ing 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 his 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 circumstances, to dispense with this, than with any other acknowledged command of the Saviour."

This is the Alpha hnd the Omega of all that I have said and written on this subject. I ask no more. In whatever way Mr. L. 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 xvi. 16., we stand exactly on the same ground. Farther than this I have never gone. This is Campbellism in the superlative degree. If I could think Mr. Landis was a sincere good man, and honest in this assertion, I would hail him as a brother.

"But then it does not follow that if baptism be essential to the salvation of persons thus situated, it therefore is essential in the case of persons not similarly circumstanced; e. g. of sick persons, or of others, in whose cases it would be impossible to administer the ordinance. Yet unless it does follow that baptism is absolutely essential to remission in every instance, the passage confessedly affords no support to the theory that baptism is essential to the forgiveness of sin. If but one instance can be produced (and I have produced a number already) where in it is admitted that remission of sins either was, or may be granted without baptism, the argument attempted to be deduced from this passage is false.

But on this subject we want no better authority than that of Mr. Campbell himself. Let us therefore hear him. On page 165, volume VII. of his Christian Baptist, he says: "I doubt not but such Pædobap tists as simply mistake the meaning and design of the Christian institution, who nevertheless are, as far as they know, obedient disciples of Jesus, will be admitted into the kingdom of glory." Now Mr. Campbell maintains that Pædobaptists are not baptized. Of course then, he himself being judge, the passage under consideration does not prove that baptism is equally essential to salvation as repentance. For while he admits that no sinner can be saved without repentance, he also "doubts not" that the unbaptized Pædobaptist may be saved. It follows therefore, that according to Mr. Campbell's own testimony, the Campbellite exposition of Acts ii 38, is false."

It also follows as logically that, according to Mr. Landis' own testimony, Mr. Landis' exposition of Acts ii. 38. is false.

"It is also worthy of remark that although in this instance we find repentance, baptism, and remission of sins," in connection; yet in other passages we find "repentance and remission of sins" without any reference to baptism. A fact wholly inexplicable on the theory that

sins are remitted by baptism. An instance of this has been given above; and the following are a few others. Acts v. 31, "Him hath God exalted with his own right hand, to be a Prince and a Saviour, to give repentance unto Israel and remission of sins." Luke xxiv. 47, "That repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations." See also Acts ix. 18. 2 Cor. vii. 10. Hence Paul also tells us, (1 Cor. i. 17,) that "Christ sent him not to baptize but to preach the Gospel;" and he thanks God that he baptized "none" of the Corinthians, save a very few."

If Mr. Landis can reconcile this with all that he has said here and on Mark xvi. 16., he can as easily reconcile it with all that I have said: for we have both said the same things, and he is just as much bound now to refute himself as I am. On the connexion between baptism and remission he has said enough for me. I am told, too, he has been immersed for the remission of his sins. I presume it must be true! What say you, Mr. Landis? Then Campbellism is a terrible thing when even its warmest foes are constrained, even in the agony of their struggles, to affirm all its most peculiar and offensive dogmata. Mr. Landis, as far as he is gone, is pretty orthodox on baptism for remission of sins. Few of our warmest preachers have ever gone as far as the Rev. Mr. Landis, of Jeffersonville, Pa.

Calvin himself was too strong a Campbellite for me. On cutting the leaves of his article on baptism 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:— "In this sense we are to understand what is said by Paul, that Christ sanctifieth and cleanseth the Church "with the washing of the water by the word:" and in another place, that "according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost:" and by Peter: that "baptism doth save us." For it was not the intention of Paul to signify that our ablution and salvation are completed by the water, or that water contains in itself the virtue to purify, regenerate, and renew; nor did Peter mean that it was the cause of salvation, but only that the knowledge and assurance of it is received in this sacrament: which is sufficiently evident from the words they used. For Paul connects togeter the "word of life" and "the baptism of water;" as if he had said that our ablution and sanctification are announced to us by the Gospel, and by baptism this message is confirmed."

"Nor must it be supposed that baptism is administered only for the time past, so that for sins into which we fall after baptism it would be necessary to seek other new remedies of expiation in I know not what other sacraments, as it the virtue of baptism were become obsolete. In consequence of this error, it happened in former ages, that some persons would not be baptized except at the close of their life, and almost in the moment of their death, that so they might obtain pardon for their whole life; a preposterous caution, which is frequently censured in the writings of the ancient bishops. But we ought to conclude, that at whatever time we are baptized, we are washed and purified for the whole of life. Whenever we have fallen, therefore, we must recur to the remembrance of baptism, and arm our minds with the consideration of it, that we may be always certified and assured of the remission of our sins. For though, when it has been once administered, it appears to be past, yet it is not abolished by subsequent sins. For the purity of Christ is offered to us in it; and that always retains its virtue, is never overcome by any blemishes, but purifies and obliterates all our defilements."

I wish I had room for the whole article. Our Calvinistic opponents are either very ignorant persons of their own system, or very great knaves. Calvin and Luther are with us most clearly and fully, as any one may see who examines their writings.

The second part of the Review is decidedly more perverse that the

first. It was conceived under a more ominous star-inspired by a more unclean spirit and born under more hostile fates. Its maliciousness is only excelled by its impotency to fasten upon my views the character of Unitarianism; and upon my moral reputation the stain of having deceitfully imposed upon the community a translation of my own, for that of Drs. Campbell, McKnight, and Doddridge. The genius of sec tarianism is doubtless a most malign genius, intent on the massacre of the character of all who have the independence to think contrary to its prescriptions, or the daring to oppose its bold assumptions. The truth and its advocates have always been alike subjected to the vengeance and blasphemers of this world, and those deeply inspired with its spirit.

