remission; and yet this case would afford no ground for concluding that baptism is essential to remission in every case. But unless this can be shown, the passage confessedly affords no support whatever to the system. A few remarks will show how peculiar were their circumstances.

1. "The persons here spoken of, must either have obeyed the command, and have been baptized, or have remained open and avowed enemies to the cause of Christ.

2. "It was the best possible, and in fact the only satisfactory evidence that they could then give, of their sincerity in renouncing Judaism and embracing Christianity. This step involved the loss of all things.

3. "They, circumstanced as they were, could not even innocently mistake, or misunderstand the command. The Apostles were present, and if any difficulty occurred it could be promptly obviated. Hence it was not even possible for them to be in error respecting their duty on the subject,

4. "They had ample time and opportunity to obey the command.

"Now to disobey under such circumstances, must argue an impenitent, unhumbled heart; and to the possessor of such a heart remission could not be granted. And, hence, baptism was essential to the remission of their sins." pp. 127,

128.

This is enough-and all I ask from any man on this subject. When any person can, then, say that he comes not within the purview of this particular instance of opening the gospel dispensation on Pentecost, I, with Mr. L., will say it is not his duty to be baptized. I believe that the four particulars above stated by Mr. L. are all very judicious; and when they all concur, I hold baptism to be essential even to everlasting salvation. But in the next paragraph Mr. L. exactly expresses my views.

"In the same sense that baptism was essential to the remission of sins in this case, it is also essential to remission at the present time, e. g. when it is admitted that baptism is positively enjoined on all the followers of Christ; and when there is time and opportunity to obey the command. Under these circumstances I do contend that no one can be in a salvable state while he lives in the open violation of this command. We have no more right, under these circum

stances, to dispense with this than with any other acknowledged command of the Saviour." p. 128.

This is the Alpha and the Omega of all I have said and written on this subject. I ask no more. In whatever way Mr. Landis can defend this paragraph from all he has written upon the subject, in the same manner he can defend me. His defence is mine. Here, as on Mark 16: 16, we stand exactly on the same ground. Farther than this I have never gone. This is "Campbellism" in the superlative

degree.

Calvin himself was too strong a Campbellite for me. On cutting open the leaves of his article on Baptism, (vol. 2, p. 424,) since writing the preceding, I perceive that he is not only with me, but even before me and Mr. Landis in his views of baptism as connected with immersion. Hear him-*

*

*

*

*

*

The sum of the whole matter, as taught by us, on the whole subject of faith, repentance, baptism, etc., is as follows:

1. The Spirit of God, in the prophets and in the apostles, has borne ample testimony to the person, office, and character of Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah, the Son of God. It also confirmed the testimony which it gave: "God himself bearing witness, both by signs and wonders, and divers miracles and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to his own will." Hence, the Spirit, in and by the word, and never without it, convicts the world of sin, righteousness and judgment, and in this way brings men to Christ.

2. The full and cordial persuasion and assurance of the testimony that God has given of his Son constitutes the belief or faith of the Gospel. This faith, though often preceded by much mental agitation, inward dread and horror, is the cause of that "repentance unto life," or change of heart, called (we think unscripturally) regeneration. This radical and thorough change of heart, this unequivocal repentance from dead works, only prepares a person for

*Here follows a long quotation from Calvin, which we omit for the reason before mentioned. It is irrelevant to Mr. Campbell's defence.-EDITOR,

Christian baptism; without which a sevenfold immersion in the Jordan would avail nothing.

3. For those, and those only, who thus believe in Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the Blessed, and receive his death as the only reconciliation for iniquity, the basis of an everlasting justification-an end of all sin-offerings; all who hate sin and repent of it, baptism is a sign and a seal of the remission of all those "old sins," and to all such it certainly is a solemn pledge from God that all their former sins are washed away. And farther, we do not believe, nor teach, that any one can have the same assurance and pledge of forgiveness who does not believe, repent, and be baptized for the remission of sins. Else Peter preached to the Jews, and Ananias to Saul of Tarsus, an unmeaning ceremony, in language, too, deceptive in the highest degree. Should a person believe and repent of his sins, and, through any physical impossibility, fail in obtaining baptism, he would, as we teach, be received into the everlasting kingdom, upon the principle that God accepted the will and intention of Abraham for the deed, and never condemned any creature for not doing what it was not in his power to do.

