By the fruits of the popular order of things I judge of its character. I well know the history of the Baptist churches, as well as of many of the Paidobaptist, I will not write a history of one of them at this time; but I may yet give the history of a few for a sample if Mr. Brantly will affirm that I have not given a fair outline of the present order of things. I do not say that every church in the Baptist connexion is exactly represented in the preceding outline; but one thing I will say, that more than the nine-tenths of them in half the states of the union where I have formed an acquaintance with them, are fairly represented in this hasty sketch. In lieu of this order of things, Mr. Brantly gives us a list of their opinions, and all the reformation he wants is to see them acting up to these opinions. Now I do know many individuals living up to these opinions, as far as one can live up to opinions so contradictory to each other, and I know of none professing the christian name less to be envied than they. I presume Mr. Brantly lives up to these opinions, and what are the effects of them upon his mind and behavior, and upon his church? I leave those best acquainted to answer this question. But read the Star! Behold the system! Behold the man! I dare say that Mr. Brantly is as good a man as the system can produce. I will not now repeat what has been so often said in the preceding volumes upon the items of opinion in Mr. Brantly's present order of things. I confess that with many of these opinions I agree as I do with Mr. Locke or Mr. Reed in their philosophy, or with Sir Isaac Newton in his principia. And viewed in the light of Mr. Brantly's optics, they are as inefficient to reform the world, as the doctrine of Sir Isaac was to change the transit of a star or the orbit of a comet. I do not, indeed, understand what Mr. Brantly means in some expressions-such as, "coming into the exercise of faith”. "the total depravation of human nature"-"the death of Christ, the foundation of pacification"-"the Spirit's ordinarily employing the word of God as the instrumental action in regeneration"-"immersion, the figure or symbol of salvation"-Past salvation or future salvation, as respects the moment of immersion?- -Say? "The Baptist church, a religious commonwealth"-"the efficacy of faithful prayer." There is such a new-fangledness and awkwardness in this phraseology—such an unintelligibility about it, that it requires for me a commentator. I know it will puzzle even Mr. Brantly to explain some of these tertium quid phrases. Suppose the following questions were asked him: Where was faith before the exercise of faith? How does a person come into the exercise of any principle? Does "total" mean entire and perfect? Has it any parts or degrees? Can the most impious wretch be any thing more than totally depraved? Is the newborn infant as depraved as the vilest sinner that lives? Does atonement mean God's pacification to us, or our pacification to him? Is the death of Christ an atonement of God to us, or our atonement or reconciliation to God? Is not God reconciling us to himself by the sacrifice of his Son for our sins? Can there be two seeds of the same plant-two seeds of the same animal-two instrumental actions or means of regeneration? Can there be an ordinary instrumental action of regeneration, and an extraordinary instrumental action of regeneration? Does not the Apostle Peter declare that the word of God is the incorruptible seed of regeneration? What new seed is this which you have found, Mr. Brantly? My dear sir, permit me to assure you that there needs no witness to depose that you have drunk too deeply into human systems. The Oracle of God you have seen through the glasses of a system which have given a new and strange hue to the whole volume. Pull off your glasses and read with the naked eye, and see what a different colored volume it is! What means "immersion in the name of the Trinity?" Is there any act-was there ever any act instituted as a figure of what we had formerly received, of any gift or favor bestowed upon us? Is faithful prayer and "the prayer of faith" equivalent? What means the "answer of a good conscience through a symbol?" Explain, if you please. Your correspondent (Mr. Clopton) talks about "highsounding words of vanity." I would thank him or you to show that these are not unintelligible sounds, words without ideas, which neither yourself nor one of your readers can explain. So much for your "order of things," or new order of expressions. There is one great truth, and I will always pick up a truth as I would a diamond out of the mud-I say there is one great truth in your second section. It is this: "That which is true in Mr. Campbell's system is not new, and that which is new is not true." I know there is an ambiguity in this sentence. But in its common meaning it is most true. Suppose it had read, That which is true in religion is not new, and that which is new in religion is not true, I would have said a hearty Amen. The fault I have found with the popular schemes of religion is well expressed by Mr. Brantly in this antithesis. They are all too new for me. I have said, as every reader of these volumes knows, that nothing in religion is worth a thought which is not as old as the New Testament. Has