INJUSTICE AND JUSTICE TO BROTHER CAMPBELL BY BAPTISTS. rarely to be met with in these days of sectarian narrowness and injustice. But we will let the Chronicle speak for itself. THE" RECORDER" AND ALEXANDER CAMPBELL. In a recent number of the New York Recorder, we find the following singular paragraph editorial: "It is well known that weekly communion and the repudiation of an ordained ministry, shared with baptismal regeneration the advocacy of Alexander Campbell, whose principles made such havoc with the Baptist churches some years since. We hope for the peace of Zion, and the cause of evangelical religion, that none of this leaven has found its entrance among our brethren in Canada. If it has, we doubt not they will stand firm for the old organization and faith of our churches, and set their faces as a flint against those innovations and disorganizing tendencies which are not sanctioned by the Word of God." The things here charged against Elder Campbell, so far from being "well known," are some of them quite contrary to our best information on the subject. Brother Anderson may have good grounds for such grave charges, but we have no evidence that Alexander Campbell ever advocated the doctrine of "baptismal regeneration," or that he ever repudiated an "ordained ministry;" and when a man makes such charges, he would do better, instead of saying "it is well known," to give the proof of what he says. * * * In his reply to John M. Peck, 1845, Mr. Campbell says, "The conclusion of the whole matter is, you and I affirm the same proposition, viz. that The Scriptures teach the gracious agency of the Holy Spirit, in every age," "I believe and teach now as I did thirty years ago, that the FATHER, the WORD, and the HOLY SPIRIT, are three divine names, indicative of perfect equality in all that is represented by the term God, in its highest, holiest, and supreme import; and that this divine nature is severally ascribed to each of them, by all in heaven, and by all the intelligent on earth, in all the great works of creation, providence, and redemption." * * "With regard to the operation of the Spirit through the Word, on sinners and on saints, while we strongly affirm the fact of his sanctifying, reviving, cheering, and saving efficacy through the word of the Prophets and Apostles, we ought to teach no new terms, phrases, or dogmas-preach good news to sinners, and teach holiness to the converted— teach Christians to pray for the Spirit in his holy influences, and to lift up their voices to the Lord for all his promised aids." * * * "I have no doubt that some of our brethren may have so expressed themselves, as if in the conversion of sinners it was all Word and no 109 Spirit; nay, indeed, that the Word and Spirit are identical. I have on various occasions had to repudiate such an idea." Now before we can believe that the man who holds to such doctrine, with regard to the operation of the Spirit in the conversion of sinners, advocates the doctrine of "baptismal regeneration," we must have some better evidence than the simple assertion that 'it is well known." 66 Again, Mr. Gorrie, in his recent work on Churches and Sects, published by Lewis Colby, speaking of this sect, says, Their church officers are Elders, Evangelists, and Deacons. The Elders and Deacons are officers of local churches, and the Evangelists itinerate through the connection, and are generally supported as missionaries at large by the contributions of the disciples." If this authority be correct, (and we know of no reason to doubt it,) it is incredible that Mr. Campbell repudiates the doctrine of a distinct order of ministers, called of God and set apart by the church to preach the gospel. But Brother Anderson's "ordained miuistry" may signify a kind of "apostolic succession." That we suppose Mr. Campbell does repudiate. Mr. H. Bradley, a regular Baptist, speaking of the Campbellites of Indiana, says, in Benedict's History of the Baptists, p. 917, " I am inclined to think that they are doing much to overthrow the Popish tradition of infant baptism and sprinkling.' And Rev. David Benedict, of Rhode Island, author of that history, and a Baptist of the purest stamp, speaking of Mr. Campbell's "Christian System," says: "It is similar to other specimens of theology, and I see nothing peculiar in it except a decided stand against all creeds and confessions of faith." Rev. J. L. WALLER, editor of the Western Recorder, a Baptist paper of unquestionable orthodoxy, made some remarks editorial, not long since, which are directly in point on this subject. Dr. Rice had preferred certain charges against Mr. Campbell, of which Mr. Waller says: "Dr. Rice has suffered his zeal and his temper to betray him into an act of gross injustice. In charging Mr. Campbell with denying the regenerating influences of the Holy Spirit, and with fraternizing with Arians, Universalists, &c. he