4. In thus being born of water and of the Spirit, and constitutionally entering the kingdom of the Messiah in its present administration, all who are thus buried and raised with Christ in baptism, do receive the Spirit of God as a Holy Guest to abide in them. For this is the New Testament promise, as much as Christ was the Old Testament promise. Unless Wickliffe, Tyndall, and James's translators understood this, I know not by what singular good fortune it was that they gave us Holy Ghost so often in the New Testament and never once in the Old! Peter, indeed, taught the first converts that the Spirit of God who spoke in Joel was now to be the Holy Guest (as in Saxon import) of the Christian body, in all them who believed, repented, and were baptized, for the remission of their sins. This Divine Guest is both the sanctifier and comforter of all God's adopted children.

6. Eternal life-that most transcendent of all the gifts of God-the gift which comprehends all others, is promised to all born into the kingdom, who, "by a patient continuance in doing well," are seeking for glory, honor, and immortality. Such is that Gospel which we preach, which in his candid

and deliberate judgment Mr. Landis calls "another Gospel," and "no better than Mormonism."*

"Unitarianism of the Campbellites."

It will require all the graces of the good Spirit to repel the charges preferred under this head and the following, concerning "The Translation of the New Testament adopted by the Campbellites," with the dignity and decorum of a follower of him who "when he was reviled, reviled not again.” I will abstain from comments and epithets, and state a few facts, and leave it to every one to draw his own conclusions.

Mr. Landis explains himself in the following words: “I do not mean to be understood that every individual is either an avowed Arian or Socinian, but that the majority are such." p. 305. Mr. Landis, then, testifies that the majority of those called Campbellites are "avowed Arians or Socinians." A serious charge to prefer against a large community, of whom he speaks as probably amounting from 150 to 200,000 communicants, and presupposes a very conscientious and accurate examination of the profession. He does not inform us where he derived this information, or how he ascertained this majority. We should like to have been informed of the documents which authorized him to register before heaven and earth so serious and so defamatory an accusation.

Now, what is the proof which he brings?-Has he quoted one scrap of my writings in proof of the allegation that I am either an avowed Arian or Socinian? He has not. Has he quoted any passage on the subject of the relation of Father, Son, and Spirit, from my writings, (and I have often written ont his subject,) from which he attempts even to infer my Unitarianism? He has not. Has he quoted from the writings of any leader, or, indeed, from any person in our com

* This description, we presume, will hardly be recognised as embracing the whole of Campbellism. Surely it is not the whole system of which Mr. Landis speaks in the strong language here quoted. But we are truly glad to find Mr. C. now willing to disavow so many of the objectionable views which have appeared in his writings.-EDITOR.

munity, a single scrap indicative of Unitarianism, avowed or implied?* He has not. What then is his proof? He affirms that my "immediate followers" and those called "Chrystians" have united and formed one community, and that they are "avowed Arians or Socinians," and consequently we are equally Unitarian, because we fraternize with them. But this is not a fact. No such union has ever been formed. Certain preachers and congregations in the west, who were called "Chrystians," not however avowed "Arians nor Socinians," have united with us, on account of which the great mass of that people have disavowed them.

That any of them were "avowed Arians or Socinians," I have no evidence; but suppose them to have been by construction, Arian or Unitarian, (as I presume some of them were so regarded.) The union was formed on the ground of a disavowal of all such sentiments, speculations, and propositions; both parties disavowing Arianism, Unitarianism, Trinitarianism,† Sabellianism, and every human ism on the subject:-agreeing to use the sacred dialect in all their teachings, preachings, and writings, without any respect to these metaphysical abstractions, or private interpretations, calling Bible ideas by Bible names; and thus by speaking the same things in the same terms they expected to think the same things, and walk by the same rule.

Still there never was such a union as Mr. Landis affirms, and as proof of it we adduce the fact that the eastern "Chrystians," as a body, denounce us as Calvinists on this subject, and their quondam brethren in the west, who, in common with multitudes of Presbyterians, Methodists, and Baptists, have assented with us. Indeed, had Mr. Landis been only partially acquainted with our history, he would

* To all these questions the reader will find a satisfactory answer in Mr. Landis' article, p. 305, seq. We can only express our surprise that Mr. C. does not more justly appreciate the mass of evidence accumulated in that article.-EDITOR.

Is this then the proof that Campbellites are not Unitarians; that they disavow both Unitarianism and Trinitarianism? Surely, Mr. Campbell needs no longer inquire for the documents which authorize the belief that he is not a Trinitarian. Then what is he ?-EDITOR.