Mr. Brantly agreed with me at last-what is new in religion is not true!! This was my startpoint in the year 1810. It is found minutely detailed in the first and second volumes of this work. I am all for the old things-not Mr. Brantly's old things, some of which are not older than the 40th year of Andrew Fuller. Old things may become new, however. Many of the positions of Luther and Calvin were called new, and were new, at the era of the Reformation; but yet they were as old as the era of Christianity itself. Some new things in "my system" may be true. Many things said about the modes of preaching and teaching are as new as the practices, and therefore may be true; for both that which is opposed and that which opposes are of recent date. But this is a mere criticism on the phraseology. What Mr. Brantly means is true. I understand him to mean that all new things in religion are false, and that whatever is true is as old as the religion. I request all my readers to bear this concession of my most inexorable opponent in long remembrance. Bad hearts are next complained of. "It is not new systems, but new hearts that we need." True it may be of many, and, for aught I know, of many of the popular preachers. But I go upon this principle, that the heart is not to be cured by a charm, nor to be purified by false notions. Therefore, I contend for the an cient gospel-the gospel found in the New Testament, because it is the wisdom of God and the power of God to purify the heart. Neither Calvanism, Fullerism, Arminianism, nor any human system can purify the heart; for very wicked men have been indoctrinated into all these systems. None, however, believe and obey the gospel whose hearts are not purified: for God purifies the hearts of men by believing the gospel. This is the reason faith purifies the heart, for it brings the truth of God into the heart. Then comes Wesley's, the Unitarian's, and some other versions of the New Testament. Then comes the denunciation against the New Version-the wholesale denunciation. Who can stand before envy? Let me here say, and let me be put to the proof, that there is no important item for which I contend that I cannot prove from the worst version I ever saw. I will take the common version and meet Mr. Brantly on any one item he chooses to select-Baptism for the remission of sins if he pleases. Yes, the common version will sustain, ably sustain me in every point; and I will predict that, upon this point and many others, Mr. Brantly will call upon the aid of new versions before I call for help. I look upon all that is said on the subject of the New Version by Mr. Brantly as most illiberal, uncalled for, and insupportable. It exhibits a rancor and a spirit of denunciation more becoming his Holiness than a Protestant. I am always prepared to defend not only the New Version which I have published, but the necessity of new versions for the confirmation of the faith and the enlargement of the views of christians. There is not a commentator in christendom that has not given us as much of a new version as I have done. Not one Catholic or Protestant who has not attempted to correct a thousand times the version on which he wrote. Nay, Mr. Brantly must be a rara avis in terris simillima nigroque cygno (in plain English a black swan,) if he has not in his pulpit harangues often attempted to improve the version. But these remarks were intended to prejudice those who have not examined the version both against the publisher and the work. I am an innovator and the version is an innovation. I am glad that in these volumes will be found the preface to the King's version, a very scarce document in this day. From that preface, written by the publisher of the King's version, it will appear that all Mr. Brantly has said, in spirit and substance, was said by the opposers of the present version. The common version was introduced by authority in defiance of all objections. Is not this a fact, Mr. Brantly? Was it not more objected to than the reading of the New ( Version? Surely he is not so ignorant of the history of the versions of the Bible as not to know that not one was ever introduced without much opposition. Mr. Brantly takes the same ground to oppose myself and the version I have published on which the Catholics stood in all their opposition to all the new translations. They said all the innovators wanted new versions.* Wickliffe (we call) the *So early as A. D. 1160, Peter Waldus, an innovator and heretic attempted a translation of the four Gospels into the French language. We call him a great and good man. first reformer [the Catholics call him the heretical innovator John Wickliffe] published a translation just to suit his own views. This was the first English Bible. An innovator he was, and the Bible he published was an innovation upon the Church of Rome. Tyndal, A. D. 1526, another innovator and heretic, published an English version of the New Testament. The Bishops of England condemned it; King Harry proscribed it; the Bishops bought up and burned all they could find; the laity would read it, and the King and the Clergy had their hands full to keep the people in the dark. In ten years five editions were sold in Holland. The King proposed a new translation, but the Bishops opposed it; and in spite