and assiduously labor in the word for the conversion of the world.

Some may think that a great importunacy is unbecoming and unnecessary that the simple statement of the truth is all-sufficient, without any great ardor or zeal on the part of the proclaimer. But Jesus said, "Compel them to come in" and Peter, on Pentecost, in addition to all that is written of his discourse, which was importunate enough, is said to have "testified and exhorted with many other words, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.” Paul also, at Antioch in Pisidia, concludes his speech in these words: "Beware lest that come upon you which is written in the Prophets-Behold, you despisers, and wonder, and perish! for I work a work in your days which you shall in no wise believe though any one declare it you."

A cold, careless, and rather indifferent manner in urging upon men the value and excellence of the gospel, and its claims upon their immediate submission to it, is rather a proof that the speaker does not himself believe it, and that he is destitute of that sympathy and benevolence which the gospel inspires, than that he realizes the meaning of his own profession or is actuated by that spirit which caused the Saviour to weep over Jerusalem and to lay down his life in the great and benevolent cause of human redemption.

Most sincerely and affectionately in the gospel yours,
A. CAMPBELL.

米粒

THE RELIGIOUS HERALD, AND WATT'S DEBATE WITH DR. THOMAS. We informed our readers that a communication from Mr. Watt, touching the Hebrew part of his debate with Dr. Thomas, had been forwarded to us and returned. We do not allow ourselves to cherish any unkind feeling towards any person living, nor a disposition to triumph over a fallen antagonist, and therefore we do not think it right to appear to others as though we had such a feeling or disposition towards Dr. Thomas. On this account alone we sent back the very interesting and amusing document above alluded to. But Mr. Sands, Editor of the Religious Herald, has printed it, and accompanied it with a few of his gentle and courteous reprimands. If in the ranks of the Baptist communities in which I think I have many brethren, honorable and pious men, whom I both love and esteem, though they have, through mistake and the perversity of a few interested individuals, used me unrighteously: I say, if in the ranks of the Baptist community there is any one spirit of pure unmingled gall and bitterness towards myself, it is the aforesaid Mr. Sands, Editor of the Religious Herald. He has done himself great injustice during a long series of ignoble, mean, and perverse, though impotent opposition, rather misrepresenta tion-if such be not the type of his feelings to us. To his own Master, however, he must yet give account.

The following extract from his preamble contains some things certainly false and a pparently malicious:

Mr. C.

"The connexion betwixt the two is now at an end, and they are at open war. has issued his bull of excommunication, as the Dr. terms the decree, and he is no longer an orthodox reformer. Having withdrawn, or been severed from the Baptist churches, the

Campbellites are undergoing, in many parts of this state, a second purgation. A large majority still adhere to Mr. C. Some occupy a neutral position, and a small body adhere, like oysters to the rock, to their infallible leader, the learned Doctor. These have acquired the distinguished appellative of Thomasites.

"The poisoned chalice has returned to Mr. C's own lips. When it was found necessary for the peace and safety of our churches to separate the reformers from amongst us, we were assailed as bigots and persecutors, and every opprobrious epithet which our language could furnish, was freely bestowed on us by Mr. C. and his friends. He then contende manfully for liberty of conscience and freedom of opinion: now he finds himself compelled to adopt the opposite course, and to renounce fellowship with the Doctor and his adherents. The arguments we used to justify the measures we adopted, are employed by him against his former associate. We do think that Dr. T's opinions are highly erroneous, and that he justly deserved to be discarded, but the exclusion comes with an especial ill grace from Mr. C. If Dr. T. would take the trouble to look into the Harbinger, during the years 1832 and 1833, he might adduce Campbell vs. Campbell, with good effect. He would find Mr. C's present arguments employed against him by the regular Baptists, and his de. fence would supply the Doctor with very plausible reasons to confute Mr. C's new views. He has now done the very thing for which the regular Baptists were so bitterly anathematized. He ought, as a candid man, to make us the amende honorable. We will not charge him with exhibiting a persecuting spirit, but even he must admit that stronger reasons existed for our course than he can plead in behalf of his. In the Baptist church there were certain fundamental principles adopted as the basis of the faith of those who entered it. In the system of Mr. C. every thing was vague and conjectural. No two of his disciples thought or acted alike, and therefore a greater latitude of difference ought to have been exhibited.

