most con- temptible kind ! and I have very little doubt but the candid reader will perceive, that such a reply to more than one third part of my essay,'* is little less than a confession that it cannot he refuted ! ! ! Now let my opponent remember, that quib- bling is not argument ! ! !" That the " persons" composing his " triune God," must be cither finite or infinite, is a position that cannot be rejected I They must be one or the other. There is no alternative ! That they must be substantial or unsubstantial is equally certain ! But I proved from premises granted by my ojiponents, that they Sive finite and unsubstantial ! — of course, they must believe either in an unsubstantial, imas;inaryi unreal God, or that three finite, unreal, imaginary persons, although <* distinct and sepa- rate," can make ONE SUBS I AN HAL, REAL, INFINITE 377 GOD ! ! ! — Now we defy our opponents to show that this faith is not absurd" ! ! I It has been seen by our readers that the terms « TRINITY" and PERSONS" as applied to tbe Deity, are not to be found in the sacred volume ; the advocates of a *• plural God," have therefore been forced to resort to the fallible standard of human reason for support. Whether this standard bas supported them or not, my readers will already be able to judge. Mystery and absurdity are hitherto the undeviating companions of their pro- gress. Their doctrine is not only above reason, but contrary to reason! It is supported, not by Scripture, but by their own conclusions, drawn from premises which have not been granted. It is such a mass of contradiction and inconsistency, that its ablest defenders have been embarrassed and confused at every turn ! ! ! That this is the situation of *« Paul" will now appear ! In his last address my opponent says : " the subject which at present engages our attention is very important, and ought to be well understood ; it enters into the essence of the Christian religion." — Here ** Paul" is inconsistent with himself, for if he be correct, this subject never can be understood — <• It is a mystery"— It is impossible to understand it! DR. MILLER in his <* Letters on Unitarianism," acknowledges, that he does not even comprehend the meaning of the terms he uses — of course he does not understand the subject ! It is therefore a subject, not for the understandings but for the exercise of im- plicit faith; not in the doctrine of the Bible, but in the gross and carnal construction of the Trinitarians ! ! ! The doctrine of the TRINITY, like that of TRANSUBSTANTIATION, sets reason at defiance, and leaves us nothing to rest upon, but the opinions of weak and fallible men ! — And it is a solemn truth, that this implicit faith is now, and ever has been, the main pillar of priest-craft ; only make the people believe that a human interpretation of the Scriptures, though violating the plain dictates of reason, is the standard of ORTHODOXY, and our religious liberty will then be committed to the keep- ing of thos<^, who have never failed to crush it when they had it in their power. It is a favourite idea of the clergy, that when a layman expresses a sentiment on religious subjects, he is « stepping out of his province." This doctrine of implicit faith contrary to reason, contains the very essence of POPERY ! ! ! In my last 1 replied to Paul's" arguments drawn from the text, John xiv. 16, 17. f shewed from the express language of our Lord himself, that the terms Father," •* Son" anil »* Holy Spirit,'' when applied to the Divinity, mean the same thing— that this must be true, appears not only from the many plain ^8 S78 Scripture passages I then adduced, but from the plainest rea- sons, some of which I will now exhibit. It is acknowledged by all that there is but one God, of course but one divine nature. Our opponents hold, that " God sub- sists in three distinct and separate divine persons,^^ Now, if these div ine persons be distinct and separate, then there must be three distinct and separate divinities. This conclusion is substanti- ated by the following considerations ; The Trinitarians make their *« three persons" three distinct and separate Holy Spirits ! That the Father is a iloly Spirit they cannot deny, for Christ speaking ol the Father, says : ♦*God is a Spirit," John iv. 24?. I'hat Christ the Saviour is a Holy Spirit, is equally certain, for the Apostle expressly says : God hath sent forth the Spi- rit of his Son into your hearts." Gal. iv. 6. <• If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." Rom. viii. 9. That the third person in their Trinity is a HOLY SPIRIT, is evi- dent from this appellation. Thus we liave three distinct and separate divine and holy Spirits ; and as every Spirit must have a being, of course there must be three distinct and separate Di- vine Beings I Here we are helplessly and hopelessly landed in TRI THEISM. unless we turn away from Athanasian idolatry, and embrace this simpk truth, that the terms "Father," " Son," and Holy Spirit," mean the same thing when applied to the divinity. But " Paul" says I have " confounded the terms Father, Son, and Spirit." If there be any weight in the charge, it lies equally heavy against our Lord himself, as well as against the Evangelists and Apostles, as may be shown by numerous pas- sages of Scripture. 1 will instance a few of them : — «' He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father,^* John xiv. 9. / and my Father are owe." John x. 30. This point is made remarkably clear by that memorable passage of the Apostle to the Romans, chap. viii. I w ill quote a part of it, and refer my readers to the chapter, with the expression of a wish that they would read it attentively. « Ye are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in yon;^^ " now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of his ; and if Christ be in you the body is dead because of sin. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead, dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies, by his Spirit that dwelleth in you,^^ '* Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in yoiu^^ 1 Cor. vi. 19. Now, from our Lord's expressions it is manifest, that the terms « Father" and « Christ," when applied to the Divinity, means the same thing—they are used synonymously. And it is equal- ly evident, from the words of the Apostles, that the terms 379 ^« Spirit of God''— Spirit of Ciirisl"— and "Holy Spirits- mean the same thing: they are alJ mentioned indiscriminately, as that one holy, div ine, quickening, sanctifying principle, that dwelleth in" true believers, and without which we cannot be Christians ! Will my opponent dare deny this position ? If not, how can he avoid tliis conclusion, that he has charged our Lord and his Apostle with "confounding the terms Father, Son and ^ Spirit?'* in other words, he has charged them with denying the orthodox docti'ine oi' the Trinity.'* It is a good remark of *• Phipps," that the inspired writers ** often speak of things promiscuously." — Sometimes they speak of Christ as " the Ward," which respects his divinity — " sometimes as man, or as in the flesh, and sometimes compre- hending both senses in the same words. For want of a right understanding properly to distinguish them, men are apt to jumble and mistake one for another. Hence arise disagree- ment, clashing and jangling about the true sense of Scripture, and trying it by the notions and systems they have espoused, instead of trying tliem by the truth, it is no wonder there is so much controversy." See " Original and present state of man." Philad. edit. 1818, page 178. Pnipps might have added: "the ^ want of this distinction has originated the gross, irrational, and absurd doctrine of the * Trinity.'" But my opponent rests the defence of his scheme principally upon the expressions: " He shall teach" — " He shall bring all things to your remembrance" — " Whom the Father will send." I consider the proofs in my last essay sufficient to overturn a volume of such arguments. It however appears, that " Paul" does not think so. He says, in his last Letter, " it follows then from [Amicus*] explanation, that when it is said, that God sent his Son into the world, it only meant, that God sent himself! that when it is said, "The Father will send the Holy Ghost," it meant, the Father will send himself!" — " Paul" could hardly have given a clearer proof, either of the grossness of his conceptions of the divine nature, which is infinite — or of the finite nature of the persons which compose his ^* triune God." It must be obvious to the rational candid inquirer after divine truth, that our Lord himself and the inspired penmen used a phraseology adapted to the capacity of his children, who, in the twilight of religious knowledge, could not comprehend those more extended views of the divine nature, which the Gospel dispensation was intended finally to introduce ! — ^Thus when it is said : " God came from Teman, the Holy One from Mount Paran." Hab. iii. 3. When the Psalmist said: " Bow thy hea- vens, O Lord, and come down." Psalm cxliv. 5, We must, upon ^< Paul's" hypothesis, conclude that God is a finite be- sso ing ! that the infinite Jehovah could move from place to place, which is absurd ! ! ! Now what will «' Paul" say to the follow- ing expressions of Christ himself: ** He that believtth on me, believeth not on me — but on him that sent me /" — ** He that seeth we, seeth him that sent we." John xii. 44, 45. Is it not obvi- ous, from these passages, that he that sendeth and he that is sent, are the same, as it relates to the divine nature ? There can be but one true answer to this question ! So that all the absurdity which «' Paul" has charged on the interpretation of Amicus, falls directly on our Lord himself! ! ! Another of " Paul's" convincing arguments^* he deduces from the baptism of Jesus. Matt, iii. 16, 17. His argument, however, proves him to be as carnal in his notions as the poor Jews, who, when Christ told them, ** I am the living bread," &c. said: " how can this man give us his flesh to eat." John vi. 51. Any other force in his argument, J am utterly unable to perceive ! To suppose one person in the Godhead walking up out of the water — while a second person is descending in the shape of a dove, and a third person uttering a voice from hea- ven, is to give them such a limited existence — so much locality — such definite forms, as is altogether inconsistent with the omni- presence and infinity of the ineffable God. To suppose that He who is inscrutable, who can manifest himself in what way he pleaseth, and in millions of places at the same instant, is so di- vided, does indeed appear a gross and carnal conception." But *< Paul" asserts, that « if this passage does not teach the doctrine of three persons in the divine nature, it teaches no- thing, and is entirely without meaning." Before he made this groundless assertion with so much confidence, he ought to have remembered, that the Evangelist John gives us a much stronger and infinitely more rational cause for this miraculous display of outward evidence ! Its design, as expressed by John, was, that Jesus should be made manifest to Israel. " He that sent me to baptize with water," says the Baptist, « the same said unto me-^Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining upon him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost," It seems to have been particularly intended to open the understanding of John the Baptist, and convince him that this was indeed the Messiah that should come ! And here- by John was enabled, when he saw Jesus walking, to say to the Jews: Behold the Lamb of God !" John i. 31, 33, 36. The words used by our Lord, when he sent forth his minis- ters, Matt, xxxiii. 19, and the Apostolic benediction, 2 Cor. xiii. 14, add no strength to the position of my opponent. The terms « Father," « Son" and Holy Spirit," refer us to one divine power, life, and virtue, as I have before abundantly 381 proved. To baptize in the name, or into the name, (as the ori« ginal has it,) is to bring the soul under i/ie jjower which only comes from God. To baptize into the name of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, is to baptize into the power of God the Father," which was manifested to the patriarchs and prophets ; into the name power as manifested in the ** Son" by miracles, and siji^ns, and wonders which God did by him. Acts ii.22, — into the pow- er of the Holy Spirit, as manifested in the Apostles and others, on the day of pentecost, and since, m a greater or lesser degree in every real Christian ! And this same divine power, which God manifested •* at sundry times and in divers manners," to his children under former dispensations, is appointed of him, for their « salvation to the end of the world !'' The name" of God and Christ is in the Scriptures, by a metonymy, gene- rally used for *« the power." The passage 1 John i. 7, which Amicus termed spirious^ «Paul" has ventured to quote in support of his scheme. In doing this, he has manifested but little sagacity, not duly con- sidering that a weak argument is far worse than none ! This text, " there are three that bear record in heaven," &c. is un- doubtedly an interpolation. For this sentiment I will give the following reasons : — It is not found in any Greek manuscript, written within fourteen hundred years after Christ; nor in any Latin manuscript, written earlier than the ninth century. It is not found in any of the ancient versions, nor is cited by any of the Greek Ecclesiastical writers ; although to prove a Tri- nity, they have cited the words both before and after this text. It is not quoted by any of the Latin fathers, even when their subject would have led them to appeal to its authority. It is first cited by Vigilius of Tapsus, a Latin writer of no credit, near five hundred years after Christ, and by him it is supposed to have been forged ! Since the reformation, it has been omit« ted as spurious in many editions of the New Testament. In the two first of Erasmus — in those of Aldus, Colinoeus, Zuin- glius, and lately of Griesbach. It was omitted by Luther in his German version. In the old English Bibles of Henry VIII. Edward VI. and Elizabeth, it was printed in a different type from the rest, or included in brackets. Archbishop Newcomb omits it, and the Bishop of Lincoln expresses his conviction that it is spurious. Adam Clarke says, that out of one hundred an^ thirteen manuscripts extant, written before the invention of printing, it is found but in one, and that one of comparatively recent date. Clarke has brought together such a mass of evi- dence, proving the passage spurious^ that it is wonderful any writer, making the least pretension to candor ov learning, should venture to insist on it as genuine ! " Paul" advises Amicus to be " very careful how he prcr 382 nounces a part of God's Word spurious, lest he should commit that sin which would take away his part out of the book of life. Amicus advises "Paul" to be extremely cautious how he adds to the words of the book," lest he partake of " the plai>ues that are written in the book !" Rev. xxii. 18. My opponent, by making long quotations from Trinitarian writers, has discovered an easy way of filling up his paper. It must be much more comfortable to make lengthy extracts from friendly authors, than to answer difficult questions, or refute conclusions drawn from premises already conceded ! I wish Paul" all the satisfaction which such a course is calculated to afford. Nor would 1, on this occasion, disturb his repose, had he not attempted show that the amiable and excellent Isaac Watts could fairly be enlisted as a defender of the indefensible doctrine of the *< Trinity." Now the truth is, (and I challenge ray opponent to deny it,) that Dr. Watts, in early life, warmly embraced this doctrine — that as he advanced in knowledge and religious experience, he became doubtful of its truth — that he finally abandoned it — and three years before his death pub- lished a work, entitled « Last Thoughts," on this subject — from which it appears that he wholly discarded the common no- tions of " the Trinity and finally, he died an open and candid opposer of the Trinitarian creed. That Amicus wished to enlist Watts" on my side is not true. I place no dependence on the authority of names. It is of very little importance to Amicus, who espouses or rejects his sentiments, any further than they are calculated to promote their truest enjoyment and permanent happiness. I have no point to carry, which, in the remotest degree effects my repu- tation or my pecuniary interest. Truth is my sole object. The society of which I am a member, has been as remarkable for its zeal in propagating what it deems the truth, as it has been sin- gular for its disconnection with the spirit of Proselytism." We fervently desire that all may come to the knowledge of the truth. We desire none to become members of our society, but such who first desire it for themselves ; nor is this desire a suffi- cient passport to membership with us. To us profession is a very weak recommendation — practice is the main point ! We deem faith a very good thing, but we hold to the Apostolic sen- timent, that « Faith without works is dead." Having no in- terest as a religious body, but that which rejoices in the happi- ness of all God's creation, we fully adopt the sentiment of our Lord, when he said: « He that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him to a wise man that built his house upon a rock, and when the storm came it fell not, because it was founded on an immovable basis. But he that heareth and 383 doth them not, I will liken to a foolish man, who built his house upon the sand, which w hen the storm came, and the rain de- : scended, fell," because it wanted the essential support of every ; Christian building, the rock Christ Jesus, the elficient author ! of every good worU, AMICUS. Saturday, September 14, 1822. LETTER XXXV. ON THE TRINITY. Canst thou hy searching find out God ? canst thou find out the At- mighty unto perfection ? It is as high as heaven ; what canst thou do ? deeper than hell ; what canst thou know ? The measure thereof is longer than the earth, and broader than the seaJ^* Job xi. 7, 8, 9. Our reply to the numerous, refined, and (in some instances) unintelligible explanations of passages of Scripture, attempted by « Amicus,'' is that the subject of discussion is one, on which we do not consider ourselves authorized to reason or dispute ; a subject which neither he nor we, nor any finite being is ca- pable of explaining or comprehending. This we are plainly taught by the passage, which we have just cited. Dr. Dwight in writing on this subject, says : Were my body so large, that I could sweep all the fixed stars, visible, from this world, in a clear night, and grasp them in the hollow of my hand ; and were my soul capacious in proportion to so vast a body, 1 should, notwithstanding, be infinitely too narrow-minded to conceive the wisdom of God, when he formed a fly ; and ho\^ then should I think of conceiving of himself? No; this is the highest of all impossibilities. His very lowest work checks and represses my vain contemplations. When we think of God in this light, w e can easily conceive it possible, that there may be a Trinity of persons in his nature." We leave it then to the presumptuous, to men puffed with pride of intellect, with high opinions of their mental capacities and endowments, to attempt in vain to pry into and explain subjects that must ever be my- steries to man in his present state of existence. Secret things belong unto the Lord ;'' and we are willing that they should. It is enough for us to ascertain facts and doctrines, and to have a "Thus saith the Lord," for the truth of them. It is enough for us to adore, admire and praise the mystery revealed. To the received opinions of men about the plainest things 38^ in nature, almost enOless objections may be made, and diffi- culties proposed. A fool may ask a wise man a thousand ques- tions, which he cannot answer. Still the objections, the diffi- culties and unanswered questions have no effect in disturbing men's belitf of well known facts and well ascertained truths. It appears strange to us then, that any man of sense would pique himself upon making objections and starting difficulties, till he wearies out the patience of his readers. The only cir- cumstances that reconcile us to our conduct, in following and answering <* Amicus" so far in his objections, are, that in con- sequence of it, he has more fully disclosed his errors, and wc Jiave evinced our capacity to answer all his objections and re- fute all his arguments that have any show of reason or force. These ends being accomplished, we pledge ourselves that, un- less we change our sentiments we will not in future weary our readers by following " Amicus" through his endless specula- tions, refinements and sophistical objections and arguments, but will confine ourselves as much as possible to a connected and plain statement and refutation of your doctrines and opi- nions that yet remain to be discussed, and to a succinct and conclusive defence of the truth. We are not willing to admit the ipse dixit of Amicus," (his mere say so) that Dr. Watts abandoned Trinitarian sentiments. But if it is true, as he states, that the Doctor did