has disregarded all the facts in the case. "Dr. Rice had a protracted debate with Mr. Campbell some eight years ago. That discussion furnishes no authority for the above sweeping charges. Mr. Campbell then most emphatically maintained the regenerating influences of the Holy Spirit. All candid men have decided that upon that subject he was, at that time, as sound and as orthodox as Dr. Rice, or any other man in the evangelical world. And it is notorious, too, that during the last decade of years, at the shortest, no man has waged more earnest, if more success- | Knowledge, says, "Some have been for keeping ful warfare against all forms of Unitarianism, it every Lord's-day, which many think is or has asserted and sustained the divinity of nearest the apostolic practice (Acts xx. 7), a the Messiah with more cogency and distinct- practice which was long kept up in Christian ness than Mr. Campbell. And his opposition antiquity, and only deviated from it when the to Universalism, it is equally notorious, has love of the Christians began to wax cold." been firm, constant, uncompromising, and exterminating. In short, excepting his metaphysical nonsense' on the design of baptismwhich we ascribe solely to his Presbyterian education--on all other great and fundamental truths of our holy religion, we unhesitatingly declare that we esteem Mr. Campbell as orthodox as any man of this day and generation. "We have not seen a sentiment of his respecting the design of baptism, which gave more importance to the ordinance than is given to it in the Westminster standards. Indeed, he has not gone so far as do all the Pedobaptist formulas, whether Papal or Protestant. Mr. Campbell, in his most extravagant amplification of baptism, never claimed that it did more for a believer, than the whole Pedobaptist world have taught that it did for both believers and unconscious babes." "Our maxim is-Let justice be done, if the heaven's fall.' We scorn the meanness, adopted by too many, of trying to put Mr. Campbell down by the 'mad-dog' cry. Respect for the truth, to say nothing of the services of Christianity, forbids such a course." But what has surprised us most in this unprovoked assault, is, that Brother Anderson should speak of the practice of "weekly communion," as one of those innovations and disorganizing tendencies, "which are not sanctioned by the Word of God." For it is admitted by all the Biblical critics and ecclesiastical historians, that "weekly communion" was practised by the apostolic church. In Acts xx. 7, it is said that " upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them." Dr. Barnes, commenting on this passage, says: "It is probable that the Apostles and early Christians celebrated the Lord's supper on every Lord's-day." Dr. Bloomfield says: "The first day of the week, as being that on which Christ rose from the dead, was (as is evident from this passage) then dedicated to the purposes of celebrating the eucharist, (which commemorates his death and resurrection,) and assembling themselves together for public worship." Matthew Henry says in his commentary: "In the primitive times it was the custom of many churches to receive the Lord's supper every Lord's-day.' Dr. Adam Clarke understands from this Scripture that the apostolic church at Troas, were accustomed to receive the Holy Sacrament on each Lord's-day." The writer of the article on the Lord's Supper, in the Encyclopædia of Religious Mosheim in his Christian Antiquities, gives the same account; and similar testimonies abound in other works on the practice of the apostolic churches, and in commentaries on the Sacred Scriptures. It might also be "well known" to Brother Anderson, that " weekly communion" is the general practice of the regular Baptists in Scotland and some other parts of the world. It was practised by the old Mulberry-street Baptist church, and the Macdougal-street Baptist church of this city, in years past. This is the first time we ever heard of its being branded as heresy by one calling himself a Baptist. Nothing can be more certain than the prevalence of this practice in the apostolic and primitive churches. Yet Brother Anderson warns his readers, in the editorial quoted above, against the practice of "weekly communion," as one of "those innovations and disorganizing tendencies which are not sanctioned by the Word of God." It cannot be overlooked, that the Recorder and some other papers have taken special pains, since the organization of the American Bible Union, to speak against Alexander Campbell, and against the Union, because he favors it; seeming to forget that that same heretic (as they are pleased to regard him,) has been a member of the American and Foreign Bible Society for many years; and stultifying their own outcry for the whole of English Christendom to engage in the work of revision, if it must be done. Whether this explains the position