The history of the world affords no parallel to the progress of the cause we plead, except that of the same cause in the hands of the Apostles. Although it was not till August, 1829, that this reforination assumed *ITS PRESENT distinct and separate form, in the Mahoning Baptist Association-and, therefore, as a visible organization, since the days of the great Apostacy, may be regarded as but eleven years old, at present we number perhaps fully one half as many, as the most populous sect in the land, that counts its age, not by years, but by centuries. Our numbers are rapidly increasing; and our ranks are being filled from day to day with choice spirits from all parties, the zealous advocates of a union in the common faith-but, at the same time, of unrestricted freedom in opinions, which we regard as private property.

From past results, and present prospects, it is not unreasonable to hope, that we shall ere long succeed in our efforts to unite in one holy and happy brotherhood, without any sacrifice of truth or conscience, all of every name, who sincerely love the Lord Jesus, and truly believe in him. How sublime the anticipation! How inspiring the prospect to every benevolent and pious heart!

But, my beloved brethren, our unparallelled increase, and unexampled blessings bring with them corresponding obligations. Much having been committed to our trust, more will be required at our hands. Religious bodies, that fall fur below us in numbers, wealth, and resources of every kind, have amply endowed, and are liberally supporting, not one College, but many. For this they deserve commendation; and I rejoice to have a suitable opportunity of commending them for so doing. We, with the most ample resources, and every thing to impel us to the work, HAVE NOT YET ENDOWED ONE, NOR EVEN ERECTED THE NECESSARY BUILDINGS. Shall we allow things to remain any longer in this condition?

A few noble-minded souls, feeling the importance and grandeur of the work, have united their energies and started Bacon College. Other choice spirits are now laboring to bring into existence Bethany College in 'the Old Dominion.' But to establish and sustain these Institutions, as they should be sustained, will require exertion and sacrifice on the part of those who are friends to education conducted on liberal and Christian principles. The necessary buildings, library, and apparatus, cannot be had without a LARGE EXPENDITURE of money; nor can a competent Faculty be cbtained, and supported even on the most economical terms, without a very considerable annual expenditure, besides that of the income from tuition; at least for several years to come.

Will the brethren and friends, who should feel the importance of this matter, come at once to our help, to the help of our common Lord, in this work of faith, and labor of love? Or, shall it be said to our everlasting reproach, that, professing to feel the importance of Chris

*I am not ignorant of the fact, that some noble spirits had previously, and in all ages of the reign of Mystic Babylon, contended for many of the leading principles of 'this reformation.' Nor do I wish to disparage, in the least degree, their noble efforts. I ain well aware, too, that several beloved and talented brethren, whose praise is in all the churches, were engaged for several years before this period, developing, with the voice and the pen, the heavenly principles of unsectarian Christianity. The remark, to which this note is appended, although, in my estimation, sufficiently plain, was misconceived by some at the time of delivery; and to this fact, the note is indebted for its origin.

tianity, and Christian education, although we undertook to build up a College, in which our sons might receive a thorough literary, scienti fic, and Christian education, free from illiberal bigotry, and intolerance-still, through covetousness, which is IDOLATRY, we allowed this noble work to fall through? Forbid it, Heaven! It cannot-must not be. The rich, mindful of what is written, "Do good unto all men, as ye have opportunity"-"Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness"-will contribute of their abundant wealth liberally and promptly, remembering, that "the Lord loves a cheerful giver." Those in more moderate circumstances will contribute in proportion to their ability. And all, both rich and poor, will unitedly implore, from day to day, the blessing of Heaven upon our labors, that the dear youth committed to our charge may be successfully educated, not merely for usefulness and respectability in this life; but also, and MAINLY, for glory, honor, and immortality, in the world to come.Propitious Heaven will crown our united efforts with success, and we shall reap an abundant reward. By the blessing of Heaven, and the liberality of his dear children, Bacon College, and Bethany College, shall unitedly rise to adorn our favored land, and scatter unnumbered blessings far and wide upon the present, and all succeeding genera

tions.

ATONEMENT-No. VII.

REVIEW OF BROTHER CAMPBELL'S THIRD LETTER.

My dear brother Campbell-I AM glad to find that we appear to be approximating to each other in some of our views on the subject under discussion; yet there are a few ideas in your third letter to which also I do object. They are contained in your seven propositions, and what follows, pages 42, 43.