so, three years before his deatli, we still claim him as a Trinitarian, Dr. Watts lived to a very advanced age. Now, it is often said, and with truth too, of a man when he is very old,. ** He is no longer himself ;" Dr. Watts then at the time « Amicus" men- tions was not Dr. Watts, he was not himself. In answer to the observation of ** Amicus" upon 1 John v. 7, we reply, that there are men who possess as great <« candor and learning" as he, who insist on the geniiiness of the passage. We do not say pretension" as he does, for really we think he makes as high and arrogant pretensions as any writer we know. When room will admit, we shall give our proofs of the authenticity of this disputed passage, and we have no doubt but we will satisfy the impartial, that it is authentic. Our design in this number is to state, in as clear and plain a manner as we can, the difference of opinicm that appears from the present state of the discussion to exist between ^« Amicus" and us, in relation to the nature and essential sub- sistence of the divine Being; and to advance some additional plain and conclusive arguments in defence of our doctrine. He professes to believe in a God of such perfect unity, that it ad- mits of no real, but only a nominal distinction. We profess to believe in a God of perfect and essential unity, but such as ad- 38-5 111 its of a real and thieefold distinction. We purposely at pre » sent omit the term i i i..ity, to which <* Amicus" so invetei atelj objects as unseriptural, and taive one which the Scripturt\s cer- tainly authorize, as they so frequently use the three terms, Father, Son and Holy Ghost. From the many passages whicii we have before quoted, and by which we clearly prove a Tri- nity, it is evident that the Scriptures point out a distinction of three in tlie Godhead, and it is obviously a real — not a mere nominal distinction, but a distinction which ascribes a pro- pert> to each of the three severally, which does not belong, and cannot be communicated to the others severally. Now such a distinction ** Amicus" entirely discards. If the Scriptures in- tended such an eiuire unity as be contends for, would they so often employ terms, which always in a popular sense, obviously imply a real distinction t No person can hear the terms, Father and Son, sending and sent, one being with another, one loving and another beloved, without conceiving of a real distinction. Now these and similar terms of distinction are applied fre- quently in the Scriptures to what we call the three persons in the Godhead. We call them persons, because in the Scriptures the personal pnmouns, I, Thou, and He, are uniformly applied to them. The Father aiwl the Son speaking to each other, say thou ; and they and the Holy Ghost speaking of one another, use the pronouns He and They ; and the Scriptures in speaking of the three separately, always use the pronoun He. Now what other than a perscm can you conceive speaking to and of another in sucii language — language uniformly considered and called personal. Now let *^ Amicus," from the seat of decision which he has proudly and presumptuously erected for himself, pro- nounce the sentence of " absurdity, inconsistency." &c. Still it must be admitted that God is best acquainted with his own nature and essence, and consequently knows best what terms are properly and consistently applied to his chai'acter or mode of subsistence. Let Amicus" then beware lest he pronounce that absurd and inconsistent, which God himself has sanction- ed ; and lest he incur the guilt, and fall under the awful con- demnation of blasphemy. We finding the Scriptures iinifornily and obviously holding out a threefold distinction in the Godhead, believe, and insist upon it, that there is such a distinction. But <* Amicus" entirely rejects the distinction and utterly con- founds all the distinguishing terms, which the Scriptures are 80 careful to use. Christ is called Mediator. Now Mediator ne- cessarily implies parties to be reconciled, and a distinct person who reconciles the parties. The Apostle informs us that the parties in this case are God and men, and that the Mediator is Christ. If nothing but unity in every sense is adinirttd, where 49 will a Mediator be found ? for a Mediator must be distinct from the parties. You will not say that a mere name can be the Me- diator, the Reconciler ! Then the reconciliation would be only nominal, not real ; and all men would be yet in their sins, un- reconciled, and under the sentence of condemnation and death. Awful thought ! Upon this plain statement of the case we appeal to candor, common sense and impartiality, whether Amicus" or we have adopted the Scriptural sentiment, C(m- cerning the divine character or mode of subsistence. We adopt an opinion that embraces a threefold distinction, a distinction uniformly, and every where spoken of in the Scriptures. He entirely rejects all real distinction, and in defiance of the most plain and distinctive Scriptural terms. We proceed now to prove the truth of our doctrine by argu- ments derived from the Scriptures, from facts and history com- bined. We have heretofore taken our proofs wholly from the Scriptures. We now call to our aid facts, which are almost the only proper instruments for such short-sighted, finite creatures as we are, to wield in argument. We know little else than fact. "We are totally unacquainted with the nature or essence of the smallest thing in creation. How then can we presume to under- stand or explain the essence of the great Creator of all things. No doubt when we speak of facts " Amicus" will apply to them Lis favourite term, gross. And doubtless they will prove too gross, stubborn and unwieldy for him. Refining appears to be his chief talent. But we rejoice for truth's sake that scepticism and mysticism with all their ingenuity have never yet invented an alembic that can refine away facts. Let them put them into their hottest crucible, they w ill still to their great mortification come out stubborn facts. These things premised, we proceed to our arguments. The ancient Jews and primitive Christians worshipped the true God. They worshipped the Triune God. Therefore, the Triune God is the true God. Our major or first proposition we presume is admitted. The minor or second, perhaps, may be denied. We must therefore prove it. We have a host of testimony ; but have room to ad- vance only a small part. That the ancient Jews worshipped a Triune or three-one God, is evident from their verbal declara- tions and their numerous symbols. The Jewish commentators say : " there are three degrees in the mystery of Aleim, or Elohim ; and these degrees they call persons." The Author of the Jewish Book, Zohar, thus comments on these words. The Lord and our God, and the Lord are one. The Lord or Jehovah is the beginning of all things, and the perfection of all 387 things, and is called the Father. The other or our God, is the depth or fountain of sciences, and is calJed the Son. The other, or Lord, He is the Roly Ghost who proceeds from thera both. In the writings of Rabbi Judah Hakkadosh, or Judah the holy, there is this remarkable sentence, declaring the doc- trine of the Jewish church in the most explicit manner : ** God the Father, God the S(m, God the Holy Spirit ; Three in Unity, One in Trinity.'* One symbol used by the Jews to denote God, was a square enclosing three radii, or points, disposed in the form of a crown. The crown seems to have denoted the dignity and supremacy of the object designed, and the number three, the three persons in the Godhead. Another symbol was an equilateral triangle, with three small circles at the angles and the letter Jod inscribed over the upper angle. The three sides indicated the three persons of the Godhead ,* and the equal length of the sides, denoted their equality ; while the letter Jod was a direct proof that Jehovah was intended by the emblem. The three circles probably denoted the perfection of the three persons. You see then, how far Amicus" is correct in calling »» it a slander upon the Jews, to say that they held the doctrine of the Trinity.'* We shall now prove that the pri- mitive Christians also believed in a Trinity of persons. Justin Martyr, one of the most ancient of the Fathers, agrees with us (says Calvin) in every point.*' Tertullian asks the question, and answers it himself : « How many persons suppose you (saith he) there are ? As many as there are names." Gregory Nazianzcn, speaking of the Trinity, says : " 1 cannot think of the one, but I am immediately surrounded with the splendor of the three; nor can I clearly discover the three, but I am sud- denly carried back to the one." Here again we see how absurd it is to speak of the doctrine of the Trinity being a part of the orthodoxy of the Roman Catholic faith. It was believed long before that church existed. We have now proved that the an- cient Jews and primitive Christians believed in, and conse- quently worshipped a Triune God. This was our minor propo^ sition. It being proved true, and the major proposition being granted, the conclusion also must be true : therefore, the Triune God is the true God. To foretell future events, belongs unto God. The fulfilment of predictions will in many instances prove and develope the nature and essential character of God. This will appear to be the case with respect to the predictions which we shall now ad^ duce. God by the prophet (Isa. li. 5) says : *» The isles shall wait upon me, and on my arms shall they trust." Ps. ii. 8, God says to Christ: " Ask of me and I shall give thee th^ heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of th« 388 earth for thy possession/' Is. xi. 9, It is said : ^* The eartli shall be full of the knowledge of tlie Lord as the waters cover the sea." Is. lii. 8, it is said : ** The watchmen of Zion shall lift up the voice ; with the voice together shall they sing : for they shall ' see eye to eye." This last prophecy can never he fulfilled with respect to your society, whilst your present customs pre- vail, for you never sing. M either do your watchmen hegin to see eye to eye with oti»er watchmen, as those of other societies are beginning to do ; neither can you ever do it, till }ou are entirely new- modelled ; for you essentially differ from all others. Your society, therefore, can make no part of the mil- lenial church. At that happy period, there shall he hut one fold, as there is one shepherd." The predictions which we have just cited, are at present ful- filling. We shall not appeal to facts. The isles of the sea have lately hegun to wait upon God. Upon what God do they wait? and on whose arms do they trust ? Fact says : ** they wait upon the Triune God, and trust in his arms." Christ is now receiving the heathen in Asia, Africa and America for his inheritance. What Christ is receiving them? Fact answers: " Christ, the second person in the adorable Trinity for as such he is evtry where preached to the heathen and received by them. The earth is now beginning to be filled with the knowledge of the Lord. With the knowledge of what Lord ? Fact replies : '* With the knowledge of the Lord, whom the Trinitarians preach and worship, for the Trinitarians arc the only persons who are car- rying the knowledge of the Lord to different parts of the earth. Can God only predict ? — does the fulfilment of predictions prove the true God ? — and do facts universally testify that the predic- tions now fulfilling prove God to be Triune ? then the Triune God must be the true God. Surely, the only living and true God,^ who abominates idolatry as the highest crime, and speaks against false gods in tlic severest language, would not predict events in such a manner, that the fulfilment of them would prove the existence of three Gods, and consequently false gods* But God has predicted events, the fulfilment of w hich uniformly results in the proof of a Triune God ; tiierefore a Triune God cannot be three Gods. Again ; take a view'of other facts. What but a special Pro- vidence could be the cause of the stupendous movements which have lately taken place, and still continue throughout Christen- dom ? Nothing but the infinite wisdom and omnipotent arm of Jehovah could have devised and set in motion the vast, complex, yet harmonious and well regulated machinery of Bible, Mis- sionary and Tract Societies and Sabbath schools, which is now actively and successfully engaged in disseminating the Word SS9 of truth and of life, among all classes in society — in instructing the ignorant — reclaiming the vicious — conv erting the heathen — and thus gloriously preparing the wa> for the luillenial ad- vent of Christ, and the ushering in of the latter-day ghiry of Zion. These associations are coniposed of various denomina- tions, which till lately were violently opposed to each other, and held no social intercourse, and none but that God who turneth the hearts of men as the rivers of water are turned, could liave turned so many jarring hearts into the same channel, and unit- ed them as the heart of one man. Truly, «* tliis is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes." Now all these associations are composed of those who worship the Triune God, and leach and inculcate the doctrine of the Trinity as an essential doctrine of Cliristianity. Is there a God in the heavens ? and does he sway an omnipotent sceptre over the hearts and actions of men? and will he suffer his glory to be given to another r Nay, will he come out of his place — make bare his arm so that every eye that is not blind must see that it is his arm — and exercise a special Providence so that his glory should be given to others, to three Gods ! ! ! No, this is impossible* But facts declare, that God has exerciscci a special Providence, which gives a large tribute of glory to the Triune God, therefore the Triune God is not another God, « for God will not give his glory to another." Again ; turn your attention to the astonishing, numerous and extensive revivals of religion which are taking place in our land and in our day : and in these you have another fact to prove the truth of our doctrine. It is unnecessary to inform you that these are all amongst Trinitarians. To speak of a revival of religion amongst Unitarians, or amongst F s would make every body stare — would make themselves look aghast ! Did the miraculous conversion of three thousand by the preaching of Peter, prove that he preached true doctrine ! Surely the conversion of thousands now by the preaching of Trinitarians, must prove also that they preach the true doc- trine. The conversion of sinners is the work of God, and God will not set his seal to a lie. Did the miraculous healing of na- tural diseases^ and raising the dead, prove the divinity of Christ, and the divinity of the doctrines which the Apostles taught ^ Will not then the healing of moral diseases and rais- ing from the death of sin, prove the divinity of the Agent, and of the doctrines which are made the instruments ? Trinitarians preach their doctrines, and the morally diseased are healed, the vicious are reclaimed — the drunkard made sober — the pro- fane made pious — and thousands that were dead in trespasses and sins are raised to spiritual life. Ask them who healed 390 them and raised them from the dead, and what doctrines were the instruments ; and they will answer the Triune God, and the doctrines of the Trinitarians. We defy the Unitarians to pro- duce such testimony to the truth of their doctrines. Who ever heard of their doctrines reforming the vicious, or reclaiming the profligate ? We have often known them to have the contra- ry effect. Facts crowd upon facts. Obstinate must be the unbelief, inflexible the scepticism, which does not blush and yield ! ! ! Until « Amicus'* is able to counteract the most plain, forcible and plenary testimony — to shut our eyes and close our ears — to reasim people out of their senses — is able to refine facts into non-entities, and realities into phantoms, he will be unable to prove our doctrine either false, absurd, inconsistent or contra- dictory. Facts crowd upon facts. Go to the awakened and convinced of sin — to the contrite in spirit and wounded in heart, who have been healed and comforted — go to the beds of the sick and dying, and ask them : who awakened and convinced them of sin — who healed and comforted them — who C(msoled them in sickness, and attuned their dying lips with the song of victory over death and the grave : and they will all answer with one voice ; The Holy Spirit the Comforter, and Christ the Re- deemer, two persons in the adorable Trinity. Hark ! hark ! The citizens of the New Jerusalem are chaunting their doxolo- gies to the Triune God, saying : Holy, holy, holy, Lord, God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come." Hallelujah from the ancient Jews and primitive Christians, from isles and con- tinents, and from the whole true church, to the Triune God. The living, the dying Christians upon earth, saints and angels in heaven are singing : Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, as it was in the beginning, is now, and shall be evermore, world without end. Amen." PAUL. Seventh-day, 9th mo. 21, 1822. LETTER XXXVI. He disappointeth the devices of the crafty, so that their hands cannot perform their enterprises — they meet with darkness in the day time, and grope in the noon day as in the night,'' Job V. 12, 13, 14. " He made a pit and digged it, and is fallen into the ditch which he made.'' Psalm vii. 15. Under, 1 trust, a proper sense of the weight and importance of the subject which has for some weeks engaged our attention, 391 Amicus was not hasty to enter on the discussion of it* He was aware of the force of deep rooted prejudices — he was not igno- rant that it had engaged and divided men of the greatest talents and learning of different religious denominations ; and had little expectation that from either of these sources any new matter could be brought to illustrate it. It was not, therefore, until Paul" in the most indecent and vaunting style, repeatedly dared me to the conflict, that 1 ventured to enter the list with him ! I had not the least doubt that our doctrine was true, that it could be defended by the plainest testimony of the inspired writers — I was satisfied that our Lord, from whom there should be no appeal, had expressly taught it — 1 knew I had both rea- son and revelation on my side — yet, I had doubts of my capacity to do justice to the subject ; and, under a due sense of the re- sponsibility of the engagement, 1 very sincerely wished it had fallen into abler hands. Our readers may suppose, from the specimen of his talents which **PAUii" had given the public, that Amicus had nothing to fear in the contest, when truth was on his side ! But it should be recollected, that I had to contend with a projessed theolo- gian! — with one who had served a regular apprenticeship to the trade, whose life had been devoted to polemical divinity ! — And how could a layman tell with what mighty weapons such a champion mi^ht be furnished from the redoubtable magazine of A COLLEGE ! And then, as in his xxixth Letter, to see him like the gigantic Philistine brandishing his arms, and defying me to the combat ! — Was it not terrible ? Let my reader only turn to that Letter, and place himself for a moment in the situ- ation of Amicus, and then say whether 1 had not some cause for diffidence. But the conflict is over — the enemy has done his worst — and, as might have been reasonably expected, has shown himself as weak in the field as he was confident in the cabinet ! ! ! It is always a bad sign to see a boasting disposition at the beginning of a contest ; it generally indicates ignorance or presumption, and is the common harbinger of defeat. Let our readers now review the different essays on the sub- ject of the ''Trinity — let them read them attentively, and see, if the great mass of evidence which Amicus adduced in support of our doctrine, does not remain untouched by my op- ponent! The plainest Scripture text — the most conclusive rea- soning— the fairest deductions from premises conceded, all lie at his door unanswered, and as I suppose, unanswerable! He has been left with his brethren, where indeed they have placed themselves, on the ground of TRITHEISM. It has been re- peatedly and irrefutably proved, from the positions and conces*. sions of my opponents, that TRINITARIAMSM and TUI- THEISMare only different names Ibr the same thin.