"We think these continual schisms ought to lead Mr. C. to a careful examination of his course. There must certainly be some radical, incurable defect in a system which produces such untoward results. It would afford us sincere pleasure to see him employing his talents to the furtherance of that gospel, of which we cannot help believing he is a perverter-the blind leader of the blind."

In the first place, I have never issued a decree or bull of excommunication against Dr. Thomas. My words are-"It therefore belongs to the church of which Dr. Thomas is a member, to consider whether his case is not of the same genus with that of Hymeneus and Philetus, 2 Tim. ii. 16, 17.; and then for sister churches to act upon their approbation or disapprobation of her decision of this question." This is the terrible decree and bull of excommunication! Read it, page 513, vol. 1, new series. So that if a certain matter is referred for examination to a church or churches, it is a decree- a bull of excommunication! Was there ever a greater perversion-a more gross or perverse misrepresentation than this!!

I have done no more than refer this matter to a church. Is this parallel, or of the same genus, with the Dover Decrees! Reason, truth, shame, whither have you fled! Then, indeed, is excommunication without a hearing and on false allegata of the same import with a reference for examination. From what church has Alexander Campbell excluded Dr. Thomas? But front what churches did some individuals among the Baptists exclude certain brethren without trial, without a hearing, without the examination of a single specification? Yes, it is written, and will go down to posterity, that six ministers and many brethren were, by the decree of the Dover Association of October, 1832, excommunicated from the Baptist church without a single specification and proof, farther than the vague imputation of "promoting controversy and discord under the specious name of Reformers."

Thus it is written on the books of the Dover Decrees, and thus it is written in the book of God's remembrance, and on the pages of the Millennial Harbinger, vol. 3, page 572. I have nothing then to concede in the case before us-no amende to make. I have never done what the Regular Baptists have done in the case before us, and I think never will. I believe a large majority of the intelligent among them are now ashamed of it, and would be glad that this decree were expunged from their records, yet have they not courage to unove in the matter.

We never thought that persons and communities might not be excluded for good reasons-for denying the faith, or for unrighteous or unholy conduct. Has the Religious Herald no more seuse than to think that if we oppose and exclude a man for extortion. bargain-breaking, or denying the faith, we justify the Dover Decrees in excluding (theinselves being judges) some of the most godly and excellent men in Virginia, because they

thought and said that reformation was necessary!! What inconsistency or hypocrisy? "The arguments we used to justify the measures we adopted," says Mr. Religious Herald, "are employed by him myself] against his former associate"! This I simply say is not fact. It is as false as "no two of his disciples thought or acted alike"-as false as "these continued schisms ought to lead Mr. C." &c. There are no continued schisms;' and if there were, it would no more lead us to doubt our foundation-the Bible alone-than all the parties in Protestant Christendom prove the infallibility of the Pope. There must be," says Mr. Sands, if there be one grain of sense in his head-"there must certainly be some radical incurable defect in Protestantism; or rather in the Regular Baptist system, which produces such untoward results." "It would afford us sincere pleasure to see Mr. Sands mend his manners, repent of his many glaring sins against us; undo, as far as he can, the evils he has done the truth, and cease to be a perverter of the right ways of the Lord-a blind leader of the blind."