Prop. 1. To the first part of this proposition I find no objection; but from the second part I must dissent. You say, "The sacrificial system was indispensable to any fallen man's approach to God." I reply, Of this I have no certain testimony, nor information from the Bible. Your proof of it, that Abel offered a bloody sacrifice in faith, plainly shows that sacrifice was a divine appointment, and of great antiquity, but it does not confirm your proposition. Abel was a shepherd, and of him God required the firstlings of his flock for an offering. Cain was a tiller of the ground, and of him God required the fruit of the ground for an offering. We have as good authority to believe the one requirement as the other; for this of offering the fruits of the ground was continued in the Mosaic institution, as well as that of bloody victims. Had both Cain and Abel offered in faith of God's appointment, would not each have been equally acceptable in their approach to God? Are we prepared to deny this?

But my brother's proof turns out to be a mere conjecture-a may be 80; for he says, "Pious Jews may, therefore, like the pious patriarchs Abel, Enoch, Noah, Shem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, &c. &c. have had views superior to the legal economy." Your argument is this-As

the patriarchs Abel, Enoch, Noah, and others, when they offered sacrifice, saw by faith the blood of the Messiah to be in future shed for the remission of sins; so pious Jews, like them, may have had views superior to the legal economy; they also may have seen and believed in the blood of Messiah to be shed in future for remission of their sins, in their approach to God; while those not pious under the law, could not see nor believe in it. This is taking for granted what needs proof. It cannot be proved that Abel, Enoch, or any of the patriarchs or pious Jews had these views of the blood of Christ, or faith in that blood in their sacrifices.

Paul made no exception in Israel when he said that "the children of Israel [pious or not] could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: but their minds were blinded." 2 Cor. iii. 13, 14. Christ was the end of the law, and we shall presently see, that it, with all its types, ended in his death. Even his Apostles, who were sanctified by the truth, did not see the end of the law in its types and sacrifices till the event of his death proved it, and the Spirit at Pentecost confirmed it. We have generally admitted, without a doubt, that the path of the just is as the dawning light, that shineth brighter and brighter unto the perfect day-that the first ray of divine light on fallen man, increased to the just in every succeeding age, till the Sun of Righteousness arose. Therefore we cannot admit that from Abel, onwards to Christ, divine light decreased.

Prop. 2. To this proposition I do not object.

Prop. 3. With this proposition in general cordially agree. It contains the sentiments I have advocated for many years. You say, The life and death, the blessing and curse of the law, were merely fleshly and temporal, and therefore the virtue of its sacrifice could extend no farther than to temporal life and temporal blessings.When, therefore, a Jew had forfeited these, the sacrificial law had no blessings in store for him. Deut. xxviii. 1–68." I am glad my brother has at length conceded the point of difference between us; for you say, "When a Jew had forfeited these, (one of which is temporal life) the sacrificial law had no blessing in store for him." Every Jew, therefore, who had forfeited his life by committing a sin worthy of death, had no blessing in store for him in the sacrificial provisions; therefore my conclusion is true, that the idolator, the blasphemer, the murderer, &c. must die without the benefit of sacrifice. You have in this also relinquished your idea, that all sins of every class, except apostacy, were annually purged from all Israel in the great day of atonement by sacrifice. You will no longer contend, that if the virtue of sacrifice only extended to the purging away of sins of ignorance, or eriors, or sins not worthy of death by law, that they could not be typical of the sacrifice of Christ, seeing you admit that sins worthy of death were not by law permitted to be purged with blood. In your own words, "I truly admire your candor in giving up this opinion, as irreconcileable with truth." p. 44.

But my brother seems to be too precipitate in his conclusion. This is common, and hardly to be avoided when a truth first glares upon the mind. We then are apt to speak unguardedly. This you have done in saying, "When a Jew had forfeited these (temporal blessings) the sacrificial law had no blessing in store for him." Now we

know that many of the Jews, by sins of ignorance, errors, and cèremonial defilernent, forfeited many temporal blessings, as union with the congregation, the worship of God in the sanctuary, &c. yet they were admitted the privilege of sacrificing for their cleansing, by which the at-one-ment was effected between them and the congregation, and their God.

Prop. 4. This proposition contains but one idea against which I object. It is this, "That the legal sacrifices, in order to sanctify its subjects, must be accompanied with repentance, and the previous qualifications." This is true with respect to remission of sins, both under the Old and New Testament. But there are many cases in the Old Testament where sacrifice cleansed or sanctified persons, of whom repentance could not be required; as the leper, the man with a running issue, a woman after child birth, and many others.

Prop. 5. This is admitted, without one exception.

Frop. 6. You say that "no transgression or sin, even that of ignorance, or of mere ceremonial defilement, however trifling, could, without sacrifice, be forgiven. No repentance, nor amendment of life, without shedding of blood, could obtain remission." In a note appended you say, "David, guilty of murder and adultery, was pardoned, and certainly not without sacrifice; for without shedding of blood is no remission."