^. — That they are indentified as the same religion, and must stand or fall together! I know very well that tne Irinirarians acknow- ledge the unity of the deity » It the> did not, nothing could shield them from the charge of IDOLATRY ! but what signific s a profession that God is one, when they at the same time assert Ife is thee? What avails an acknowledgement of his tmity when t4iey contend for his pturality ! Now in wliat a miji**rable predicament do my opponents stand! TRUTH has <• disappointed the devices of the crafty, so that their hands cannot perform their entcrprizes they have made a pit and digged it, and are fallen into the ditch which they have made." In my last I stated, that " I hoped in my present opponent, to find an antagonist prepared to meet me on the ground of argument — to discuss any point relating to a doctrine" which he tells us *< is very important, and ought to be well understood." I again opened the door for a fair discussion of the points in controvei*sy. I hoped that a regard for his character, if not for his doctrine, would induce him to come from behind his liiding place, and shew himself a manly combatant for his faith. But I have been again disappointed ! He shrouds him- self in MYSTERY. He tells ns he « leaves it to tlie pre- sumptuous ; to men puffed up with the pride of intellect, ith high opinions of their mental capacities and endowments, to explain subjects, which must ever be mysteries to man in his present state of existence." What a pity it is that he did not think of this before he challenged Amicus, in the pre- sumptuous" manner of his xxixth Letter ! ! ! What a pity it is, that his own « pride of intellect" — his * and peace, from God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love." According to your views, the Apostle might have sought grace " from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of the Father in truth and love!!!" Again; Matt, xxviii. 19; "Go baptize all na- tions in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Now if these terms are " synonymous— mean the same thing," why was it not said : " Go baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Father, and of the Father ?"--or " in the name of the Son, and of the Son, and of the Son ?" — i)r " in the name of the Holy Ghost, and of the Holy Ghost, and of the Holy Ghost ! !" Or at the baptism of Christ himself, v/hy do we not read, that when the Father came up out of the vrater, the Father was seen descending like a dove, and the Viiee of the Father was heard from heaven, saying, " this is my beloved Father in wliom I am well pleased ! ! !" Who is not shocked at this blasphemous interpretation of Scripture ! Yet such is necessarily the interpretation of those who say that the terms " Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" mean the same thing, and deny all distinction in the Deity. In the mean time, all Christians would be satisfied that there 401 is a plurality in the Godhead, if there were no other proofs in Scripture than the foUowin.i^: 1. Jolin i. 1, ** In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were made by Him. And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory," &c. Here it is evident that the *' Word" means a « person," be- cause He is spoken of as Creator, and the personal pronouns ^ him" and <* his" are used ; — secondly, that this Word exist- ed before he was *< made flesh ;" — thirdly, that tliis Word <* was God ;" — fourthly, that this person was separate from another person called God, for he was <« with God. * — This is proof positive of a plurality in the Godhead, unless you can disprove one of these propositions — that the Word " was God," or that He was ** with God." 2. Again ; John viii. 17, 18, It is written in your law, that the testimony of two men (or of two persons) is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me bear- eth witness of me." Now, either there is no force in our Lord's argument, or he and his Father are in some sense two. We must doubt his logic, or admit his distinct personality, and of course admit a plurality in the Godhead. 3. Lastly : John xiv. 23, " If a man love me (said our Lord Jesus Christ) he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him and make our abode with him." Now it is morally impossible that Jesus Christ as man^ or in his human nature should dwell in the hearts of all his disciples. This would be equal in absurdity to the doctrine of transubstan- tiation. His indwelling, therefore, refers to his divine nature. But the Father also dwells in these disciples, and Christ spake of himself as numerically and personally distinct from the Fa- ther, when he says : " my Father will love him, and we will come unto him and make our abode with him." This is testi- mony of the most infallible kind, by him who knew the Fa- ther," that there is 2L2)lurality in the Godhead. And here I am willing to leave the subject. If " Amicus" will, in his next, give us your views of the atonement, I will say no more at present on the Trinity. PAUL. 51 402 SeverUh-day, XOth mo, 5, 1822. LETTER XXXVII. And Balak^s anger was kindled against Balaam, and he smote his hands together : and Balak said unto Balaam^ I called thee to curse mine enemies, and behold thou hast altogether blessed them. Therefore now jiee unto thy place : I thought to promote thee to great honour, but, lo, the Lord hath kept thee back from honour,^' Numb. xxiv. 10, 11, How often are the designs of the malevolent frustrated, by the very means they use to accomplish them ! — They attack the character of the virtuous man — they drag him into public view, with the intention to render him odious. They distort his sentiments, and attribute his good actions to a bad cause. — But their plans prove abortive ! — His virtues recommend him to general approbation, and the very attempt to injure him, proves a means of introducing him to the public favour ! The evil passions which excited his enemies to curse him, are over- ruled ; and behold in the end it is found they have alt»gether blessed him !!!" But how is it with the instruments of malice and detraction ? They cannot even keep their own secrets — they discover iheir designs — they manifest their turpitude, and the anger," even of their/orrner friends, is kindled against them,*" whilst the language of public disapprobation is distinctly heard, saying: « Therefore now flee unto thy pface, for lo, the Lord hath kept thee back from honour !" Truth, like pure gold, stands the test of the severest scru- tiny— the more it is handled, the brighter it shines. Error, on the contrary, like base metal, grows darker by exposure ; and if it be intended, that it should retain any value in the mistaken opinions of men, its advocates must sliroud it in darkness. — Like the doctrine of my opponent, it must be carefully wrapped in the mantle of mystery / In " Paul's" last Letter he tells us, « his object at the first, was not to go into a full detail of the arguments for the Trinity, but to just far enough to draw forth owr sentiments, and shew to the world that we were Anti-trinitarians !!!" If this were his whole design, we grant that he has succeeded — *' this point is established beyond a doubt." — Behold then, the result of all his prayers, his long anxiety, and earnest inquiry after duty !!!" He has written ten long and laboured Letters tons, on the subject of the Trinity; and this, not to defend his own no- tions f but simply <* to shew to the world," what fifty of our 405 writers published more than a century ago !! to wit, that w were not Trinitarians — that we did not worship THREE GODS ! How much the world may feel indebted to him, I cannot say — if i/ was as ignorant as my opponent has supposed, 1 think we ought to be exceedingi} obliged to him for his la- bours. It is true, he meant to make us odious — but I think his intentions have been overruled, and that he has *< altogether blessed us !" But I ween the advocates of a PLURAL GOD," will not thank him much for his services ! He has gone «*just far enough" to prove them TRITHEISTS— -to expose them as worshippers of three separate divine Beings — three dis- tinct Holy Spirits--THREE GODS ! And then, instead of fully defending them in the hour of trial, he has ignobly left the field, and retired to the shades of mystery and darkness ; the gloomy abode of bats; or, as the prophet expresses it, *< a court for owl*.'* Isaiah xxxiv. 13. But why not " go into a full detail of arguments for the Trin- ity r" — Was not this subject, which he tells us is the " very foundation of Christianity" — ** the first principle of revealed religion," of sufficient importance to induce him to defend it ? Or do not twenty-eight columns of the Repository, closely filled with his notions on it, suffice for its defence I Or, have dis- cerning friends admonished him to " flee unto his place," that they may preserve the remnant of their heritage ? Have they not said unto our modern Balaam : *' We called thee to curse our enemies, and behold thou hast altogether blessed them !!!" But whether he has been so admonished or not, that his la- bours will have a good eft'ect, is pretty certain. The present controversy will be one mean among many others, to excite re- flection : and in our happy country, where religious liberty is yet established by law, to excite reflection is to do much toward the detection of error, and the propagation of truth. The doc- trine of an Infinite Being subsisting in three distinct and separate parts, may be retained by some, whose minds were, through early education, prejudiced in its favour ; but there is little probability that rational and unprejudiced inquirers after truth, can ever embrace it. By the latter class, who are undoubt- edly numerous, the absurdity of the scheme will be discovered, and the monster rejected. The real causes which prompted <* Paul" to attack us in his unhandsome way, now more than a year ago, at a time, when the Society I advocate was travelling along in its usual quiet way, are every day developing themselves. It seems by in- formation received from the Calvinists themselves, that they are determined to establish an overwhehning Calvinistic influ- ence in this country — to use the expressions of their favourite 40* Lyman Beecher, a homogeneous influence,'* so exiensive that Episcopalians, and Methodists, and other religious societies could present no obstacle to tlieir designs, whether ir-religious or political. For this purpose various plans are in operation. Theological Seminaries are to be instituted on so large a scale, that five thousand additional Priests are to be spread over the United States ; who (according to the avowal ot one of their clergy, Dr. Burton) having got all the Colleges under their in- fluence, the Fresidt nts and instructors miglit have the address to instill the Calvinistic sentiments without the students being sensible of it J** then," says the doctor, ** nine out of ten. when they leave the College, will support the Calvinistic doctrine. They will go out into the world and will have their influence in society. In this way we can get a better support without any laWi than we have ever had with I — and besides when all our Colleges are under our inHuence, it will establish our senti- ments and influence, so that we can manage the civil government as we please IJP^ In ordt r to institute such seminaries, vast sums of money are to be raised ; and Beecher calls eloquently upon the people to give it ! Give your money to save your country from ruin ! Give your money to save millions of our country -men from hell ! Give your money, that we may be rescued from a vio- lent death and a speedy one, by the hands of ignorance and irreligion !" and finally; *< Give, that you may provide for your children, an inheritance uncorruptible, and undefiled, and un- fading in heaven !!!" O the mighty power of money when placed without stint in the hands of Calvinistic clergymen !!! SVhat a pity it is, that our Lord and his Apostles did not disco- ver this admirable plan of providing for posterity an inheritance in the kingdom of heaven ///" What this swarm of Priests are to do when they get fixed in snug births, with each a salary of one or two thousand dollars a year, we may partly understand from the conduct and con- fession of my opponent. One of the first measures to be taken is to attack S(»me peaceable religious society, and to be sure to sel« ct or.e which they may suppose is either unable or unwilling to make any defence. In this attack the young priest is not to go into a full detail f)f the arguments for the support of his own doetrines, but to go just far enough to draw forth the sen- timents of the opposite party and if he find them not Calvin- isms, nor Tritheists, he is to raise the cry of <* heretics," ** in- fidels," «* heathens," or ** spurious Christians." Thus one society after another is to be disgraced and put down, and thus the *» homogeneous inflti«'nce" ol Calvinism is to be esta- blished over the churches, and over the people, until the oriho- 406 dox disciples of saint Athanasius, Augustin, and John Calviu, "can niafia.g<- ilir iivii i^ovt rnmtni as they please!.*" What an aUinirabJe expedit nt is ihis, as L^^man Beecher says, to rend* r our count i > great and gotxi and happy How strikingly tht such men as my opponent and his accom- plices, reseinule lih mercenary son ut iSeor and tlie ministers of Balak ! The text says : •* And the elders of Moab, and the elders of Median departed with tiie rewards of divination in their hands ; and riiey came unto Balaam, and ihey spake unto him ihe words of Balak and they said : Come now therefore, I pray tliee curse me thi.s pem. viii. 28. And such Amicus believes there are amongst all socie- ties of Christians. We may differ on doctrinal points, bui the love of God is tlie ^reaf essential of Christianity, •» He tiiat loveth ine keepeth my commandments." I will now attempt a reply to <* Paul's" three arguments in his last Letter, which he thinks are alone si.ffieient tc- satisfy all Christians [I suppose he means Tntheists] that there is a plurality in the Godhead /" Now I think the first text he quotes is sufficient, in connec- tion with other passages of Scripture, to convince any but eon- firmed Tritheists, that the docirine is untrue. For 1st, " The WORD was GOD,'' is the express language of the text ! — Of course, notone-thtrd part of God. 2d, * hrow^lit more arguments than can he ever answ**red ; because it wi)uld prolong this controversy beyond all reasonable bounds, to go 412 into a full detail because the discussion of other subjects will continually bring the Trinity into view ; — but especially because it will defend itself. The Christian community, 1 mean such as feel their need of salvation, will never tolerate a doc- trine which dethrones their Saviour, and blasts their everlasting hopes ! 1 do not think it necessary to go further ; and if you will not give your views of the atonement, I am as willing to stop here as six weeks hence. I am, however, perfectly satis- fied. My main object has been gained. Your mask has been torn off. You have disrobed yourselves of the very form of Christianity. And henceforth you will need no accuser. So long as the essays of Amicus" are acknowledged, no worse charges can be brought against you than what they acknow- ledge to be just. A siege of nine months more, would perhaps draw forth your views of the atonement ; but as 1 have not nine months more to spare, I have little hope that you will make a candid state- ment of your views. In the mean time, I will state a few of the momentous con- sequences of denying a plurality of persons in the Deity ; con- sequences which, as you admit them, will of course give you Tio concern ; but which the Christian public will not tolerate. You have denied the divinity of Christ, except as he is the Father;" so far as he is distinct from the Father, you never were so stupid as to consider him divine." As you will not state your doctrines to the public, I will state them for you. First, then, you make the Son whom God gave for the redemption of the world, a mere man, John iii. 16, «* God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten may, 1 love and venerate them with all my heart ! — Bound to the sacred cause of Christianity by the double tie of love and duty, they scorn to make divinity a trade^* — a step-ladder to raise them to wealth and distinction ! — Like the Apostles of Christ, and in cheerful obedience to his command, they ** freely give" w hat they have <* freely received." — They ask no other compensa- tion than " a peaceful conscience" — no other privilege than to stand on the dignified ground of disinterested ambassadors for Christ! See Acts xx. 33, 34. 1 Cor. ix. 18. But unhappily for this sacred cause, through the influence of false ministers, who have crept into the fold, not through Christ the door — but through the gate of theological seminaries ! — not in the power of the kingdom of God, but in the strength of academical de- grees, and of that wisdom which is foolishness with God. — I say, tlirough the influence of such ministers, a dark apostacy has been efl*ected in the church. They have obscured the plain truths of the Gospel ! The Christian plan of redemption, simple as the light of day, has been darkened by their heathe n- ish Jargon, and ** methaphysical nonsense !" The knowledge of God and eternal life, through the operation of his own blessed Spirit, which was promised to "the least" as well as <* to the greatest," Ueb. viii. 11. tbey have wrapped up in mystery, and enveloped in tlie fogs of Pagan pliilosophy! — and hence, with all the deceivableness of unrighteousness, according to apostolic predictiim, through feigned words, they have made merchandize of the people." — Against such, in w liatever socie- ty they may be found, I feel at perfect liberty to speak" und 53 4lS to paint them in their true character as " grievous wolves, who have entered in, not sparing the flock." Acts xx. 29. In a former address, *• Paul" claimed for the Trinitarians, the sole merit of spreading the Gospel ! ! ! This unwarranted assumption was met hy an exposition of some very prominent features in their character. They w( re described as being remarkable for their unreLenting crueitij, and as ** almost the on- ly professors of Christianity who liad unsheathed the sword and lighted the fires of persecutwn/' My opponent does not deny these facts ! — They must therefore lie with deadly weight against the Trinitarian character ! — *• Ye shall know them by their fruits ! !" But so far is Paul's" assump- tion from true, that I assert without any fear of contradiction, they have done more to obstruct the spreadiiig of the Gospel, than any people that have ever lived/ — Yet Paul thinks it uncandid to charge the actions of grievous wolves upon the poor innocent sheep! ! !" — How a statement of facts can mark a want of can- dor, he has not explained ! From such sheep may we all in mercy be delivered ! ! ! My opponent expresses an anxious desire to make contrasts! but he had better be sparing on that head, for if Amicus should be induced to take the same course, instead of contrasting one falsehood with another, he would contrast facts with facts, and open a scene to those unacquainted with Ecclesiastical history, that might do more to cripple the cause of Trinitarianism, than the more lucid exposition of Athanasian absurdities. He might contrast a contentious, lordly, mercenary clergy, with the meek, humble, disinterested ministers of Christ. He might contrast the services, the travels, and sufferings of the Apostle Paul, working his way from country to country on the produce of his own labour, with the shameless beggary of those who would take the last mite from the hand of suffering poverty. He might contrast the untitled and lowly Peter and John, with the Reverends of our day, who justly claim ?i lineal descent from the church of Rome ! ! ! But these contrasts would be disgusting, and (miy serve to show, that the reformation from popery, with all its boasted advantages, had been little more than nominal, and that the professing churches, whether Calvinistical or pre- latical, still need a greater reformation than has ever been ef- fected ! Whether " the love of money^^ be an " unpardonable sin," I "Will not undertake to determine — but we have divine authority, and ample testimony from experience, to show that <♦ it is the root of all eviir^ Where is the enlightened and disinterested Christian, who does not lament to see this foul leprosy, winding itself into almost every department of society — to see the 9cal,v 419 plague, shining most conspicuously in the very face of the pro- fesst d church of Christ ! ! ! — rising into her eyes, blinding her to the perception of her state, so that when she ought to hang her liead for shame, she has the indelicacy to boast of her sores ! ! ! By a great variety of contrasts, we might show the striking contrariety uf character, between the primitive churches, and those, w Inch Paul" tells us, ** are raking, and scraping and saving thousands oC dollars to send ten thousand miles off to the poor perisliini^ iieaihen." But tlie time would fail us; we will theref with her open taci%" both published ONE iiUNDRKD • AJND FIFTY-FOUR YEARS AGO, they will see that ht has made an avow al of our UnitarianisFii as explicit as any Amicus has ever made — that he has, with his usual force and clearness, demonstrated the absurdity and idolatry of the Athaiiasian scheme^ and consequently, <* Paul" must be either an ignorant pretender, or wilful perverter of the truth. For a nine month's siege on the doctrine of " atonement," « Paul" cannot ♦* spare the time ! ! But there are other rea- sons tor his dislike of sieges. In the first place, he is apt to run short of the means to suslain them. In the next, he has been uniformly driven from his intrenehments ; and in tlie present case, on his re-appearance from his mystical refuge^ it appears he has taken the precaution to provide himself an asylum un- der the wing of the editor, only six steps distant from his re- doubt ! ! In this instance <• Paul" is fairly entitled to the praise of a discreet antagonist. The prudent man foreseeth the evil and hideth himself, but the simple pass on and are pun- ished." Prov. xxii. 3. 