of Brother Anderson in denouncing the practice of "weekly communion" among the Campbellites, as one of "those innovations and disorganizing tendencies which are not sanctioned by the Word of God," each one can judge for himself. We desire to say a few words on the several points presented in the extract from the Recorder. The Chronicle is justly surprised when the Recorder classes "weekly communion" with innovations of disorganizing tendency, and unwarranted by the word of God. We do not wonder at this. Yet this Brother Anderson is not the who talks so. only man among our Baptist brethren The Committee of the American Baptist Publication Society, that superintended the publication of Carson's book on Baptism, seem to share his views. This is high authority. The book of Carson was published by this society, with a memoir of the author INJUSTICE AND JUSTICE TO BROTHER CAMPBELL BY BAPTISTS. written by John M. Young, of Mayslick, Kentucky, and who, as an Irish Baptist, was familiarly acquainted with the life of Dr. Carson. In this memoir we find the following passage. Speaking of the church at Tubbermore, under the pastoral care of Carson, the writer says "Every Lord's-day, for the last forty years, has this church commemorated the Saviour's death, by the breaking of bread, regarding it as binding upon them to do so, as often as the return of hallowed time calls them to remember his resurrection. This is a universal practice among all the Congregational and Baptist churches both in Scotland and Ireland. As authority for it they appeal to Acts xx. 7: "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them." From this they infer that one of the most prominent objects for which the churches met on that day, was the breaking of bread. In their belief that such is the primitive custom, they consider themselves sustained by what is known of the manner in which Christian institutions were observed for many years after the death of the apostles. On this point they cite the testimony of Justin Martyr, who, in his Second Apology for Christianity, says: On the first day of the week, all Christians in the city and in the country, are wont to assemble together, because it is the day of the Lord's resurrection. They then read the sacred writings, listen to an oration from the bishop, join together in prayer, partake of the Lord's supper, and close by a collection for the widows and poor.' This may be viewed as an interesting picture of apostolical order in its native simplicity, before the rude hand of corruption had marred its fair proportions. The increasing frequency with which this ordinance is observed among most evangelical denominations, is a pleasing feature of the present day; and we cannot but regard the extensive change from annual communion--a custom derived from the superstitions of Easter -to its monthly celebration, as a cheering approach to primitive example." | 111 encouraging their propagation in this country. They believe that mixed communion, and the admission of unbaptized persons to church-fellowship, are in direct violation of Scriptural authority; that public exhortation by laymen tending to produce disorder and many other in Lord's-day assemblies is an irregularity, evils; and that Christ has given us no express precept for the weekly observance of the supper -but has simply required that, as often as we do it, we should do it in remembrance of him.' Yet as the object of this memoir is not to defend particular points of doctrine or order, but only to sketch the history of a most eminent and beloved minister, it was deemed advisable to keep back none of the facts necessary to throw light on the circumstances in which he was placed, and the course which he pursued." The above replication of the Chronicle on the question of "weekly communion" against the Recorder, is of equal force against the Committee of the American Baptist Publication Society, and it is unnecessary for us to say one word on this point. We are glad, however, to know that it is the general practice of the regular Baptists in Scotland, of Baptist churches in Canada, and of those lately organized in Germany by the labors of that man God, the venerable Oncken; and that it was, also, for churches in New York city. a long time the practice of some Baptist The second item, which, according to the Recorder, shared the advocacy of Alexander Campbell, is baptismal regeneration. We have had a long and close acquaintance with Brother Campbell, personally as well as with his writings from the earliest to the latest of them. We have heard him fully, on all the great topics of the Christian religion, and can therefore speak advisedly of his religious views, with the certainty of intimate knowledge. We, therefore, hesitate not to say, that Brother Campbell never held or taught, implicitly or expressed, this doctrine attributed to him by the Recorder. In