There is, however, one truth and a half in the above extracts; and I would not slander Satan himself. It is true that I have declared for myself, (which every freeman and Christian under heaven has a right to do,) and for myself only, that I have no fellowship with Dr. Thomas in his present course, nor with his views; and that I would not have the public understand that we are fellow-laborers in the same cause. This my relations to Christian community, my friends, and my opponents too, made both necessary and expedient. I am no Sadducec, nor mongrel Sadducee, and I wish the world to know that I am not. I believe in angels, spirits, and a resurrection of all the dead-the just and the unjust. That Dr. Thomas has departed from the faith in this matter I doubt not, any more than I doubt the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. And this being my conviction, I can no more commune with him, if every thing else were right, than with the Pope.— We are not of one faith; and no man, nor set of men under the broad heavens, can either cajole, hoax, or denounce me into acquiescence with such gross assumptions under the name of liberality or illiberality, liberty or no liberty of discussion. But I compel no man nor church to exclude him. Yet if I did say to any church that it ought to excommunicate him for the reasons and evidences of apostacy and schismatism which he has given, Mr. Sands himself could not show that in this there was any resemblance to the case he has adduced. This, however, I have not said.

I said there was also a half truth in the extracts given It is not that a small body exclusively adhere to the Doctor, as the words of Mr. Sands would have us think. It may, however, yet be true; but we know of no person who thus adheres to Dr. Thomas-nor is it that some occupy a neutral position as a third party. This is also untrue, as far as has ever been reported here. But the half truth is, "They [Dr. T. and myself] are at open war;" but Dr. Thomas is opposing not only my individual views, but the cause of reforination and the people who advocate it, by giving one-sided representations of things, with holding whatever is favorable and publishing whatever is unfavorable to the cause, prejudicing the public ear as far as he can under the guise of a sort of friendship for the cause, undermining and opposing much that the brethren every where believe, esteem, and delight in;-such as their psalmody, prayer in public assemblies along with the proclamation of the word-ascribing the great ingatherings and additions to the churches as the result of singing rather than of preaching, &c. &c.-creating doubts, pulling down every thing, withering all piety and true devotion, and building up nothing except his new theory of man. This much truth is in the allegation above quoted-and for even this much Mr. Sands is to be credited. The Doctor now calculates on building up a party by opposing me, as all his writings now indicate, and very probably this notice will serve as oil to his lamp for some two or three moons,

My essay on our Lord's refutation of Sadduceeism is withholden at this time, from the confirmed and oft repeated indications on the part of the Doctor, to build up an interest for himself on the merits of his continued opposition to me. I am sure he cannot write for my conviction on these subjects. The more he writes the less faith I have in him; and he has now almost forced the universal conviction that he and I are never again to labor in the same field.

Should Mr. Sands lay these remarks before his readers, on a subject in which he has implicated me, it will, I confess, be an act of justice of which I do not think him capable. A. C.

THE CHURCH OF PAINESVILLE AND DR. THOMAS.

THE Church of Painesville, supposing themselves to be the community whose duty I alleged it might be to consider whether the doctrines of Dr. Thomas, who now resides in their bounds, were not of the same genus with those of Hymeneus and Philetus, have decided that they are not identical! They have mistaken both the tribunal and the question. Dr. Thomas has never obtained a letter of recommendation from the church in Richmond, of which he was once an Elder, and it is confidently alleged that the Doctor lived too long at Richmond to obtain a letter from that church.

I have said they have also mistaken the question. The question was not whether the cases were identical, but whether they were of "the same genus" or kind. Dr. Thomas, they say, believes that all the dead who hear the gospel shall be raised; but Hymeneus and Philetus "denied that there was to be any resurrection hereafter " It is alleged that the Doctor's theory and that of Hymeneus and Philetus are different; and the conclusion taught by the one is that some of the dead, and by the other that none of the dead shall te raised. They both then agree in the conclusion that there shall be no future resurrection of all the dead.

But the Painesville church say, "We do not therefore see how the two cases can be identified." We never could have raised a question to that effect, because that would be to make all the cases of discipline in the New Testament void of meaning to us; for we cannot now find any case identical with those written in that hook, and therefore to have put such a question would be to say that we are only to exercise discipline on cases identical with those in the New Testament!