1 will now notice some of the Remarks of my opponent, intend- ed, not to prove the truth of his own absurd doctrine, but to blind the eyes of his readers to its deformity. First, he says : " the Christian community, such as feel their need of salvation, will never tolerate a doctrine which dethrones their Saviour and blasts their everlasting hopes !" — Now with all due respect to the views of my opponent, I think it can be (Xj* The folhimig J\i*ote should have been inserted immediately after *' Amicus' " XXXV JIth Letter, page 409. • A -word to Paul and Amicus. — There appears to be a division among' our subscribers in regard to your controversy. A number of our readers would prefer that your essays should give place to something of a less controversial nature ; while others, and perhaps an equally large number, anxious to Icai'u the sentiments of the Friends, are desirous for your continuance. For our- selves, we have been generally pleased with the controversy from the first, ex- cept its length and asperities ; and doubt not its having done good. But too much of any thing, however good, is good for nothing And as you have now oc- cupied the Repository, and a large portion of it too, for nearly a year and a half; as " Paul" professes to have gained the main point at which he originally aim- ed, a statement of the sentiments of Friends on the subject of the Trinity and as " .\micus," by his essay this week, seems to be satisfied with the discus.sion of that point ; and as the parties are beginning to manifest increasing warmth and personality ; the editor would suggest the propriety of drawing to a close as speedily as possible. Therefore, we conclude to stop the controversy, so far as our paper is con- cerned, after each shall have appeared in our columns six times more. Six more opportunities will be given to each of the combatants to propose and de- fend their sentiments after which we must beg to be excused. — Editor Chris- Han Repository. Saturday, Oct. 5, 1822. 451 made clearly to appear, that upon this hypothesis those who feci the need of a Saviour must reject the Trinitarian scheme. « Paul's" Saviour is mortal ! In his pretended exposition of our doctrine « Paul" first tells MS, that nve *« make the Son, whom God gave for the redemption oftheworld, a mere man.^^ It happens however that /?z"s ;)er- version is no part of our doctrine. 1 have never yet heen quite so ** stupid" as to helieve, much less to assert that a mere man could effect the redemption of the world. Nothing shoFt of Infinite power could possihly redeem the soul from sin, and bring us into a conformity to the divine nature ! But I have before asserted, and 1 think clearly illustrated, what indeed every man who reads his Bihie must see, that the terms <« Christ'' and *< Son of God," are sometimes applied to the hu- man nature, which was the medium of that glorious manifesta- tion of God in the flesh. " God sent forth his Son made of a ntvoman,^^ Gal. iv. 4. " The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee, thertjort, also, that holy thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God,-' Luke i. 35. Sometimes they are applied to the divine nature, which dwelt" in it ; to God manifest in the flesh," — who being the brightness of his glory, and the ex- press image of his person," or, properly " the express charac- ter of his substance." — <* To the Son he saith, thy throne O God is forever and ever," Heb. i. 3, 8. — And sometimes both senses arc included in the same terms ; ** God has in these last days spoken to us by his Son^ whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also, he made the worlds," verse 2. By blend- ing together things that differ, and ideas which should be kept distinct, my opponent not only confuses the subject, and throws difficulties in the way of understanding what is sufficiently plain, but he runs himself into palpable blasphemy, as 1 shall presently demonstrate. So far is ** Paul's" conclusion from being correct, that we <• deny the divinity of Christ," that I know of no people on earth w ho more fully acknowledge it, than we do. WMiile my opponent makes the Saviour a mortal Divi- iiitij ! — a dying God ! — we make him <<-the only wise God our Saviour." Jude. <«The eternal Spirit manifest in the flesh," for our reconciliation and redemption ! Paul" tells us that when he speaks of « Christ as a Redeemer, he speaks of him as dying to make atonement for our sins, as giving his life, a ransom for many :" It follows therefore, that the redemption which Is to save him in the awful day, consists altogether in what was done by another in his stead, without any regard to his being redeemed from the pow er of corruption ! That he is to be saved in his sins, not from his sins I ! — Now 422 Nviieii we speak of redemption by Christ, we spealt of ^* an eftec- tual redemption, a thorough change ; not the imputation of righteousness without works, but a real substantial righteous- ness in the heart and life, which may operate upon, and regu- late the mind and will, and lead us to a conformity to his divine nature : Not a righteousness imputed to us from what Christ did and suffered, without us, but a righteousness raised btj him rvithin us, through a surrender of ourselves to his government, and yielding entire submission to his heart cleansing refining power,^' See Fothergill's Sermons, Phila. edit. 1800, p. 65. But according to " Paul,'* and what he tells us is ** the idea which the orthodox entertain," Jehovah the Redeemer literally " laid down his life for us." GOD was crucified and slain! ! ! So then the infinite GOD suffered and died, — and that too by the agency of those creatures he had made, and who at the same moment were sustained by him in life and existence ! ! ! — The idea is shocking ! To admit it, in defiance of reason and common sense, must I think require no little <* stupidity.'* It is impossi- ble the Divine nature could suffer or die ! — Yet it must have been so if one person in the Godhead was crucified and killed to ap- pease the wrath of another person in the Godhead, and to tenable him to be " merciful" to mankind, and " pardon" them ! ! ! If there be three divine persons in the Godhead, and one of those persons died, then the time has been when the Godhead consist- ed of two living members^ and one dead member I — a time when the Deity suffered an eclipse, more awful than the destruction of one third of all the suns in the firmament of heaven ! ! ! But this is not the last in the long stringof orthodox absurdity, accord- ing to which the blood that was shed on Calvary, was the blood of God! and the fiesh there crucified was the flesh of God!!! — If this is not blasphemy, I am at a loss to conceive the meaning of the term ! ! ! — In order, however, to sustain his disgusting scheme, he quotes 1 John iii. 16, <^ Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us, we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren " It is evident from his use of this text, that he would make his readers believe, that the Apostle meant to convey the idea that God laid down his life for us " Now the original conveys no such idea! — the pronoun « Ae" in the text does not relate to the immediate antecedent, in our trans- lation ! Because, in the first place, the words <^ of God" in this verse, have been supplied by the translators, and in the best editions are always printed in Italics. But even if these words should not be called in question, } et the Greek word (Ekeinos) translated <* he,'' always relates to a remote antecedent, being equivalent to the expression that there" or the French "ce- 423 luila." Had the pronoun ^* he" heen intended to relate to (to« Theou) of God (outos) would have been used, which is the same as " this here" — or the French *« celui ci" — (Ekeinos) therefore must relate to the <* Son of God," mentioned verse 8th — and perhaps the best translation of the passage would be : " Hereby perceive we the love of God, because his Son laid down his life for us.'* See A. Clarke, in loco. Macknight, Newcome. Park- hurst on the word *< Ekeinos,'* &c. He also quotes Acts xx. 28> to support his shocking theory, that " God died»^^ Here however he also fails — the best trans- lations render it from the most ancient manuscripts : ^Si ])erUj? If they were parts of the Diety ? they were " incapabit of suffer ing," upon Paux*s" own acknowledgement; itthey were not divine, then God did not die, and consequently my op- ponent's theory falls to the ground ! — Thirdly, he has told us that " only niortal flesh, in one sense, can die." Now if that were only mortal fiesli'^ that died on Calvary, where does he find his dead God ? If it were not ** only mortal flesh," then something besides " mortal flesh" can die — then the divine nature is capable of suffering ! ! ! Let " Paul" choose either alternative and he contradicts himself! The subsequent parts of his Letter do not however leave us in any doubt as to the part he will choose ! — iie soon gives us a fine specimen of theological science ! He eagerly presses on his reader the awful and blasphemous idea, that ** JEHOVAH, THE AUTHOR OF LIFE, THE CREATOR OF THE WORLD— WAS ABUSED AND KILLED, and that hy the agency of the creatures he had made, and who at the same time were sustained by him in life and existence ! ! !" When such absurd and disgusting doctrine as this, is held up to public view, as a part of the Christian system, it is no won- der there is so much deism in the world. It has made more in- fidels a thousand fold, than the whole train of deistical writers put togetlier. it is believed by all but atheists, that matter is inert — that all visible nature is perpetually sustained by divine power — that as human creatures we are incapable of drawing a single breath, but through the strength immediately communicated from the eternal source of life and motion — the author of our existence — that if this power were suspended/or a single moment^ universal ruin would instantly ensue — creation would be annihilated, all nature would return to its original nonentity ! ! ! — Now if this view be correct, " Paul's" theory must be false ! At that very moment when "Jesus bowed his head and gave up the Ghost," John xix. 30, all this beauteous creation, our earth and " the silvery moon its fair attendant," the *' sun that shines by day," the " ten thousand that shine by night," with all their satellites, must have *' sunk into everlasting obscurity." And so " Paul," the chivalrous champion for the honours of Trinitarianism, would not have been here to blaspheme that glorious and eternal divinity, " in whom we live, and move, and have our being with whom there is no variableness neither shadow of turn- ing;" from whom are " the issues of life," and without whom eternal chaos must reign sole monarch of an interminable dreary void !!! Acts xvii. 23. James i. 17. Prov. iv. 23. In my former essays, I have shown that the man Christ Je- sus," 1 Tim. ii. 5. who was made of a woman," Gal. iv. ^. was 432 made like unto his brethren," Heb. ii. IT. « touched with a feel- in;^ of our infirmities — 'tempted like as we are." Heb. iv. 15. « made perfect through suffering," Heb. ii, 10. " He learned obedience by the things which he suffered," Heb. v. 8. in- creased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man," Luke ii. 52. He passed through all the stages of life, from the innocent helpless infant, to the perfection of manhood. He was a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief," Isa. liii. 3. a man, he had his hopes and fears — his comforts and afflic- tions— as a man, he was subject to hunger and thirst and pain and conflict — as a man, he shrunk with horror at the prospect of a painful death — " he sweat as it were great drops of bh>od," Luke XX. 44 ; and finally, as a man he died in agony, and was buried ! It is impossible that all this could be said of the Deity ! the divine nature as my opponent acknowledges *»is in- capable of suffering ;" consequently, the Scriptures quoted, do not relate to the divine nature and thus the sacred penmen have fully relieved us from the necessity of admitting that *' the Creator of the world was killed.'' In the beginning was the WORD, and the Word was with God, and THE WORD WAS GOD All things were made by Him." — This divine, living, all-powerful Word, who spake and worlds sprang into existence ; who said : <* Let there be light," and instantly a thousand suns flamed in the firmament of heaven ; in infinite mercy, for the redemption of sinful man, was manifested in the flesh." For he took not on him the nature of angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham." Heb. ii. 16. Thus CHRIST as the SAVIOUR, the RE- DEEMER, th€ RECONCILER, the JUDGE of a lost World, was GOD MANIFEST IN THE FLESH. 1 1 im. iii. 16. the eternal fountain of divine life and light !" For in him was life, and the life was the light of men." — and HE " was the true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world," John i. 1, 3, 4, 9. It was in this divine character, God manifest in the flesh," that bending ovt^r the tomb of Lazarus, he cried with a loud voice : " Lazarus come forth," when lo ! the dead instantly obeyed, life resumed her dominion, « and he came forth bound hand and foot, with grave clothes." John xi. 43, 44. — It was in this divine character that he went into the chamber of the de- ceased damsel, and taking her by the hand, said : " Talitha cumi, which is, being interpreted, damsel I say unto thee arise!'' when instantly she was wrested from the grasp of death, and restored unto her weeping relatives, a blooming trophy of that power, which is indeed « the resurrection and the life,'* Mark v. 41. 42. — It was in this divine character that " he arose and ro 453 buked the svind, and said unto the sea, peace he still and the wind ceased, and there was a great calm ! Mark iv. 39.— It was in this divine character, that " Jesus cried, saying: If any man thirst, li t him come unto me and drink — and again : " SVhosoever drinketh of the water that 1 sliall give him, shall never thirst, but the water that I shall give him, shall be in him, a well of w ater springing up unto everlasting life — and again : ** I am the bread of life — he that cometh to me, shall never hunger, and he that believeth on me, shall never thirst." John iv. li. vii. 37, 38. vi. 35. By failing to make this distinction, men have run into the grossest errors concerning the divine nature^ — With the Bible in their hands they have taught doctrines, which would dis- grace the Koran of Mahomet, the Vedas of the Bramin, or the religion of our Indians ! — doctrines unknown to the primitive Christians — having their origin in a dark and turbulent era, when the church had apostatized from Christ, her divine head- when she had forsaken Him, •* the fountain of living water,^^ and had " hewed out" to herself « cisterns, (systems of divinity,) broken cisterns, that could hold no water.'* Thus, age after age rolled away ! — One degi ee of darkness succeeded to an- other, until her glory had departed, and like fallen Babylon, she had become a den of wild beasts, a habitation of dragons — a court for owls — and a dancing place f(»r satyrs. Isa. xiii. 21, 22. When at last, the professed clairch of Christ had lapsed into this awful and filthy state, — when every vestige of her primi- tive beauty was obliterated, God in condescending mercy rais- ed up a few" worthy and intrepid reformers, who according to the measure of light and knowledge they had received, labour- ed faithfully for a restoration to her original purity! — Under their circumstances, they did much for the honour of the glori- ous cause tliey had espoused. — In their situation, it is rather cause of admiration that they eftected so much, than matter of censure that they did no more ! — But it is certain, they left much undone for their successors to do. — Unhappily for the cause of Christianity, thtir disciples instead of considering them as pioneers in the work of reformation, were so weak as to be- lieve that the great object was already accomplished ! — Under this impression, they set themselves down at ease, on the labours of their predecessors, and thus left the work unfinished, and the church embarrassed with numerous errors, the fruit of the apostacy — and among these the absurd and pernicious doctrine of a Trinity of persons in the divine nature ! ! !" Trusting and believing, that every. rational and unprejudiced Christian, (and I address myself in a particular manner to such of my readers) must see the absurdity of the Manasian scheme^ 55 43^ and reject with horror every sentiment which is liostilc to tJit unity of the Deity, I will proceed to answer the arj^uments of my opponent, in support of his irrational and monstrous the- ory ! ! ! And first, we will consider the passage, John x. 15, 18 : '*I lay down my life for the sheep. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. / have power to lay it down, and 1 have power to take it again ! !" Hence, «* Paul" concludes, the speaker must have been a divine person! For," he says, none but God has power to lay down life and take it again.^^ This conclusion, however, is unwarranted by the text — it sup- poses what is not granted, and what is positively denied by our Lord himself! ! ! — to wit, that this power was not derived from God ! — The very sentence folhiwing ** Paul's" quotation, and in the same verse of which he has cited a part, contradicts his assumption : " This commandment have I received of my Fa- ther I ! !" — and it is still more clearly contradicted, where Christ says : *« All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.*' Matt, xxviii. i8. The power to lay down lifc^ by submitting cheerfully to the violence of wicked men, has been^ire/ito thousands, as by re- ference to the martyrology of Europe, Asia and America, is very evident. The <* power to take it again^^ always did, and always must remain, in the hand of the Deity — unless when given" by him to another, as our Lord expressly declared it was to himself! Th^it this power was the poxver of God delegat- ed to Christ, is indubitably proved by otlier explicit testimony derived from himself: "Verily, the Son can do nothing of himself" — I can of mine own self do nothing" — <* Ye shall know that I do nothing of myself," John v, 19, 30. viii. 28. Thus Paul's" reasoning is proved fallacious 1 and our nerves" have been "shocked" by what he calls "a Scrip- ture phrase," but which is nothing more than his absiird and shocking conclusion, drawn from his own preposterous notions of the divine nature ! ! ! The text, Phil. ii. 5, which, speaking of Christ, says; " Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God," presents no difficulty, when considered in connec- tion with other Scripture passages : '* God was in Christ,'^' said the Apostle, 2 Cor. v. 19. « In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead," Col. ii. 9, and «* in him were hid all the trea- sures of wisdom and knowledge," Col. ii. 3. Considering Christ in this point of view, it certainly could not ro6 the Deity of any part of his honour, to consider Christ " equal with God!'' The conclusion is irresistible: ChrisU in unity with the Deity, may "fee equal with God^*^ while it is contended, in the Ian- 435 guage of the Apostle, that he was « made like unto his bre* thrt'ii ; ami in his own language, that he of himself could do nothing ! ! !" 0 From the text, 2 Cor. viii. 9 : Ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that thotigh he was rich, yet for your sakes he became p«)or, that ye through his poverty might be rich," •* Paul" draws this strained and unwarranted conclusion: " It is proper to say that God made himself of no reputation !" that he *• became pocr" — ** suffered" — died and was buried ! ! !" In the present instance, I think 1 may appeal to the reason, good sense and candor of every rational Christian, whether my opponent's reasoning is not blasphemous ! Can it be pos- sible that the Apostie, who was a man of judgment in natural and divine things, could suppose that God the Creator ever " died and was buried that He, <« of whom are all things, and by whom are all things," 1 Cor. viii. 6, became defunct— ^ihsit he ceased to exist J and was buried in the sepulchre of Joseph ■ of Arimathea ! — can that sensibility which shrinks and cries blasphemy" at such sentiments as these, be deemed of a <« mor- bid" kind ? I think it will be more just to say, that he who en- tertains such sentiments, has neither sense nor sensibility !'