common with all the intelligent part of our brethren, he regards this doctrine of "baptismal regeneration,” held by the Catholics, as well as some Protestant churches, as pernicious in its tendency, and utterly unwarranted in the Scriptures. We repudiate it with all our NOTE BY THE COMMITTEE OF PUBLICA-heart, and know of no enlightened man TION. In admitting this account of the peculiarities of their Scotch and Irish brethren, the committee wish not to be understood as favoring all the views and practices described, or as This passage we believe did not meet the good will of the superintending committee. If we mistake not, they desired to have it expunged. The writer of the work would not consent to have his remarks thus mutilated. To avoid, however, any serious mischief that might be produced by the publication of this passage, the committee cautiously appended to it, by way of caveat, the following note: among us, who entertains and advocates it. No! it is in the heart that the great work of regeneration and renovation must be effected, by the mighty power of the Spirit of God, through the means which the Lord has ordained. Where this great internal work is not done, baptism, alas, would be a vain and empty show, an idle mockery, a satire on the darkness and sinfulness of the heart! "Create in me a clean heart, O Lord, and renew a right spirit within me!" But lastly, "Alexander Campbell repudiates an ordained ministry!" This is most marvellous. From what passage in Brother Campbell's writings the erudite editor of the Recorder has learned this astounding fact, is beyond our ken. It is very true, and we are glad that it is true, he has always, with power and effect, justly exposed the lordly assumptions, the haughty pretensions, and deep corruptions of a domineering, hireling priesthood, who claimed privileges and powers that God since the Apostles' day has given to no mortal man, ordained or unordained. This is what Brother Campbell and his co-laborers have done, with the zeal and devotion of Reformers. But to conclude from this that he and his brethren are opposed to an ordained ministry, would be strange logicwould be a sad non sequitur. We ask Brother Anderson to examine his premises again. It is a charge against Brother Campbell, as unfounded in truth as anything well could be. On the contrary, he has always advocated to this day, a ministry scripturally ordained, and has ever expressed himself severely and decidedly against those characters whom nobody called or sent, and who, without being responsible to any one, went out to preach the gospel, to the very great and lasting injury of the cause of truth. He has himself, and not long since, assisted in ordination, and urges strongly the propriety of sending out and sustaining no man as a minister of the word, who is not Scripturally "set apart" and ordained "by the laying on of the hands of the eldership." In this the intelligent part of our brotherhood all agree. That much of what Brother Campbell has said and done, in days past, was misapprehended and misused by ignorant and lawless persons, who went forth on their own responsibility, proclaiming their crude notions to the world, we readily admit. These were abnormal manifestations, for which we are not responsible. To show the views of our brethren at large on this subject, we need only advert to the fact, that at the general Convention held by our brotherhood, at Cincinnati in 1849, where a large number of ministering brethren from many parts of the Union attended, a resolution was unanimously passed, recommending to the churches to receive and sustain no preacher, who was not Scripturally ordained, the churches contiguous to his own concurring with it, in his ordination. It is scarcely necessary to say, that the general brotherhood concur in his view. From all these premises, therefore, it is clear, that to charge either Brother Campbell or our brethren in general, with "repudiating an ordained ministry," it is a most unwarrantable misrepresentation of our views, and is doing us a manifest injury and wrong. If the editor of the Recorder fully understood our views, he is guilty of a wilful, unjustifiable, mirepresentation; if he did not, (which we hope in charity,) he had no right to judge us thus publicly at all. We, however, kindly forgive him. But we would be glad to see Brother Anderson correct himself, and what he has said of us, before his readers, after it has been so clearly shown to him by the Chronicle that he has judged us falsely. We again express ourselves much gratified to see the Chronicle, with it usual candor and liberality, placing our views on these vital points, in a proper light before the Christian community. We only further add, in the spirit of kindness and forbearance, that we are sure, if the writer in the Chronicle were fully aware how much we repudiate and despise the sectarian appellation of "Campbellites," he would not have used it in designating us. C. L. L. A real believer cannot live in his soul's health a day, no more than a laboring man in his body, where the food suited to each is not given; and it surely were a pity, when there is such an infinite fulness in Jesus Christ, to substitute anything for him. See to it then, my soul, that all thy food be Jesus, and let all thy fresh springs be in him. Remember his promises, for in the saddest times of dearth, they can never fail.