It has been our good fortune to have inherited a double portion of the anathemas and denunciations, the false imputations and slanders of the enemies of the pure and uncorrupt religion of the New Testament. For ourselves we care but little; indeed it is a pleasure to be persecuted and falsely represented by our enemies for righteousness sake-for our zeal and devotion to the faith anciently delivered to the saints. But to prevent the loss of that influence, which we ought to have with this community, it becomes our painful duty to enter into the list with those who, from mistaken views, or from corrupt motives, have endeavored to injure our reputation, that they might bask in the smiles of an adoring multitude; and domineer over them for their own advantage.

I hold the person who accuses me of Unitarianism, or of deliberately handling the word of God deceitfully in translation or any other way, a malignant slanderer, under whatever pretext or from whatever apparent good motives he may do it.

No person who has ever examined my writings can honestly accuse me of Unitarianism any more than of Deism, Mormonism, or Shakerism. And if he have not examined my writings it is still worse to af⚫ firm that of which he is ignorant. And unless Dr. Peters and Mr. Landis, when they have heard my defence from these most foul and unfounded imputations, shall make the amende honorable, I, not only I, but this community will place them amongst defamers and calumniators of the foulest water.

Neither they nor any other persons can long stand before this community in a favorable attitude, who presume to outrage truth and candor by such imputations. Our denomination have no other translation than the common one as authoritative in all matters of controversy. They appeal to it as sovereign arbiter in all discussions, and to none else. But of all these matters in due time and place. We shall continue our review next number. A. C.

THE

MILLENNIAL HARBINGER,

NEW SERIES.

VOLUME III. -NUMBER XI.

BETHANY, VA. NOVEMBER, 1839.

A REVIEW OF A REVIEW.

[CONTINUED FROM PAGE 504.]

THE Reviewer next gives what he calls his direct arguments against Campbellism. He commences an argument against faith, as "the belief of the naked facts recorded in the gospel," by relating a fable about some young woman reported in Mr. Jennings' book, most fallaciously called "a Debate on Campbellism.". In his usual blundering style he proceeds to prove that faith is not "a mere naked assent to the truth of the facts mentioned in the gospel." I would not trust a cause worth one dollar in the hands of a Lawyer who had no more discrimination than to confound "the belief of naked facts" with a "mere naked assent to the truth of facts." The belief of naked facts is simply "the belief of facts;" but the mere naked assent to the truth of facts is assent without confidence, without consent, without any sort of interest in the matter. The belief of naked facts, and naked assent are just as different as the seizing of a naked person is different from a naked person's seizing another. Mr. Landis argues as if it were one and the same to affirm that John seized William only,' and that 'only John seized William'!! Such precisely is the acuteness of my learned reviewer. I never read a more clumsy, senseless, and unmeaning description of faith than that given by Mr. L. With him faith is not this, nor that, nor any thing else; but what it is. And that he cannot, and consequently does not tell. With me, faith is the belief of the glorious facts of the gospel-a firm persuasion that they are true, which persuasion is always accompanied with confidence in them and a hearty consent of the mind to them. The man that merely assents to them, and does not confide in them, and give himself up to them, is, with me, an infidel, rather than a disciple of Christ. Let me say for

the thousandth time, with me religion is a personal thing. It is a person believing a person, confiding in a person, loving a person, hoping in a person, rejoicing in a person, and obeying that person. It is not an assent to a theory, or a fact; but it is a person believing, trusting, loving, obeying, and rejoicing in a person-viz. Jesus Christ. Away with such nonsense as Mr. L. puts into my mouth, and into his own! He neither understands himself, myself, nor the Apostles on this subject. It is a bold attempt at traducing and slandering a person of whose views he is grossly, shamefully-I wish I could not say, wilfully ignorant.

His direct arguments against what he calls our views of baptism, regeneration, &c, are

1. Infants, dying in infancy, are not saved; or if saved, they are saved without regeneration.

2. So are Paidobaptists.

3. A believing penitent, if he cannot get to the water, is lost forever. 4. This scheme places the salvation of men in the hands of men, and at the mercy of the administrator.

5. That men must be regenerated before they believe the Bible, and and can never loose the grace of regeneration.

6. It is contrary to 1 Peter i. 2.

7. Mary, and the sick of the palsy, and the dying thief, had their sins remitted.

8. Cornelius was not baptized when God sent an angel to him.

9. The Lord opened Lydia's heart.

10. Simon Magus believed and was baptized, and yet not saved, though truly regenerate, &c.

11. Salvation came to the house of Zaccheus.

12. This system makes Paul an unconverted man after the Lord had said, "Behold he prayeth."

13. Paul thanked God that he baptized none of the Corinthians, but some seven or eight persons.

14. Paul thanked God, therefore, that he baptized but a few persons. 15. Paul says Christ "sent him not to baptize, but to preach the gospel." Therefore he sent him not to convert men! because, forsooth, Paul had no one to baptize them!! and he dare not baptize, because not sent!!

The entire strength of this Grecian phalanx of 15 has been routed times without number already; but on the present occasion it is entirely demolished by the suicidal hands of their present commander in chief, the Rev. Mr. Landis. In saying that no person can be saved who refuses to be baptized after he has learned that it is a command of