* Deeply involved in darkness and error, like the maniac wan- dering among the tombs, he may claim our pity — but as a guide he must be considered as the <* blind leader," whose final des- tiny is a ditch ! ! ! That our Lord was rich" in divine wisdom and power, is certain, and that for the sake of poor sinful man, he led a life of poverty in this w^^rld, is equally true ; but hence to infer that he was " a divine person,^^ is ridiculous, although it is about as gof)d logic as my opponent has displayed in the other parts of his Letter ! The arguments drawn from passages in the book of Revela- tion, where our Lord is frequently spoken of in a two-fold character, have no force against us who freely acknowledge his divinity. It is true, that Christ as one with the Father, ^* the Word that was God," is the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last — as the son of the virgin Mary, it is not true of him. As it regards his humanity, the time was when he did not exist. To say that a divine Being was dead, is a contradiction in lan- guage. It is in fact to deny his divinity — the divine nature is incapable of suffering," as "Paul" is forced to acknow- ledge. " But that God was killed by the agency of the creatures he had made, are things too high for you — they are above your rea- son and beyond your comprehension.'' This I freely admit; and further, they are contrary toreason^ and are absolute impos- sibilities! ! ! Dogmas suited to a bedlam, and only adapted to ^56 tlic sp^ecli of a maniac ! !! A transition from life to death is the greatest possible change that can be contemplated ! But Godis immutabky unchangeable, ** the same yesterday, to-day and for- ever"— **with him there is no variableness, neither shadow of* turning.'' From tlie whole compass of words constituting lan- guage, a more false and absurd sentence could not be formed, ihan that ** God died !" I will now notice a few of his general remarks : He begins by telling us, he has *< no time to trifle,'' It would have been well if his address did not contradict his assertion ! — It appears he had time to fabricate trifling tales, no way connected with liis subject, and to make statements totally devoid of truth. Speaking of Samuel Fothergill, an eminent and truly evangeli- cal minister of our society, who died about fifty years ago, he says: *< In his dying exercises, he makes no mention of a Sa- viour's righteousness." Now I should like to know where Paul" got this information ? was he present at his death? The account we have of the state of his mind during his illness, - is very brief — What my opponent calls his <* dying exercises," are a few expressions made to some of his relations, who call- ed to see him on their way to Lond(m, some time before his death ! But suppose he never spoke of <* a Saviour's righteous- ness," what then ? Does that prove that he did not dept nd on the righteousness of Christ for salvation ? By no means ! many talk much about it, that are wholly ignorant of the righteous- ness in question ! But Fotliergill was not of this number. His happy redeemed soul, clothed with the righteousness of Christ, and supported by divine strength, could say : ** Though painful my nights and wearisome my days^ yet I am preserved in patience and resignation! Death has no terrors^ nor will the grave have any victory — my soul triumphs over death, hell and the grave,^' — *» / have an evidence that I shall gain an admittance into the glorious church triumphant, far above the heavens /" I'he worst wish I entertain for my opponent, is, that he may make as happy an end, as the holy man he has so shamefully slandered ! Again, he says: In five long prayers affixed to his Ser- mons, he makes no petition in the name of Emmanuel /" That my readers may, in future, know how to estimate the veracity of my opponent, I will quote two passages from the prayers al- luded to ! 1st. <* We pray thee, in the name and Spirit of thy dear Son, to direct us in the succeeding steps of our lives — to preserve us in an humble dependence and holy trust in thy power — and may we be continually favoured to make mention of thy name, with joy and gladness of heart" 2d. " Most gra- cious and adorable Fountain of Mercy, we humbly beseech thee, in the name and Spirit of thy dear Son, to write instructions 437 upon all our imiids— give us to ponder the excellency ol' tli v loving kindness, and humble our minds in a sense of solemn gratitude to thee !" Again he asserts, that Fothergill has but one sentence, and that of a very general kind, of confession for sin." I have not room to refute this slander by quotations from these prayers — suffice it to say, in the very first prayer, there are four particu- lar confessions of sin, and humble acknowledgments of divine mercy for tiieir pardon ! ! ! Such, reader, is the character of our opponent ! He tells us, he speaks ** in the fear of God." But if we judge from his ac- tions, what are we bound to believe ? Does the fear of God lead men into slander ? Does it lead them to calumniate their fel- low-Christians ? Dofs it lead them to say the things that are not? Fothergill, like Paul, an Apostle of Jesus Christ," tra- veiled thousands of miles in the love of the Gospel on his own charges — he freely gave" what he had freely received" — he preached " ChriwSt, the wisdom of God, and the power of God," in the true spirit of his divine Master — he called sin- ners to repentance — he invited the prodigal to the Father's house — he comforted the afflicted and disconsolate — he strength- ened the weak, and confirmed the strong — but he bore a steady testimony against a corrupt and hireling mercenary priest- hood ! ! ! — And <« Paul" is offended ! ! — and because he is of- fended, he slanders him ! Alas ! poor human nature ! ! ! — « Put forth thine hand now, and touch his bone and his skin, and he will curse thee to thy face." Only let interest be touched, and even the dead shall not rest in peace ! AMICUS. Friday, J^ovember 8, 1822- LETTER XXXIX. ON THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST. « Beloved, helieve not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God. Every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God ; and this is that spirit of Antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come, and even now is it alrea- dy in the world.-^ 1 John iv. 1. 3. That " Amicus" is an admirable painter even his antagonist will acknowledge ! That he is a most ingenious sophister, and excels most men in the talent of making the worse appear the better reason," no reader of his will ever question. In can- 438 caiure he is uncommonly apt ; and in sly uni^enerous personal reflection no newspaper scribbler was ever more impertinent and unjust. No ignis fatuus was ever more brilliant, bewitch- ing, or dan]*erous to follow. He lures to bewilder, and daz- zles to blind." He gilds the pill with which he would poison community ; and dresses up his Quaker idol in all the glitter and finery of an Eastern deity ! I am no orator, as Brutus is, — I only speak right on ;" and shall proceed without formality to strip his idol of its fan- tastic finery, and expose it to the public in its native drab. In the first place, he says some most beautiful and bewitching things of what he calls, the " divinity of Christ,''^ but which after all, amounts to nothing more nor l»^ss than the divinity of the Godhead / His first specimen of ingenuity, lies in mistating the question about the divinity of Christ. The question is not whether the divine nature is divine, — or whether God is God, as he would have us believe! The divine nature which was supereminently manifested" in Jesus of Nazareth, is what he admits to be divine, and what he is pleased to call the divinity of Christ." The divinity of Christ in this sense, none but a maniac or bedlamite" will deny. But the question between Unitarians and Christians is, whether Jesus of JSTaxareth was a divine person? — >yhether that body and that blood which was born of the Virgin Mary, was a part" of the God-man Mediator ? — Whether the union of that human nature with the divine nature was so perfect as to con- stitute but one person ; — so that we may attribute the actions of the human nature to a divine Person, — and consider the obe- dience and death, and all the actions and sufferings of Jesus of Nazareth, as the actions and sufferings of a divine Person ? That the Father is God nobody denies : that the « divine na- ture which dwelt in Christ'' was divine, it would be silliness to question ; — but whether Jesus of Nazareth combined a divine and a human nature in himself, so that he was both God and man in one person, is the true question of which Unitarians take the negative, and Trinitarians the affirmative. In proof that the human nature born of Mary was in personal union with the Divinity, I submit the following arguments. 1. Because otherwise Jesus of JVazareth is no more divine than Moses or Peter or Paul. For in all these God was mani- fested, and through them showed forth Almighty works. Mo- ses, it is true, did not say to the stormy waves " Peace, be still !" — but, standing on the shore of the Red Sea, he said to the deep, «' Be dry !'* and to the waters, separate and stand up on an heap I" He smote the rock and waters gushed out ; he denounced sentence, and the earth opened and swallowed up 439 Korali and his company ! Ex. xv. xvii. Num. xvi. These? were divine works ; yet do we hold to the divinity of Moses ? jNo; Why not r Because the Deity had no persona/ ?mio7i with the Jewish Law-j^iver. Moses and the Deity were two distinct beings. Again ; the Apostle Peter, turning to the dead body of Dorcas, said ; I'abiiha, arise and she opened her eyes,, and when she saw Peter she sat up," Acts ix. 40. Why not hold to the divinity of Peter ? Surely the divine nature which was manifested in him" was divine ! And why not hold the divinity of fl// t\w Apostles? For our Lord speaking of them says : « the works that 1 do shall ye do also, and greater works than these shall ye do, because I go unto the Father." John xiv. 12. Now, why not consider all the Apostles as divine ? Surely the divine nature which <* dwelt" in them, and was « manifested" in them, was divine / You may say every thing of Moses which you have ever said of Christ. And the truth is, you no more hold the diviiiity of Jesus than you do the divinity of his Apostles, except that you grant him rather a greater measure of the divine Spirit! But the whole Christian world denies their and holds to his divinity, because his body and soul, or his whole human nature, were in as complete union with the Son of God, as our bodies are with our souls. Jesus of Nazareth and the Almighty Son of God, are the names of one and the same person. There was a personal, or (as it is commonly called) an hypostaii- cat union of the eternal S(m of God with the human nature born of Mary. So that it maybe as truly said, i/m^ body and f/ia< blood were a ** part of the Deity," — were the body and blood of the Son of God, and that your body is a part of you, or the inferior nature united to the soul of Amicus, is a part of Amicus. And all the actions of Jesus of Nazareth were as much the actions of the Almighty Son of God, as the actions of your body, or of your inferior nature, are yo%ir actions. But every thing like a personal union you deny, and make Jesus of Nazareth a different person from the divinity to which he was united. So that the actions of the one are not the ac- tions of the other. Accordingly, you say in your last : « the man Christ Jesus was subject to poverty and pain ; as a man he sweat great drops of blood ; as a man he died and was buri- ed. It is impossible all this could be said of the Deity /" Now, I argue, that all this may be said of the Deity, or Jesus of Naza- reth was no more divine than Moses, or Peter or Paul. But as Jesus of Nazareth was divine, in a sense which no other man ever was, it follows there was in him a personal union of humanity and divinity. 2. Without such a personal union, the obedience of Jesus could have had no more mtrit than the obedience of any other man 440 And his death could have made no more atonement than the death of any other man J J If he did not, as a divine PBitsoNy obey the law and sutfer its penalty, then we have no other atonement to wash away our guilt ; no other righteousness to en- title us to life ; no other propitiation for our sins, no other foun- dation for our hope, than what a man, a mere man could ac- complish ! ! ! Accordingly you, who deny the personal union, speak of the actions of Jesus as the actions of a mere mati ; — his agonies and bloody sweat, as the sufferings of a mere man ; and are consistent with yourselves in stigmatizing the doctrine of vi- carious atonement" as "heathenish divinity!" But we^ who hold a personal union oi the divine and human natures in Christ, can consistently regard his obedience and death as the works of a divine person. We can therefore look on his obedience as of infinite merit, and his death as an infinite atonement^ — and can see solid ground for " believing" in him, and trusting in iiim, for ♦< wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption." 1 Cor. i. 30. Whereas, without such an " union," we feel our- selves liable to the curse resting on «^ the man that trusteth in man !" Jer. xvii. 5. 3. Without such an "union," we cannot understand many passages of Scripture, such as Heb. v. 8. Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered i. e. though he were a divine person, the beloved and everlast- ing Son of God, the adored of angels, above all law, and exempt from all suffering, yet "learned he obedience:'^ he ^< humbled himself, and took upon him the form of a servant^ and was made in the likeness of man, and became obedient unto deathy even the death of the cross !" Phil. ii. 7. Now, there is no meaning in this passage, unless the union between the divine and human nature was so intimate, that the actions of the one nature might be attributed to the other na- ture, or to the whole person ; — no force in the passage, unless the works of the human nature were the works of the divine Son" of God. 4. This personal union is supposed, in John i. 14 : " The Word was madefiesh, and dwelt among us." W^hy not say this of Moses, or Peter, or Paul ? and others in whom the Deity " dwelt," and was " manifested ?" Because the Word had no personal union with them ; their flesh and blood were not the flesh and blood of the Son of God. Obj. " This union of txvo natures in one person is incomprehensible,^^ A. Not a whit more " incomprehensible" than the union of soul and body in ourselves. 5. Upon no other principle could it have been said : ^< Ye 441 killed the Prince op Lite !" Acts iii. 15. If the human na« turc was nnt in personal union with the divine, tlien they did not « kill the Prince of Lite," — but a viere man, a person who was on a par with Peter or Paul. But the Bible says they did kill the Prince of Life ; therefore, the person wlio suffered, was not simply a man, but in his person united divinity and human- ity in one. 6. Upon no other principle could it be said : « They crucified the Lord of (ilory !" 1 Cor. ii. 8. If there was not an union of two natures, a human and diA'ine, in one person, so perfect that the sufferings' of the inferior nature could be ascribed to the whole person, then the Apostle told a lie, and the Jews and others did not crucify the Lord of Glory," but a mere man ! Obj. " The divine nature, as you acknowledge, could not suf- fer." True ; but a divine person may and did suffer. The di- vine nature did not, could not die; but a divine person, as I have . proved, could and did die. — Your soul will never die, but you (a person compounded of body and soul) will die. Your soul I cannot crumble into dust, but it is written : " dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." Your soul, or higher nature, ! neither eats nor drinks, nor sees nor hears, nor bleeds ; but all these things may be said of i/o?i. So Christ could not suffer or die in his higher or divine nature ; but He (as a compound per- son, having a mortal as well as immortal nature) could both suffer and die. 7. Upon no other principle, could the Saviour be said to II « wash us in his blood." Rev. i. 8. « Unto him that loved us Ii and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God, even his Father, unto him be glory and dominion forever and ever !" Now a mere man could never " make us kings and priests unto God," nor be entitled to glory and dominion forever and ever ;" a mere man could ne- ver " wash us in his blood." The blood of a mere man, no more than the blood of bulls and goats," could ever <* take away sin.'* The blood, therefore, by which we are washed, or by which our sins are expiated, was the blood of a divine person. But a di- vine person cannot shed " his blood," or die for us, without assuming human nature into a personal union with the divine. 8. Upon no other principle could the Lord Jesus say : I am the FIRST and tiie last, he which was dead, and is alive." Rev. ii. 8. Of the « First and the Last," (or the Deity,) it could never have been said : <* he was dead,^' unless he had assumed human nature into personal union, so as to make himself capa- hie of death. It is impossible the immortal God should ever die without taking a mortal nature into such an union, that the ac- tions of that inferior nature may be attributed to the whole 56 442 person. But as it is expressly asserted, that "the First and Last was dead,^^ it follows, He who is the First and the Last did take humanity into personal union with himself. <« He took not on him the nature of angels, hut the seed of Abraham, — was made of a woman,'^ &c. 9. Upon no other principle could it be said ** Herein perceive we the love of God, because he (that is, God) laid down his life for us.'* 1 John iii. 16, or Acts xx. 2S, ** Feed the churcli of God, which he purchased witli his own blood.'^ Now, unless God, that is, the Son of God, took human nature into personal union with himself, he had no « life" which he could ** lay down," no <♦ blood," which it was possible for him to shed for the redemption of the church ! The life and blood of Jesus of Nazareth were not "JJis" life and blood at all, unless Jesus of Nazareth was in personal union. There is no other way of getting over the plain doctrine of these passages, but that very convenient one, to which you fre- quently resort, — expunging or altering the text! ! Obj. «f a change of heart ! — not a single intimation that he felt himself a .smwcr, or 453 knew that Jesus Christ had come into the world ! ! Like Fo- thei-gill, he has not a single Christian expression — not a pro* fession of* one doctrine peculiar to the Gospel — not a word of sin — not a word of mercy / — He only proclaims his rectitude and resignation — enters heaven in all the majesty of merit, and takes eternal glory as it were by right ! !! These things, with experimental Christians, need no comment. They speak vo- lumes. Your <« Christianity" is a hypocrite ! 'I'lie above is a practical illustration of that « substantial righteousness of heart and life, ''on which you rely as an " atone- ment for your sins ! After the late avowals of your advocate, he must be sceptical indeed who doubts your heresy. After you have denied the plenary inspiration of tiie Scriptures, the infallibility of the Apostles, — tlie correctness of our translation — and the suffici- ency of the Bible as a rule, — (see your Letters on internal light) — after you have stigmatized Trinitarianism as ♦* Tri- theism,*' — after you have rejected the doctrine of all Christen- dom concerning the divinity of Christ, denying the divinity of his person^ and admitting only the divinity of his name^ — after you have rejected the atonement^ and directed us for justifica' Hon to our own personal rigliteousness, he must be blind him- self, who does not see your blindness ! i have been lately reviewing your Letters on the Trinity^ and have been much struck with the boldness, and even blasphemy of your sentiments. And as the subject hath an intimate con- nection with our present subject, before noticing his last, I will briefly notice a few things, which if <* Amicus" has proved any things he has fully proved 1. That the terms ** Father, Son, and Holy Ghost," have no meaning as thuy are used in Scripture ! In page 369, he says : Christ and the Father are convertible terms." The terms <* Father," and " Christ," and tife Comforter," are, when applied to the Deity, perfectly synonymous ; and consequently, God the Father, is Christ the Saviour ! /" And in page 377 he says : ** I showed that the terms Father, Son and Holy Ghost, when applied to the divinity, mean the same thing ! /" It seems then, that " Father" expresses my paternal, and " Son" no filial relatifm ! and the Holy Gliost" no spiritual character ! \V hat a pity the sacred penmen had not been kept, by inspiration, from applying to the Deity epithets which have no meaning 1 2. He has discovered that the account of our Lord's baptism (Matt. iii. 16, 17.) is a mere farce ! — suited to the carnal no- tions of the Jews ! « To suppose,*' says he, page 380, ** one person of the Godhead walking up out of the water, while a second person is descending in the shape of a dove, and a third 454 person uttering a voice from heaven, is altogether inconsistentf and does indeed appear a gross and carnal conception." Reader, look at your Bible, remember it >\as written not for learned philosophers, but for humble e very-day people, and judge whether the above account was intended as a farce, or as an exhibition of the ♦* Three that bear record in heaven !" 