But the congregation at Painesville, or such of them as concurred in the aforesaid adjudication, never once thought of the main question of Sadduceeism involved in the case of Hymeneus and Philetus. Those who spiritualized away the resurrection into some past renovation, such as the commencement of the Christian dispensation, did this because of Sadduceeism, or a denial of human spirits; for the truth is, as can be amply shown from Jewish, Christian, and philosophic antiquities, that the denial of a resurrec· tion of the body has always been the effect of a denial of human spirits, as in the present case, or of a future life. But as they are not the tribunal referred to, and have not taken up the question referred, I have no reason nor disposition to descant upon their free wili offering in the case. A. C.

THE SENATORIAL GOVERNMENT.

"THE functions of the elders," it appears to our brother R. L., "must all be exercised in the face of the congregation. I have," continues he, "looked in vain through God's word to find any warrant for private teaching and visiting as part of an elder's duty." Yet our brother admits that Paul taught from house to house; but thinks that this was because "he was divinely inspired and commissioned for the purpose." The reader will again read him on page 63.

We have always thought that much good may be effected by the visitations of the elders of a congregation; and our own observation and experience confirm our reasonings in favor of that practice-provided only, these visits are of a godly sort. There are, indeed, families under so good a domestic religious government as to be insusceptible

of much benefit from any oral instructions which might be tendered in this way. The number of such families is not, however, very great. Parents and children are often edified and refreshed by the godly communications of such aged and exemplary characters as Paul has commended to the episcopacy of the church.

There are also, it must be confessed, some elders whose conversation is not so generally heavenly and spiritual as to minister much grace to the hearers. They are themselves too much devoted to the things that are sensible and temporal to be eminently useful in this way. Their visits are rather injurious than beneficial to the families of their charge. Still I must differ from our correspondent in the conclusions to which he has been compelled. Paul certainly intended his narrative to the elders of Ephesus to be not merely instructive, but exemplary. He introduced his behaviour thus;-"You know how I have been conversant among you all the time, from the first day in which I entered Asia-not neglecting to teach you publicly and privately," (or from house to house.) Therefore take heed to yourselves and to the whole flock over which the Holy Spirit has constituted you overseers-feed the flock," &c. It would appear as if the Apostle intended that the senate of Ephesus should be induced by his narrative to follow his example as much in visiting and teaching from house to house, as in other respects.

We cannot attribute this conduct to inspiration, or a special charge given the Apostles. There is nothing in it of an extraordinary or supernatural character. It seems to be most natural and rational. They pursued this plan in all their ministrations. As early as Acts v. 42. we are told that "daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ." The Master himself set them the example: he taught from house to house. And when he sent out the Seventy Evangelists to announce the coming reign, he gave them in charge cities, villages, and houses; instructions for the salutation of the families which they visited, both on their entrance and departure. It appears to me no system of instruction would be perfect as to means and opportunities, that excluded or neglected the social hearth and the family fire-side. We that daily labor in the word and teaching, know that much of the little good that we do, is done in social conversation and in private interviews; and that it is impossible in this our duty to feed the flock of Christ, and to watch over them as faithful shepherds, if we are entire strangers to their household governments and their means of family and social improvement and education. We admit that there are many families that do not need such aids; but there are many that do. And as in the times of plagues and pestilences, in order to have the more filthy dwellings cleansed, the rich and more splendid edifices ought to be examined, that the humble poor and the more wretched may not feel themselves degraded; so that much good may accrue to those who need it most, it is expedient that all be occasionally visited. So we reason, and so we would act on proper occasions; but if any brother thought it an intrusion on his premises, and we had reason to think he neither needed nor desired our visits, we should save our time and give a larger portion of it where it might be both more needed and more acceptable.

It would appear that our correspondent, aware that power is cumulative and dangerous to liberty civil and ecclesiastic; and alarmed at