of both, the people got to understand the Scriptures better than their teachers. The same version, dressed up a little, and called "Thomas Matthews' Testament," when recommended by Archbishop Cranmer, took with the Clergy; and when they found the people would have it, they said it was a good version, and took off all restraints against the reading of it. Luther and Beza-indeed, all the innovators, now called reformers, either gave new versions, or aided in giving them. So that the Catholics and Mr. Brantly have good reason to lament that all innovators gave new versions. [See the History of the Bible, vol. 2.] Well may he ask, "Why is it that all innovators become tired of the old version and seek new ones?" All reformers hitherto have had occasion to lament that the people, either through imperfect translations, or through the want of translations, were kept under the dominion of the Clergy! Had I made a version myself it might have been said, with more plausibility, I was tired of the old one. I chose rather to collect a version already made by men that Mr. Brantly called "great and good" His commendation of them, however, goes not very far with me. But those who look to him for instruction will please remember that Mr. Brantly calls the authors of the New Version great and good men. But see what sort of men are great and good in Mr. Brantly's calendar: such as make a translation "to suit their own views." "These great and good men," says he, "made out their respective versions to suit their own views." So did the King's translators-so did Beza. They pleased the King, the Court, and the Bishops of England. But it is gratuitous to say that Drs. Camphell, Macknight, and Doddridge made a version to suit their own views; for none of them strove to sustain their own sect farther 'than their prejudices directed them, and two of them (Campbell and Macknight) rose as far above the sectarian feeling as any translators in ancient and modern times Dr. George Campbell was a very different man from Mr. Brantly and A. Campbell, it is true. But that cannot be helped; and I know not why any two men, born at different periods, and educated in different schools, are to be blamed for not being item per item the same. I think I have not passed over a single item worthy of a remark in this Mr. Brantly's present order of things. As I have thanked him for this notice he has taken of me, I will thank him twice if he will be as liberal to his readers as I have been to mine. Let them once hear me in his paper as i have let mine hear him in extenso. I am not afraid (because I have nothing to lose) to permit my. readers to hear all that can be said against my views and my deeds. This has always been my course. This hasty sketch appears in this paper to make room for Mr. Clopton's No. 2 in the fourth number of the Harbinger. The cause I plead cannot be defeated by its enemies: retard it they may. They cannot make a sect of us as we shall show. We have more to fear from our friends than our enemies. Let them act with christian prudence and in a christian spirit. then there efforts cannot fail. EDITOR. TO "A FRIEND," DID you ever read any thing I have written, denying the operation or agency of the Holy Spirit in the conversion of sinners? No: you did not. Neither have I written any thing to that effect. What the scriptures say, I affirm-when and where they are silent, I am silent. The New Testament teaches not the modern doctrines of spiritual influences. The Holy Spirit is the great agent of the Christian Institution. Jesus called the Spirit the advocate of his cause. That cause the Spirit plead, and stili pleads. But of the mystic influences, independent of the Lord, and the physical oper ations upon the hearts of men, without the word, so much talked of and prayed for, I learn nothing in the sacred writings. It matters not what my opponents say. They have said every thing, and done every thing which they dare attempt, and it has uniformily returned upon their own pates. If I should remove one calumny, they would soon invent another. To save them of the trouble of inventing new ones it would be as well, perhaps, to let them have this one. The time is not far distant when their slanders and calumnies will much more aid our efforts than their praise. For my own part, I have said, and now say, that we disregard them. We notice them often, and will notice them again, for other reasons, and from other considerations, than any effect they can have upon our feelings or efforts. They do prejudice many against us and against the gospel; but it is not to us they have to account for it. While I hope ever to sustain a character and a conscience without reproach, I will feel as impregnable as the rock of Gibraltar. The friends of the ancient and apostolic gospel are numerous, strong, and courageous. They are more than a match for their enemies; and will, if true to themselves, as certainly prevail, as did the chosen tribes led by Joshua, over the seven sects of idolators which once pos sessed the land of Canaan. They have seen and tasted the fruits of the land, and the sons of Anak cannot affright them. Jericho will fall again by the blowing of rams' horns, and, at the sound of the gospel trumpet, the armies of the aliens will be routed. EDITOR. |