3. That our Lord used ** vain repttiiions^* in tUeform of bap- tism, Matt* xxviii. ly, Go teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Now, says <* Amicus," these terms all mean the same thing /" Quere, did not our Lord understand language as well as " Amicus ^" 4. That our Lord used words without meaning and calculated to mislead, when he spake of sending the Comforter, John xiv. 26, « But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things." And again, xvi. 7 : ** It is expedient for you that / go away, for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto ^ou ; but if I depart, I will send him unto you." How plain, how con- sistent, how beautiful is this language on supposition of the Trinity I and how dark, how unsatisfactory, yea deceptive upon any other scheme ! 5. He objects to any argument being drawn from "pro- nouns /" In answer to one of my arguments, drawn from John xiv. 23, " If a man love me he will keep my words, and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him and take up our abode with him," — he remarks very seriously, (see page 408,) that this argument, like most of my opponent's scheme, is founded on the use of the pronouns/ The use of personal pronouns when a{)plied to the Deity does not prove personality.** (Juere ; if arguments cannot be drav^n from " pj:'onouns," can any be drawn from nouns, verbs, adjectives, or any other part of speech ? 6. That no mysterif^ is to be believed. He has all along used mystery" and " inconsistency" as" convertible terms." Of course wlien the Apostle calls the ministers of the Gospel the stewards of the mysteries of Gnd,** 1 Cor. iv. 1, he must mean they are preachers of things not to be believed/.'/ And when he says, 1 Tim. iii. 1(5, " Great is the mystery of Godli- ness, God was manifest in the flesh," he must mean « great is the absurdity of Godliness, which teaches God was manifest in the flesh, or that Christ was a divine person ! !'* The fact is, every doctrine of the Bible contains something mysterious and incomprehensible, and if we are to believe nothing but what we can fully comprehend, we may give up the doctrine of re^enera- 455 iloiif which our Lord describes as a mystery. John iii. 8. and turn universal sceptics. 7. That the true God is a phantom," a "nothing !" For he has again and again argued, until the public were tired, that the ** Father, Son and Holy Ghost" are either three *« sub- stances," or •* three notliings or phantoms.'* (Sec page 338.) As to their being three substancesy^^ he has said this is equivalent to three Gods," which he rejects. According to his own and Penn's argument, therefore, he has proved, if he has proved any thing, that these are *< three unreal, unsubstantial phan- toms or nothings! ! !" Now as these terms are used in Scrip- ture as the name of the only true God, it follows, so far as he has proved any thing, he lias proved that the God of Israel is a «• phantom," a ** nothing ! !" 8. That the whole Christian world are Tritheists, That the Mle of Scripture, knows that *< to be called,^' in sucli a connection, is the same as *< to 6e." The name is intended to express tlic charac- ter of the ;7er5on; and therefore, the above phrase is equivalent to saying : *< this person who shall be born, shall he the mighty God, the Father of eternity, the Prince of Peace !" Secondly ; compare other examples, Gen. xvii. 5 : <* Thy name shall be Mraham, (i. e. father of a multitude) for a fa- ther of many nations have I made thee,'^ Quere, was his name the <♦ father'of nations," or was Abra- ham himself the <* father" here spoken of? Again; Gen. xxxii. 28: "And he said, thy ?ia7?ie shall be no more Jacob, but Israel, (Prince of God,) for as a Prince hast thou power with God and with man, and hast prevailed." Querc, 457 was not Jacob himself this " Prince," — or was notliing but lii* name " Prince ?" Again ; it is said of Solomon, 2 Sam. xii. 25 : ^< And the Lord loved him, and he called his name Jedediuh,^^ (beloved of the Lord.) Quere, was not Solomon /iijuse//" beloved ? Again ; Isaiah xlii. 8 : **I am Jehovah, (the self-existent, eternal, and unchangeable God,) that is my name." Quere, is not the Deity himself « self-existent and eternal — or do these attributes belong only to his name?''' In view of all these parallel passages, let the candid reader judge whether Christ's name, or Christ himself is the mighty 'God I r But you object: ^< name signifies pott^er, and these passages mean no more than that divine power shall manifest itst lf in him." Answer: If his exercising divine po7^er, was the rd of GjkI, nigh in the heart by faith. See Rom. x. 6, 7, 8. It has also many other appellations in Scripture, but all meaning the same thing. There is also another>kind of righteousness, described by the inspired penmen, called «♦ the righteousness which is of the Law.'* Rom. ii. 26. — viii. 4. — x. 5. Matt. v. 20. The former is the righteousness of the true Christian, the Jew inward; « whose circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter 9 whose praise is not of men but of God,''' Rom. ii. 29. It is produced by his submission to the operation of the spirit of Christ in the soul, whereby he experiences repentance from sin, his "own will brought into subjection to the will of God," and his whole life and conversation made conformable to the holy pattern of his Lord. In this way sin comes to be mortified, the partition wall to be broken down, the dead raised, and the true Gospel atonement to be experienced. This is " THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIS 1." The latter is a right- eousness much more common in the world ! It is a righteous- ness, " baptized indeed with a Christian name," but which is nothing more than "the righteousness of the Pharisee !" It is an ** imputative righteousness,^^ which a man can possess in an unsanctified and corrupt state ! It is a very accommodating kind of righteousness, it will live on good terms with sin, and in familiarity with iniquity ! It is a kind of cloak, that is used to cover the outside, while the inside is defiled with gross impurity ! It is "like whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but within are full of dead men's bones and all manner of uncleanness !" Matt, xxiii. 27. It blows a trum- pet when it gives an alms ! It makes long prayers to be seen of men ! It compasseth sea and land to make one proselyte, and then makes him two-fold more the child of hell than he was before ! — It tythes mint, annise, and cummin, and neglects the 465 Weightier matters of the Law, judgment, mer6y, and faith It binds heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lays them On men's shoulders, but will do nothing to remove them ! It makes broad the phylactery, and enlarges the border of the garment ! — It loves the uppermost rooms at feasts, the chief seats in the synagogues, and greetings in the markets, and to be called of men rabbi, rabbi! — It makes a great noise about religion, and loves religious titles ! — In fine, it is a righte- ousness produced by the will of man vvitiiout the humbling pu- rifying influence of God's Holy Spirit! ! ! The Apostle Paul, in the third chapter to the Philippians, gives us a very accurate idea of these two kinds of righteous- ness. He had fully experienced both of them. He had had a the- ological education, and was an orthodox Pharisee! But what does he say of this state? He was a zealous professor, but how did his zeal influence him ? ** Concerning zeal, persecut- ing the church " concerning the righteousness of the Law^ blameless !" It appears then, that this righteousness did not interfere with a persecuting spirit ! This legal formal righte- ousness, has always been of a persecuting species ! — When it has temporal power, it uses it — when it has none, it cries heretic," *♦ infidel,'* &c. But how was it with him, after he had been changed by the power of the Holy Spirit ? Then he could say : ** 1 count all things loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ, that I may win him, and be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the Law, but the righteousness which is of Gud, byjaith: That 1 may know him, and the -power of his resurrection, and the fellov\ship o( his suffiM'ings — being made comformable to his death." — Here Paul gives demonstrative evidence, that he und»'rstood the nature of « Christ's righteousness," and the way in which the Christian can only be benefitted by the death of Christ — that is, by being made conformable to it ! Before I close this Letter, I will notice a few of *< Paul's" remarks, that for want of room have not yet been reviewed. — He says ; <* You use the term * Christ,' to signify a nature, an influence from God.'* The inaccui aey of this statement must be obvious to all who have read my Letters. We use this term just as the Apostles used it, to signify ** God manifi st in the flesh," '< God in Christ reconciling the world unto himself !^^ If the term were used as my opponc^nt uses it, **to signify God and man in two distinct natures, but one person forever," it "Would make the Apostles as absurd theologians as the Cal- "Vinists ! When the Apostle said : " I am crucifii d wif h Christ,** "we must suj)pose he was crucified on an outward cross with Christ ! — When he said : ^Nevertheless / live, yet not but 59 Christ liveth in we,'* we must suppose, that the body that waa born oi the virgin Mary, lived in him /// — Again; w hen he said : <* Examine yourselves, whether you be in the faith — know ye not, how that Jesus Christ is in yoUf except ye be reprobates,'* we must understand that believers are reprobates, unless th& person of Jesus of Nazareth is in thtm! 1 could easily quote fifty passages of this sort, to show, that the inspired ptnnien held no such carnal notions ! but it is needless ; ** Paul's'* scheme cannot be supported without a perversion of almost every page of the New Testament ! ! ! Again ; ** you may say every thing of Moses which you have said of Christ," What a desperate state must my poor oppo- nent be in, when he can descend so low as to make such asser- tions ! Did 1 ever say of Moses, or the Prophets, or the Apos- tles, that they were Emmanuel God with us" — ** God manifest in the flesh" — *< the Saviour of the world" — the only means of salvation?" — Does <» Paul" think, like the ancient heretics, that a departure from truth is lawful in defence of his dogmas? Again j »* you deny that Christ is come in the flesh ! ! !" This might be much more truly sM of my opponent, who aifirms, that " the two distinct natures are one person forever ; — that Christ is fleshy not come in the JieshI ! ! I have said over and over, that Christ is <* God manifest in the fl^sh ! ! !" In this way I could easily refute his various calumnies, but they are not worth the time ! In liis last Letter, « Paul" seems much disturbed, that our members are willing to die wit4tmit the aid of a priest ! He finds, in a Philadelphia paper, ^n account of the last illness and death of a man, who, for many years, had been a pattern of piety and virtue, — an active member of civil and religious so- ciety, beloved wherever he was known. He finds him, in his dying moments, happy and comfortable — his peace made with God, and his mind easy. He finds him, like AorTi four thousand years after the creaticm !" I would ask him, whether the Creator was ever iiicarnate ? and how far, — and when ? Does not the incarnation of the Deity imply his uniting liimsclf to humanity in all its stages of existence ? Or does <*Ami- cus" hold that God was not incarnate until Jesus of JVUz^areth nvas thirty years of age ! Was not God in him, when at ** tw^elve years of age" he questioned the doctors in the temple, and told his parents he •* must be about his Father'' s business ?" And was not God in l)im when he was horn? If not, why was M»e " child" that was born," the son" that was ** given." called Em- manuel," and the « Mighty God ! !" Was Infinite AVisdom guilt) of a misnomer? — You see, therefore, my brethren, that the Friends virtually deny the incarnation ! ! ! Christ <* with- out," with them is nothing ; Christ *' within," or a deceitful heart is every thing ! He IS very anxious for a definition of the terrn person — as if he had not already had at least a half dozen before him ! Language will not permit a perfect definition of what w^e cannot perfectly comprehend 5 but in p. 318, he has quoted, or pre- tended to quote several definitions from Waterland, Howe, Owen, Pearson and Bull; eitlier of whieh he may take with their explanation. By « person," is generally understood a 469 «^ distinct, indivisible, intelligent agent.'' And when we speak of a 2'rinity in the Godhead, we mean three distinct, intelli- gent agents," — not so distincU however, (mind !) not so dis- tinct as three men or three angels ; nor so distinct as to destroy unity of essence. But so *• distinct" that one has properties which do not belong to another, (it is the property of the first persim to be a Fatlier, and of the second to be a Son, &c.) — so distinct, that one can sencU and another be sent ; one can make atonement to another, and intercede with another ; in short, so distinct as to justify the use of the personal pronouns /, Thou, He, which cannot be on ?/o?tr principle of unity. It is a distinction, however, which we do not profess to comprehends explain or prove farther than this, that it exists J Upon your principle, there can be no such thing as tlie Father's sending the Son ; the Son leaving the bosom of his Father; and the Holy Ghost the Comforter, being sent by the Father and the Son. There can be no such thing as divine atonement, intercession or medi- ation between the persons of the Trinity ; in short, there can be no such thing as the Gospel, no such thing as Christianity I When we speak of Christ as uniting divinity and humanity in one person, we mean (as well as words can express the mys- tery,) that his divitiity and humanity were so closely united as to form but one " distinct indivisible intelligeiit agent,^' so that without !iis humanity he would not be*' Christ,'* and without his divi- nity he would not be ** Christ." — Without your body you would not be a man : without your soid you would not be a man ; yet when body and soul are united, yon form but one man, one distinct indivisible intelligent agent.'' Upon your principle, Christ was two persons^ or two " dis- tinct intelligent agents ;" as man he w as one agent, — as God he was another! But rve hold to such an indivisible union of di- vinity and humanity, that his every action^ and every suffering, was the actir)n or suffering of the same person, or same ** intel- gent agent." We are not afraid therefore to say, that ** the Mighty God, (meaning the second person of the Trinity,) was once a child," Isa. ix. 6. ♦« that God, the Prince of life was kil- led," Acts iii 15. Or that he who was born of the virgin Mary is " King of kings and Lord of lords," Rev. xix. 16. Because these things are not spoken of two persons, but of one and the same person ! Your doctrine is a denial of the real divinity of Christ. I now proceed to offer some remarks on the doctrine of ATONEMENT. By atonement" I mean a satisfaction for sin. And by the atonement in this controversy, I mean that injinitt satisfaction 47# which Jems Christ rendered to God the Father for the sins of his people, 1 liis doctrine of atonement Amicus" has explicitly denied. He has said, that the " only Gospel atonement" is made within us : — that the js;reat « object of Clirisl's coming, was to commu' nicate power to the soiW^ to overcome sin ; — that the way adopt- ed by the " whole Christian world, who have been in the habit of regarding the death of Christ as the great atonement, as having paid the price of their sins, and made satisfaction for them," is a way mixing light with darkness, and bringing Christ into concord with Belial /" Now that such an atonement^ such a satisfaction as he here reprobates, is essential to salvation, and has actually been made, I prove, 1. Because otherwise the xaw of God w hich we have broken is not good. If *< the Law is holy and the commandment holy, and jusr, and good," as is expressly asserted, Rom. vii. 12, then it ought to be satisfied and executed. If the Law be good its fcnalty is good, and ought to be inflicted on transgressors. If then, this penalty be set aside, the Law is dishonoured, is pro- nounced *' not good." By denying the necessity of atonement, therefore, or of satisfaction to the Law, you condemn that Law ! 2. God has no justice, if he pardon transgressors without a satisfaction for sin. He is the « Judge of all the earth," and if he ever will ** do right,'* he will execute his Law and demand full satisfaction for sin. To say that He will forgive a convicted criminal before his crime has been expiated by the suffering denounced by the Law, is to make him decide contrary to Law, justifying whom the Law condemns ; of course proving an unjust judge ! In denying the necessity of atonement, you deny the justice of Gf>d. Obj. W justice must first he satisfied, where is the room for mercy .^" Answer none ; — if the criminal himself has endured the punishment and penalty : — but if the judge himself provide a surety and a substitute, there is mercy in this provision Now the very object of giving his Son to die in our stead, was that he might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth! Rom. iii. 26. 3. If there be no atonement, then the ceremoniai law had no meaning ! What was the end of all the ancient sacrifices of lambs and doves and other innocent animals, but to shadow forth salvation by the death of an innocent victim ? 1 cannot quote the whole book of Leviticus, or I might fill this sheet with proof of my position. Readonly the first five chapters, and you will find passages of this sort : < Again : »* the priest shall make atonement for them, and it shall he forgiven them," iv. 20, 26, 31, 35. Again : '* and the priest shall make atonement for him before the Lord, and it shall be forgiven him for any thing of all that he hath done in trespassing therein,^* vi. 7. How clear)> did these typical sacri- fices teach the ancient church, the necessity of a satisfaction or atonenmit for sin ; and that before a sinner could be par- doned, an innocent victim must die ! The ceremonial as well as the moral Law was a schoolmaster to lead sinners to Christ"— and is the first lesson to teach them the doctrine of atonement. In reference to these typical sacri- fices, Christ is called the lamb of God, who taketh away the sin of the world," John i. 29. 4. Because it is expressly asserted, that *f without shedding of blood there is no remission^'*'' Heb. ix. 22. Now either there is no such thing as remission of sins, or an atonement has preced- ed. For 1. Here is an atonement, "shedding of blood." — 2. Here is the necessity of atonement, " without shedding of blood is no remissionJ^ 3. It is implied that after such atonement, there is <* remission." Now 4. As Christ is now ♦* exalted a Prince and a Saviour to giv e repentance and remission of sins,'* Acts v. 31, it follows there has been an atonemeiit made, 5. If there be no need of an atonement, the sufferings of CHRIST were unnecessary and unaccountable ! I suppose you will grant he was a sinless person, holy, harmless, undefiled and separate from sinners." Why then did he suffer? — and suffer death, which is the wages of sin?'' — Why that agony and bloody sweat? — that «* strong crying and tears" in the garden of Gethsemnnc ! Was he afraid of death, — or did he suffer more than others? Had he less fortitude than Peter^ who was not only willing to be crucified, but to be crucified with his head downwards ! Many of his disciples went si7iging to the flames, and with Joy met devouring lions ! Where was then our Sa- viour's fortitude? or was he enduring more than ordinary suf- fering? If so, why thus agonized and overwhelmf^d ? It was not for his own sins, for he had none ; — but tor the sins of his people. He himself explains the cause of his agonies on that awful night : «* this is my body broken for you ; this is my blood shed f(»r many, for the remission of sins." Or as he had said before. Matt. xx. 28 : «*The son of man is come to give his life a RANSOM for many." If there be no need of an at(mement, then what the Apostle shuddered to think of is true : « CHRIST IS DEAD IN VAIN !" Gal. ii. 21. 6. You entirpl> annul his office of a PRIEST. The Saviour promised to the world, was to bear a three-fold office of a Pro- 472 phet, of a Priest- and of a King. You acknowledge him (in part) as a Prophet, sent to be a light" to the world ; and as a King, you profess to look to him, to subject your wills to his will." But if you deny his atonement, you den}' his priestly office altogether. That he was a Priest is evident, from Heb. viii. 1. : •* We have an High Friest who is set on the right hand of the Majesty in the heavens." Now the office of a priest is to offer a sacrifice for sin, and make intercession for sinners. As it is written : Every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: Wherefore, it is necessary that this man, (Jesus Clirist) have somewhat also to offer." viii. 3. But what did he offers '< But Christ being come an High Priest of good things to come, neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood, he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us." ix. 11, 12. And having an un- changeable priesthood," he is " able to save to the uttermost ail who come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them." vii 25, Thus, by denying the atone- ment, you annul the Saviour's office of a Priest, and forget his chief object in visiting this world. 