— Hawker. THE BIBLE.-No. II TESTIMONIES OF THE GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY OF THE HE BREW SCRIPTURES. In the critical history of the Jewish Scriptures which we shall hereafter give, many strong proofs of their genuine and authentic character will occur. For the present we shall confine ourselves merely to the direct testimony on this point afforded by Jewish authors themselves, and by the New Tes tament. JEWISH TESTIMONY. As no persons were more concerned in ascertaining the genuineness and authenticity of the Hebrew Scriptures, and better able to do it, than the Jews, their testimony is not only not to be disregarded, but, on the contrary, should be highly valued. We are ever ready to accept the testimony of other nations with reference to the character of their writings; why not, therefore, also of the Jews, when it is so notorious that no other people ever were so jealous and scrupulous of their sacred books as they? We begin with the evidence afforded by the subsequent books of the Old Testament, of the genuine and authentic character of the books of Moses. The five books of Moses, called the Pentateuch, (from the Greek words, pente, five, and teuchos, a volume,) were regarded as his productions so early as the days of Joshua. In the 1st chapter of Joshua the Lord says to him, " Only be thou strong and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law which Moses my servant commanded thee" (v. 7.) Again, "This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth, but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein" (v. 8.) "Then Joshua built an altar to the Lord God of Israel in Mount Elbal, as Moses, the servant of the Lord, commanded the children of Israel, as it is written in the book of the Law of Moses." "And he wrote there, upon the stones, a copy of the Law of Moses,” &c. (viii. 31-35.) "Be ye, therefore, very courageous to keep and do all that is written in the book of the Law of Moses" (xxiii. 6.) It is called "the Law of God" xxiv. 26. That the Pentateuch was not only | Since it extant in the time of David, but also divine authority, consequently genuine received universally by the Jews as of and authentic, is evident beyond all doubt, from the constant and full allusions to it and its contents, especially the historical portion of it, in the Psalms. Solomon regulated the whole temple service by it. regarding it as a divine law given by Jehovah, through Moses, to the Jewish people was certainly in the possession of both sections of the Jewish nation-the two tribes and the ten-and their fierce and long controversies decided by it, it is clear, not only that they were in possession of it before the separation, but also that they attributed to it divine authority It was so regarded in the days of King Jehosaphat, (2 Chron. xvii. 9,) as it was called the Law of the Lord," and as such taught to the people. This King of Judah sent priests and Levites to his princes to teach in the cities of Judah; "and they taught in Judah, and had the book of the Law of the Lord with them, and went about throughout all of the cities of Judah, and taught the people." It is also referred to in 2 Kings xvii. as the "Law of God," and some of its prominent historical facts are cited. In the reign of Hezekiah, king of Judah, a great reformation took place among the Jews, when the order of the temple worship was restored; and it is said, 2 Chron. Xxx. 16, that the priests and Levites "stood in their places after their manner, according to the Law of Moses, the man of God." It is mentioned also in Josiah's reign, xxxiv. 14-24, where it is called "the Law of the Lord," and is declared to have been given by Moses. These were also thus regarded during the captivity in Babylon. In the prayer of Daniel, recorded in the 9th chapter of his prophecy, he says, "Yea, all Israel have transgressed thy law. therefore, the curse is poured out upon them, and the oath that is written in the Law of Moses, the servant of God;" again, verse 13, "as it is written in the Law of Moses." After the captivity in Babylon, at the restoration, according to Ezra and Nehemiah, the Jews regarded with highest reverence, both as genuine and divine, the books of Moses, and the other books of the Old Testament then written. At this great national reformation the whole Jewish worship was restored, according to the H |