My dear brother, we may be too positive in our opinions, even to the contradiction of plain scripture declarations. You have made several declarations in this proposition indefensible by the scriptures, and apparently contrary to them; as you affirm, "that no transgression or sin could, without sacrifice, be forgiven." Do, my brother, read Numbers xiv. 19, 20. Moses prayed for rebellious Israel thus:"Pardon, I beseech thee, the iniquity of this people, according to the greatness of thy mercy, and as thou hast forgiven this people from Egypt until now. And the Lord said, I have pardoned according to thy word." On what grounds was this pardon granted? Not on the ground of sacrifice; but according to the greatness of thy mercy through the means of Moses' prayer. On what grounds were the captivity in Babylon pardoned, when for seventy years they offered no sacrifices, seeing their temple, altar, and city were in ruins? Or will you say there were none pardoned? On what grounds were they pardoned for whom Solomon prayed at the dedication of the temple, Chron. vi? On what grounds were those pardoned who ate of the passover in the days of Hezekiah, not cleansed nor sanctified by sacrifice. "But Hezekiah prayed for them, saying, The good Lord pardon every one that prepareth his heart to seek God, though he be not cleansed according to the purification of the sanctuary. And the Lord hearkened to Hezekiah; and healed the people.” 2 Chron. xxv. 19, 20. I ask again, on what grounds were the Ninevites pardoned? I might multiply cases, but one more shall suffice. On what ground was David pardoned for murder and adultery? Not on the ground of sacrifice; for we have agreed that for a Jew who had forfeited his life by committing a sin worthy of death, that the sacrificial law had no blessings in store-and David himself, when confessing these very sins, says, "Thou desirest not sacrifice, else would I give it"-cer tainly implying that he had not given it. Yet my brother asserts, he

was pardoned, "and certainly not without sacrifice, for without shedding of blood is no remission." The pardon David received was not legal nor carnal, but spiritual. This we agree was never obtained by legal sacrifices; but David obtained it of the Lord for his name's sake, ar for his mercy's sake, as he frequently declares. To these queries you appear to have given but little attention.

You assert again in this 6th proposition that no ceremonial defilement, however trifling, could, without sacrifice, be forgiven." This is truly the most unguarded expression I ever saw from the pen of my brother Campbell. A man under the law became unclean by touching an unclean person or thing, or even a dead body. Now I ask, was it a sinful act to bury the dead, or to touch even accidentally an unclean person or thing, so sinful that he must repent and offer a sacrifice for forgiveness? In such cases neither repentance nor sacrifice was even required. The law in such cases is, that the person bathe in water and wash his clothes, and be unclean until the evening.

Prop. 7th, and last. That the legal institution was typical. Its covenant, altar, priests, victims, all were but shadows of good things to come, through a greater and more perfect tabernacle; therefore, faith, repentance, baptism, prayer, and all acts of obedience, without the blood of the new institution, cannot obtain the remission of the least sin in the universe of God."

This proposition is to me more curious than logical. Had my brother proved that the covenant, altar, priests, victims, were types and shadows of faith, repentance, baptism, prayer, and all acts of obedience under the new institution, your conclusion might have appeared logical. But if this cannot be proved, and it is thought to be impossible, then your conclusion contains more than the promises: in fact, there appears to be no connexion between them. I had thought that we agreed on this point, that the blood of the new institution was the object of faith, and the ground of repentance, reconciliation, and obedience; and, consequently, of pardon. To talk of faith, repentance, reconciliation, obedience, and pardon, without the blood and resurrecrection of Christ, is to talk of effects without a cause. With you I certainly believe, that without the blood of the new institution, the remission of the least sin could not be obtained; for the reason already given, because none without that blood could be led to believe in him none to repent, or be reconciled to God; and therefore none would be pardoned.

My brother does not seem to bear patiently the idea that I should call his opinion a new doctrine. p. 44. Had you examined the sentence a little more closely you would have found that I did not call ita new doctrine. My words are these: "This, to me, is a new doctrine." There may be a thousand doctrines new to me, yet old and familiar to others, and they may be true. I doubt not there may be some doctrines taught in the world, and even in the Bible, new to yourself. The imputation of new doctrines in this cavilling age, is sufficient to sink the reputation of any man. But what harm is it to discover a new doctride or truth in the word of God, and make it known to our fellowcreatures? If there is any thing offensive in my words, you have sufficiently retaliated in your reply: for you say, "Yours is indeed a new doctrine." This is positive enough. Let us leave to our readers to