7. The reality of an atonement is proved by all those passa- ges which speak of his dying for us : Rom. v. 6, 8. « In due time Christ died for the ungodly and while we were yet sin- ners Christ died for ws." To die for a person in these passages, is to die in his stead, that he may not die. Thus in the 7th verse : Scarcely /or a righteous man will one die," i. e. to save a righteous man from death. His dying for us, therefore, proves a substitution, a vicarious atonement. 8. The liiid chapter of Isaiah, proves 'an atonement, verse 6 r He was wounded for our transgressions; he was bruised for our iniquities ; the chastisement of our peace was upon him ; and by his stripes are we healed. All we like sheep had gone astray, and the Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all. For the transgression of my people was he stricken." If thcvSe passa- ges do not prove that the object of Christ's sufferings was to atone for our sins, the doctrine cannot be taught in words. 9. Those passages which speak of his purchasing and redeem- ing us, prove an atonement, 1 Cor. vi. 20 : ** Ye are bought with a price." Acts xx. 28 : " He purchased the church with his own blood,^^ 1 Pet, i. 18 : Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Christ." Mat. xx. 28. « The Son of Man came to give his life a ransom for many." And the whole church in heaven acknowledges, " Thou wast slain and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood,^^ — ^Note 1. Here is a redemption^ a ransom^ a price which Christ paid for us. 2. Thafr 473 ransom or price was his blood. And yet you deny an Atone ^ inent ! 10. His bearing our sins, proves an atonement. Isaiah liii. 11, 12 : *• He shall bear their iniquities — and again : <* he bare the sin of viany," Whicli is echoed hy the Apostle Peter : « Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree." 1 Peter ii. 2i<. Objection : <* Christ bears away our sins, by re- moving them, by his Spirits from our hearts,'^ Answer : No ; for 1. To bear is not to " bear away," but to suffer the pun- ishment due to sin. 2. Note how he bears our sins, not in our hearts, but " in his own body.^' 3. The place and time in whicli he bears our sins, — not hereafter, but ^« on the tree^' of crucifix- ion— that is : eighteen hundred years ago." 11. His being made sin for us, proves an atonement, 2 Cor, V. 21 : He ivho knexv no sin was made sin (or a sin offering) for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him,*' Here every word is full of meaning. Note 1. His personal in- nocence; <* he knew no sin." 2. He was treated as a sinner; ** he was made sin." 3. His substitution in our stead ; he was made sin for us,'* 4. His death is the means of our righte- ousness, **that we might be made the righteousness of God iu him." He that can get over this without admitting an atone- ment, must be a good torturer of Scripture ! 12. Our being clearised by his blood, is another proof of an atonement, 1 John i. 7 : *« The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin,** Rev. i. 5: " Unto Him that loved us and washed us from our sins in his own blood." And vii. 14. : " These are they who have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb,** The " blood of the Lamb" is the atonement. 13. His being made a curse for its, is another argument ; Gal. iii. 13 : Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law, being made a curse for us,** Note 1. We were under a curse, " the curse of the Law." 2. Christ hath removed this curse, « hath redeemed us." 3. The manner in wliich this curse was remov- ed,— not by "subjecting our wills," or *< working in us a sub- stantial righteousness of heart and life," but by being made a cursefor us.** And if you say this curse is yet to be borne when we are converted j I answer, the same text tells you it was borne when he was << hanging on the tree." 14. That a sacrifice for si7i is essential to salvaticm, proves the necessity of atonement. It is given as a reason why certain sinners cannot be saved, that there remaineth no more sacri- fice for si/i." Heb. x. 26. Now, if a sacrifice for sin be not essential to salvation, where is the force of this passage? 1.5. Our salvation is attributed to Christ's once offering np GO 474 himself in sacrifice. Read Hebrews ix. and x. : ^< Now in the end of the worlu, hath lie appeared to put away sin by the sacri* fice of himstlj and again : *» Clirist was once offered to bear the sins oj' many,^^ ix. 26, 28. And again ; Hf b. x. 14 : •* By his one offering, he hath forever perfected tliem that are sanctifi- ed." JNote, there is no need of his making atonement every year, and every day and hour, as your system supposes ; but by one offering,^^ he hath *» forever perfected'* those who be- lieve in him. 16. The atonement was the first grand article of the Gospel which the Apostle of the G. ntiles preached. 1 Cor. xv. 3 : *• By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what 1 preach- ed unto you; for I delivered iinto you first or all, thai which Ireceived, how that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures," Now, what he made ** first of ail," you put last of ail! He determined " not to know any thing else than Jesus Christ, and him crucifed you give every thing else the pre- ference ! He determined, " God forbid that I should glory save in the cross of Christ ;"7ou say : ** God forbid that I should believe a doctrine which mixes light with darkness^ and brings Christ into concord with Belial But all this is easy to account for: "The preaching of the CROSS is to them that perish, foolishness, but unto us who are saved, it is the power of God and the wisdom of God." 1 Cor. i. IS. And now I appeal to the Christian community, and to those who love the Bible, who trust in the " great atonement," who hope for salvation through the blood of Christ, who mourn when heresy is abroad, and who long for the salvation of all man- kind,— ought doctrines which undermine the foundation, and overturn the whole fabric of Christianity, to be countenanced by you, as they are, in this r« gion I Have you no regard to tiie doctrine of the Trinity — the divinity of Christ — the great atonement — and justification by faith ? Can you sit still, and see the Bible set aside as more deceitful than the heart? Are you willing to see the ordinances of Christ's house despised, the Sabbath day profaned, and the cause of Bible and mission- ary benevolence opposed ? You are sending the Gospel to the heathen ; you do well ; — you are labouring to enlighten the be- nighted in yonr own western territory ; you do well. But why neglect a large body of lost souls n<*ar home ? Why support, countenance urn] flatter a society which corrupts your children and friends, preaches down Christianity, and labours to diffuse the principles of deism ! So long as Cliristians call them Christians," you confirm them in their delilsion, you assist in deceiving your children, who will be less on their guard against those whom you profess to esteem ! What then should you do ? — 475 Deny them the Christian name, until they profess Christian doc- trine ; labour to diffuse a knowledge of the Bible, and to excite a spirit of inquiry among them, — make them the subject of your private and your public prayers; — persuade them to attend Christian sanctuaries where the Gospel is preached ; — warn them of the errors of their teachers ; in short, make use of every Scriptural means to bring them to a knowledge of salva- tion ! And now, my dear friends, I have nothing against you as men. Your persons I love, your virtues I admire, and the sal- vation of your souls is my daily petition. If the Bible be true, you are certainly wrong ; and if there be no Saviour but Christ, you must be converted or lost ! PAUL. Sixth-day, 12th mo. 13, 182^. LETTER XLL ^< Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God; but to others in parables; thai seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand,*^ Luke viii. 10, The celebrated Origen, who flourished about two hundred years after Christ, and whose piety and firmness in the Chris- tian cause were never disputed, has been accused of interpret- ing the Bible in a mystical manner! It is," said he, taught that the Scriptures were in many places void of sense, if taken according to their literal import; and, that the true meaning of the sacred Writings, was to be sought in a hidden or inter- nal sense, according to the nature of the things treated of^^ How far the censures passed upon him, in succeeding ages, when the church bad fallen into the trammels of a pretended ortho- doxy— when, in defiance of reason, the grossest and most car- nal interpretation of the inspired records, was adopted and forced upon mankind, under pain* of death ; — I say, how far these censures were just or reasonable, it is perhaps at this time impossible to determine. To his avowed enemies we are indebted for much of our information respecting the character of Origen : and the Society I advocate have good reason to knows how little dependance is to be placed upon the statements of those, who, from bigotry or superstition have ranged them- selves in opposition to individuals or societies that cannot con- form to their Creed ! One thing however is certain, that on the partial reformation from popery by the Protestants, those who stiled themselves the orthodox," were forced, in some ^78 instances, to resort to a figurative interpretation of Scripture, in order to sustain their opinions ! TJuis, when the Catholics, in defence of transubstantiatioiif urged the literal meaning of the text: <* This is my body,'* the Uei'ormers contended, that it could not be taken literally.— When the former quoted the passage: "This is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many, for the remission of sins," the latter justly plead for a figurative interpretation of it ! They boldly declared, that though our Lord had positively affirmed, that the bread was his body, and the cup his blood, yet he only meant, they were so in a figurative sense / Now, so far the Reformers followed in the footsteps of Ori- CEN ! — so Jar they virtually declared, that <• the Scriptures were, in some places, void of sense, if taken according to their literal import !" And, so far every Protestant applauds their sentiment ! If it w ere necessary, I could cite many cases of this kind, to show, that the self-stiled orthodox, have frequent- ly done the very thing for which they have censured one of the most learned and pious men of his age — one of the most dis- tinguished names on the page of Ecclesiastical History ! The truth is, and no Christian will deny it, that a spiritual or inter- nal sense, is intended by many passages of the Holy Scriptures; where, by taking them in a literal or external sense, w^e should involve our Lord himself, and the inspired penmen, in the gros- sest absurdity. Christ expressly declared to the Jews : ^* Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you : Whoso eateth my fiesh, and drinkcth my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day: For my flesh is meat in- deed, and my blood is drink indeed.^^ John vi. 53, 54, 55. On this passage commentators differ widely ; some explaining it oneway, and some another; but all (excepting perhaps the E-oman Catholics) agree, that it must have a figurative mean- ing ! This being conceded, I can see no reason, why the So- ciety of which I am a member, have not, on the broad ground of Christian equality, as good a right to judge of its meaning as any other ' — Nor, can I see any reason why those, whom the "mother church'* caWed ^^blasphemous heretics,^' but who have now the modesty to arrogate to themselves the exclusive title of « orthodox Christians,'^ should be invested with the sole privilege of expounding this text ! ! ! Where, I would ask, did these presumptuous sectaries acquire this right ? No one who is unwilling to commit his soul for safe keeping, into the hands of a priest, will find any difficulty to answer this ques- tion ! ! ! But whatever authority others may have for their interpre- 477 tatioTi of this text, on the true meaning of which so much de- pends, 7ve claim the authority of Christ himself for our under- standing of it ! Our Lord has given us the key to unh)ck its meaning, and unfold its heavenly treasures ! and not only to nnfold the meaning of this passage, hut of many others of a similar nature ! Except ye eat the Jlesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." It appears by the context, that many of the " orthodox" of that day, interpreting these words (as many now understand the Scriptures) in a literal and logical sense," were highly " offended,'' and murmured at this saying To the right understanding of Gospel truth, our Lord's reply is one of the most important passages on record / It is THE SPIRIT that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing : the words that 1 speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life." John vi. 63. Here we are taught from the lip of Truth, the true meaning of the ''flesh and blood of Christ," so frequently spoken of by our Lord, the Evangelists and Apostles ! The only flesh and blood that quickeneth — that giveth life to the soul, is the Holy Spirit ! < Thus my learned opponent has pronounced God an "unjust Judge;'* because when he pardoned the repenting Ninevites, refusing to destroy half a million of people, he acted contrary to Law ! ! !" For- giveiiess then is contrary to God^s Law ! I ! According to this doctrine ; when our Lord said : " If thy brother trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying I repent^ thou shalt forgive him," he only meant, that if the trespasser paid full damages for his trespasses, we should kindly forgive him ! ! ! Again ; when he taught his disciples to pray to God, saying : furgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors," Matt. v. 12, he only meant to teach, that we should forgive our debtors, after they had paid us, and taken a receipt in full ! ! ! 2. Again he tells us ; " If there be no atonement, then the Ceremonial Law had no meaning." To this position I freely subscribe. 1 have never said there is no atonement." On the contrary, I have plead for a real, effectual atonement ! for a divine power that really cleanses the soul from sin, and brings it into reconciliation with God. The Ceremonial Law was an outward law, " having," as the Apostle says, *< a shadow of good things to come." Heb. x. 1. Legal offerings and sacri- fices are called ihadows, in opposition to spiritual offerings ! Now if the material blood, which by sprinkling it on the out- ward altar made an atonement for legal sins, were a type of the material blood of Christ, then we must conclude, that one material substance was a type for another material substance ; which would destroy the relation between type and antitype ! The outward temple was a type of the true Christian, whom the Apostle tells us, is a " temple of the Holy Ghost,'* 1 Cor. vi. 9. The outward altar was a type of the altar of the heart. — The incense arising from the Jewish altar was a type of the prayers of the saints, ascending from God's spiritual altar, a purified heart ! Rev. viii. 4. In like manner, « the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer, which, sprink- ling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh," was a type of « the [spiritual] blood of Christ" — the Holy Spirit, which alone can " purge the conscience from dead works to serve the living God." Heb. ix. 13, 14. Under this view of the subject, we see, that the ceremo- nial Law" had a sublime, a deeply important meaning! It was a shadow of good things," divine realities, " to come :'' — Its types sind figures had tlieir respective antitypes — and are all fulfilled in the experience of the crucified and quickened Christian.'* 483 All my opponent's arguments, therefore, which go to prove an atonement necessary, are works of supererogation ! The great difference between us in this point, as in almost all others, lies in our mode of understanding the Scriptures. We consider God as one pure, eternal Holy Spirit, who created, and upholds, and fills all things. He considers him a kind of covipounded being, made up finite parts, one of which can be in one place^ while the otliers are in another. One of which is again com- pounded of flesh, and blood, and bones, and spirit — the others being ttvo distinct Holy Spirits I — one of them mortal, the otliers immortal I — one of them rigidly just, but very unmerciful; an- other very merciful, but very unjust ! We consider the saving flesh and blood of Christ,''^ are " spirit and life he considers them outward and elementary, — We consider the righteousness of Christ real and substantial — he considers it unreal and im- putative— we consider the Gospel justification a being made just, — he considers it a cloak for sin I We consider the baptism of Christ, a baptism of the " holy spirit and of fire,^^ — he consi- ders it the sprinkling of water in the face / We consider the Lord's supper, a spiritual communion with Christ — a parti- cipation of ** the bread that cometh down from heaven,''^ and of the new wine of the kingdom — he considers it the eating of bread that grows out of the earths a drinking of wine the pro- duction of Madeira or Teneriffe ! We consider God's love uni- versal, that he is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance — he considers it limited to a very few, and that God has eternally decreed that all the rest should go into everlasting perdition ! And for all this he con- siders usas«« heretics," and calls upon our <* Christian brethren to deny us the Christian name — and we consider him like those who requested our Lord to call down fire from heaven, to consume those who differed from them in opinion — that he knows not what spirit he is of," — that his mind is darkened, being alienated from that divine light, which ** is the true light, that lighteth every man that cometh into the world." At the same time, that from the unequivocal evidence fur- nished by himself, we are bound thus to consider our opponent, I would not be understood to mean, that we consider all those who do not subscribe to our sentiments, in the same state. Far be it from us ! — We believe that our Lord " has many sheep, that are not of our fold" — that " in every nation, they that fear God and work righteousness, are accepted of him ;" — that God does not judge of men by their creeds, but by the sincerity of their hearts, and the purity of their lives — and that all the noise that is made in the world about modes of faith," is to him but « as sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal," unless it be ac* 484 eompanied by a real substantial rigbteousness in tbe heart and life." — And we believe, that however Christians raa>' differ in doctrinal points, yet if tbey walk in the light, as GOD is in the light, we have fellowship one with anotlier, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from ail sin. AMICUS. Fridat/, December 20, 1822. LETTER XLII. ON" ATONEMENT AND JUSTIFICATION. « This is he that came by umtpr and bloody even Jesus Christy ndt by water only, but bv water and blood." 1 John v. 6. ♦ The salvation of Jesus Christ has two parts : Justification and Sanctifieation. These two, though thev never should be separated, should never be confounded. By justification we arc delivered frtitn tbe curse of the Law, and tntified to hea- ven ; hy sanetification our nature is renewed, and made meet for heaven. The/orwer Christ hath purchased hj' his ^^hlood^^ or bis sufftrivigs in our stead ; the latter is accomplished by his /Spirit, so often emblematized by water." That Christ should come by water," i. e. to cleanse our hearts from the potlittions of sin, was predicted and typified under the old dispensation, by aUntions, bapti^zing, purifyingSf &c. : that he should come aiso by blood," i. e. to expiate our guilthy dying in our stead, was also typified and certified by all their bloody sacrifices. See Hebrews ix. and x. One part of this salvation you would have us leave entirely out of view. You would make us believe he came «* hy water only whereas, he came « not hy water only, but hy water and blood.^^ He came not only to work in lis a righteousness of heart and life," but, as a preparatory step, to deliver us from the curse of the Law, by being made a curse for us." Gal. iii. 13. These two parts of his salvation are strikingly represented by the two ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, The latter represents our justification by the " blood" or atonement of Christ, and is therefore call- ed the *< cup of the New Covenant in his blood ;" the latter represents our sanctification by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost." Tit. iii. 5» Hence, in speak- ing of the " three that bear record in earth," (i John v. 8,) he mentions as two "the water and blood," i. e. the two standing ordinances of the church. And while these two ordinances con- tinue to be administered in the church, we shall have Twq 4S5 Witnesses that Christ came « not by water only, but by "blood," to make atonement, as well as to work in us a ** substantial righteousness of heart and life." Thai an atoncnu'nt is absolutely necessary to salvation, and has actually been made, 1 brought in my iiisif fifteen arguments to provt . Of these *• Amicus" has noticed onl^ two or three; for wliai reason he was so s.i> of the rest, let the public judge. Among other erroneous remarks, 1 notice the following : Rem. 1. *♦ That the salvation of the soul is effected, not by tvhat Christ did Jor us in his outward and temporary manifesta- tion eighteen hundred years ago ; not by any imputation of his merits or righteousness, may be easily demonstrated from Scrip- ture." Easy, however, as he thought it to « demonstrate" his position, in his attempt he completely failed ! His quotations only prove that the atonement is not atl the salvation of Christ; that sanctification must follow that atonement before salvation can be complete. >Ve do not say that Christ came by blood only," but by water and blood.^^ And all his eftbrts to prove that the Saviour came by " w ater," do not prove that he came by ** water only" — which it was his object to prove ! 2. He is continually railing against predestination ^ election, and particular redemption, as if Paul had ever advanced these sentiments, or even hinted at them ! They have nothing to do with this controversy ; and the only remark (now recollected) ever made by Paul upon these subjects, was to this effect : that a belief of the above doctrines was not essential to salvation." "Where then does Amicus" get his ground for railing? Rea- der, he got it where he got my ^< declaration" that I w^as a hireling minister," — a scholar from a " theological semina- ry ;" a declaration which he assures you / have made I ! ! A WTiter, however, who can quote from Scripture what is not in Scripture, may well quote from my writings what no one but himself ever saw in them ! The fact is, he wishes to excite a diversion in his favour among the Christians who are opposed to " Calvinistic" doctrines, by identifying the doctrines of the Trinity, the divinity of Christ and the atonement with the Cal- vinistic svstem ! This high compliment to Calvinistic churches, the Methodists and Episcopalians will not thank him for. They will esteem it no honour to be ranked with Socinians, Arians, Sabellians, and those who deny the Lord that bought them," and reject the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel ! 3. He says : The doctrine of paying a price to God for our redemption, to satisfy his offended justice, is not to be found in any part of the Bible,'^ That you cannot find it, is no proof it is not there. Those who cannot find the doctrine of the Trinity and divinity of Christ, would not surprise us if they failed to 486 find any one doctrine of Christianity in the saered volume I However, if Christ paid no price for our salvation," how could the Apostle say 1 Cor. vi. 20. vii. 23 : Ye are bought with a price /" Acts xx. 28 : He purchased the church with his own blood." 1 Pet. i. 18 : " Ye were redeemed not with cor- ruptible things, as silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Christ." Matt, xx, 28 : The Son of Man came to give his life a RANSOM for many." Now, how could he ** purchase'*^ with- out a price I What is a ransom,^^ but a price ! And what was this ransom but his " life," his blood !" The Bible therefore plainly teaches, that our salvation was purchased with a price, and that price was the blood or the atonement of our Saviour. ^, He brings the case of the JSTinevites as a proof that God can and does pardon sin withotit a satisfaction, — Now, not to ar- gue, as I might, that the « repentance" of these Ninevites was, like the repentance of Ahab, merely external ; and the ** par- don" bestowed a mere removal of temporal judgment, (as most Christians and commentators suppose) ; if we grant their re- pentance was sincere, and their pardon complete, does it follow their sin was pardoned without a satisfaction ? By no means ; for in the purpose of God, and in the eternal covenant of peace, Christ was " the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world*'^ Accordingly, God is said to set forth Christ " to be a propitia- tion through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness in the remission of sins that were past, through the forbearance of God," i. e. that God might appear to be righteous in .the for- giveness he had already shown to ancient saints. As it is said in the next verse : " to declare his righteousnCvSS, that he might be Just, and the justifer of him that believeth in Jesus," Rom. iii. 24*. If there be any meaning in these passages, they prove that without such a propitiation," God could not have been righteous" in the « remission of sins without such a satis- faction, he could not have been "just" in "justifying" those who believe. In other words, they prove the necessity and the reality of an atonement. 5. He says : « The sacrifices of the ceremonial Law typifi- ed not a material outward sacrifice, but a spiritual offering on the altar of the heart,*' i. e. the ancient sacrifices of living vic- tims were typical of the influence of the Holy Spirit on our hearts. According to your statement, then, the death of Christ was an event of no consequence, and had no typical re- presentation under the old economy' ! ! ! The fact is, the influ- ence of the spirit on our hearts was typified (as [ have before observed) by the sprinklings, incense, circumcision, and other shadows of that dispensation ; while every innocent victim slain to " make atonement" for sin, was typical of that one globi- 48r ous viCTi!^i, who was afterwards offered on Mount Calvary for the sins of the world ! 6. He thinks it a horrible doctrine, that Forgiveness is con- trary to God's law /" I would ask him in what part of the moral law (for it is this law of which sin is a transgression) provision is made for forgiveness ? I never saw it ; I only read, ** Cursed is every one who continueth not in all things written in the book of the Law to do them : Gal. iii. 10. Forgiveness is contrary to this law ; and " if righteousness (or forgiveness) could have come by it, then Christ is dead in vain Gal. ii. 21. I speak not of the forgiveness of a brother's injury, hut of the conduct of a judge towards a convicted criminal. As individuals, we are bound to forgive our individual personal injuries, even till *' se- venty times seven times," and that without any satisfaction on their part. But a judge has no right to forgive ; and if he does forgive a criminal whom the law condemns, he acts contrary to law, and is an w?i/ws^ judge. I repeat it, therefore, in denying the atonement, you make God an <* unjust judge," trampling on his own holy and perfect law ! ! ! And here I leave the subject of atonement. His principal ob- jections are now answered ; and ten or twelve of my strongest arguments he has not dared to notice. I cannot conclude this controversy with a more important sub- ject than that of JUSTIFICATION. In Letter xvi. p. 179, the public has had a short introductory essay on this subject, which (should these Letters be ever pub- lished in a volume) I should be glad to have inserted here. In that number, the importance of the controversy, the precise state of the question, your sentiments quoted from Barclay, Kersey and others, and a few arguments for the truth, were presented to the public. The errors with which you were then charged, Amicus," in his last two numbers, has full}' avowed. He has laboured to prove that we are not to be justified by the righteousness of another, who died eighteen hundred years ago,'' but by a substantial righteousness of heart and life," by a ♦'subject- ing of our will to the Divine will," by a righteousness " pro- duced BY OUR OBEDIENCE to tlic word of God nigh in the heart ; or, as he says again : produced by our submission to the operation of the Spirit." Now, that your foundation is a foundation of sand, is evi- dent. 1. Because to be jiivStified by in/miairighteou^ess. is really to be justified by our oxvn 7VorksJ Your internal righteousness 48S V is made up of several different graces; such as faith, repent- ance, love, humility, thankfulness, &c. all which are ** works of our own and to be justified by these, is to be justified by our own works ; — in other words, these works are the works of the Law," by which ♦* no flesh livin.e; shall be justified." We can be justified in no other way than by the obedience and death of Jesus Christ. 2. We cannot be justified by any " righteousness in our hearts," because all siLch righteousness is imperfect. To be jus- tified without righteousness is impossible; and to be justified by an imperfect righteousness is equally impossible. For to justify is to pronounce perfectly righteous. But no man can be pronounced as in himself perfectly righteous. For if we admit him to be perfect in love and obedience at the present time, it will not be pretended of any sinner that he was always perfect; or that taking his rvhole life into view, he can be pronounced perfectly righteous. If therefore a man, who was once a sinner, be at this time ever so righteous in heart and life," if he be ever so " obedient to the word nigh in the heart," or ever so " subBffltjsive to the operation of the spirit," he cannot be thereby justified; because he was not a/wat/s perfectly righ- teous, and a long score of former sins is yet unexpiated ! But by the death of Jesus Christ, all our old sins are expiated, and by his obedience or righteousness imimted to us, we are com- pletely justified who believe in him. 3. We are to be justified '* by faith without the deeds of the Law Rom. iii. 28. "Therefore we conclude," says the in- spired Apostle, " that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the Law." Here, Mote 1. The Apostle takes it for granted, there is such a thing as Justification ; " a man is jus- tified.^' 2. He is justified without any obedience or righteous- ness of heart and life, — without the deeds of the Law." 3. That he is justified by faith alone: he is justified by faith without the deeds of the Law." 4. We are to be justified by a righteousness not properly our own, but received from God byfaitli Phil. iii. 9 : " That I may win Christ and be found in him, not having mine own righteous- ness which is of the Law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith," Here the Apostle points out the righteousness by which he expected to be justified : — 1. Not by any righteousness of heart and life: " not having on mine own righteousness." 2. Nor faith itself (which some have taught was the meritorious cause of our jus- tification,) but that which is « through faith," — the righteous- ness which is^f God by faith;" that is, the righteousness of Christ made ours by imputation. 480 5. We are to be justified fredy and through grace, Rom. iii. 24. Being justified J'reely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ." Note, believers are to be justified," — jusiified freely," without any consideration of merit or de- ment in their hearts or lives, — justified by liis ♦•grace," with- out regard to works either good or bad ; — justified ^* through the redemption ilvdt is in Jesus Christ:" i. e. through the ransom which he paid, and the righteousness he prepared. 6. We are to be justi fied by ChrisVs righteousness^ in the same way in which he was condemned for our sins, 2 Cor. v. 21 : « He hath made him, who knew no sin, to be sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." Now Christ was *• made 5m," not by infusing a •» substantial sinfulness of heart and life," but imputing sin » or charging sin to his account. In the same way we become <• the righteousness of God in him," not by his working in us a »* substantial righteousness," but by im- puting, or crediting liis righteousness to our account. 7. We are to be justified by imputed righteousness : Romans iv. 5. " David describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom the Lord imputeth righteousxess without works." From this passage we learn — 1. There is such a thing as im- puted righteousness,^^ which many speak of as if it were an ab- surdity ! — 2. That there is such a thing as righteousness with' out works,^ which according to your doctrine is impossible ! — 3. That this is the very righteousness by which « David" hop- ed, and every Christian hopes to be saved. And therefore — i. Your doctrine which founds justification on an internal righteousness, and measures our righteousness by our works," is unseriptural and dangerous. Our justification is perfect in Christ, — is perfect the moment we believe in him; — but our saiictification is progressive and in exact proportion to our works. 8. We cannot be justified by internal righteousness, because we are justified when ungodly. Rom. iv. 3 : '*But to him that ivorketh not, but believeth on him that justipieth the un- godly, his faith is counted (or imputed) for righteousness." From this passage we learn, 1. That our works do not consti- tute our righteousness — " to him that worketh not his faith is counted for righteousness." 2. That it is not our godliness which justifies us, for we are justified when <* ungodly." Now if the ungodly" have a righteousness tojustify them, it can- not be in themselveSf for this would be a contradiction in terms. The righteousness, therefore, by which sinners are justified, jnust be without themselves, — in other words in Jesus Christ. 9. The Scriptural way of justificaticm excludes boasting. Rom. iii. 27: "Where is boasting then? It is excluded." iv. 2 : " If 62 490 Abraham were justified by works, he has whereof to glory,*' It is plain, then, 1. That a way of justification which admits of boasting, is not the right way. But 2. Your doctrine, that our obedience to the word nigh in the heart "produces" rigttteous> iiess ; that our « submission to the operation of the Spirit pro- duces*' that righteousness by which we are justified, really takes the glory of our salvation from God, 2Ln(\ gives all the credit to ourselves ! 1 1 Your doctrine makes man the producer*' of his own righteousness, and the author of his own justification ! ! ! To all this it will be objected, Obj. 1. " The doctrine of imputation is not found in the Bi- ble." I know not what Bible some people may use, but if you will take the common edition, and turn to the fourth chapter of Komans, you will find the term impute," and its equivalents count," " reckon," used no less than ten times in that single chapter ! Witness the following expressions : It was counted unto him for righteousness" — ** his faith is counted for righte- ousness"— *< God imputeth righteousness without works"-— Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin" — faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness" — " that righteousness might be imputed unto them also"— And there- fore it was imputed unto him for righteousness." <«Now it was imputed to him for us also, to whom it shall be imputed if we be- lieve," &c. Rom. iv. 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 22, 23, 24. And yet there is no such thing as imputed sin or imputed righteousness in the Bible ! Obj. 2. The doctrine of justification by the righteousness of another, tends to licentiousness, inasmuch as it leads us to neglect a personal righteousness.*' I am willing the tendency of the doctrine should be judged of by its effects on the life and conduct, — ajid am sure that the holiest men of every age, have lived and died in the full belief of it. No doctrine tends so strongly to humble the believer and exalt the Saviour ; we never separate, either in theory or in practice, these two parts of our salvation, the justification of our persons, and the sancii- fication of our nature. Though a « righteousness of heart and life" is not the ground of our pardon, it inevitably follows it ; and where there is no righteousness of heart," there is no evidence of reconciliation with God. As you will probably stigmatize all this as " Calvinism," I will in conclusion, quote the sentiments of a church and of a great and good man, not generally accused of " Calvinistic" sentiments. On the subject of justification," the ixth Article of the Methodist church says : " We are accounted righteous before God only for the vierit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith, and not for our own works or deservings; 491 wherefore, that we are justified hy faith only is a most whole- some doctrine, and very full of comfort." And in the next article, it is said : that " good works are the fruits of faith, and follow after justifcationf^' of course, cannot be the ground of justification. Similar to these were the sentiments of John Wesiey. In his sermon on Jer. xxiii. 6, lie asks : *< When is it that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us, — and in what sense is it imputed? To all believers the righteousness of Christ is imputed; to unbelievers it is not. But when is it imputed ? When they believe. In that very hour the righteous* ness of Christ is theirs. But in what sense is this righteousness imputed to believers ? In this : all believers are forgiven and accepted, not for the sake of any thing in them^ or any thing that ever was, that is, or ever can be done by them,6wi wholly and solely for the sake of what Christ had done and suffered for them. Not of works lest any man should boast, but wholly and solely for the sake of what Christ hath done and suffered for us." Again ; in his Sermon on Rom. iv. 5, speaking of the justified person, he says: « God will not inflict on that sinner what he deserved to suffer, because the Son of his love suffered for him, — He hath no righteousness at all antecedent to his justifi- cation. But faith is imputed to him for righteousness the very moment that he believeth. Not that God thinketh him to be what he is not. But as he made Christ to be sin for us, that is, treated him as a sinner, punishing him for our sins, so he counteth us righteous from the time we believe in him : that is, he doth not punish us for our sins, but treats us as though we were guiltless and righteous." Beauties of Wesley, p. p. 52—56. Thus ends a long, but I trust, not an unprofitable contro- versy. If the controversy be published, I shall claim the pri- vilege of writing a preface. Mr. Robert Porter of Wilmington, has my consent to publish the whole or any part of what I have written, on his own account, or connected with any other per- son, in any shape that he or they may deem proper. And now, my dear friends, I bid you FAREWELL! May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God the Father, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, bring you out of dark- ness into his marvellous light, for his name's sake ! Amen. PAUL. As " Paul,'* in his last letter, complaiirs that I have left » number of bis arguments unanswered, I would just observe, that the limits of the Re^ pository make it absolutely impossible to notice every argument in a formal manner* But as I have only one letf^r more t* write, and as I am desirous 4,92 of replying to all his attempts to establish what I consider an inconsistent irrational scheme, to do which will require more time than I can at present devote to the subject, my closing letter will be postponed to a future num- ber of the Repository. AMICUS. 12th mo. 27, 1322. From " Amicus'" note inserted in the last Repository, I infer he intend* loading the paper and the public with a letter still longer than his former numbers ! The object of this note is to give notice, that if more than the usual quantity be inserted in the Repository, I sliall claim the privilege of a yeply equal in length to his excess. As he has already exceeded me in the number^ and still more in the length of his letters, the demand made in the note cannot be considered unreasonable. I have no wish, however, to write more, and shall be satisfied and pleased if he confines himself to proper limits Dec. 31, 1822. PAUL. ^m:^\-f:^ Sixth-day y \st mo. 17, 1823. LETTER XLII. ^'Paul" in his last Letter, tells us, " that salvation has two parts, justification and sanctification.'* This is quite in cha- racter with the doctrine which divides the Deity into three parts ! I always thought salvation was a being saved from sin, and all its consequent miseries ! — In one word, " redemption," That divine Being, to whom the prophet addressing himself, says : ^* Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look upon iniquity,'* my opponent represents as the justifior of the wicked, whilst he remains in his wickedness ! The Psalmist queries: " Shall the throne of iniquity [the corrupt unsanctified heart] have fellowship with thee V* — ''Paui'^ an- swers in the affirmative! — A man may be justified whilst he remains ungodly ! — God will have fellowship with iniquity ! — Christ will have concord with Belial ! This I consider as a doctrine of Antichrist; and all Paul's" arguments to main- tain it, are contrary to the express language of Scripture, and wholly inconsistent with the purity of the Deity. The word justification" is derived from two Latin words— the adjective *