A. The sequel will show it is of importance. But lest its consequence should bias your mind, let us first settle this matter.

M. I have no bias on the subject. I go for truth, whether old or

new.

A. We shall then have no difficulty. You will, of course, then admit the common chronology without the proof in detail.

M. Certainly I will: for I suppose it is as correct as any we could now make out.

A. These were Asiatic Jews, and having been at Jerusalem during the life time of John, were immersed by him; but, living far off, they had learned nothing more than what John taught. Their remoteness from Judea explains how it became possible for them to live twenty-six years in ignorance of the Christian religion.

M. Twenty-six years! Is it possible?

A. Dr. Scott and Dr. Clarke place Paul's meeting with them in the year of our Lord 58, and John's death in the year 30 or 31. This is the commonly received chronology; consequently it was full 26 years after their receiving John's immersion.

M. Be it so, then: and what do you infer from this?

A. Of this immediately. But please observe that you have assumed that they were not baptized for the remission of sins; because John immersed for the remission of sins. He did not, you allow, immerse for the remission of sins prospectively; consequently they had not obtained any pledge for remission of the sins of these twenty-six years.

M. They are called disciples.

A. And did not John make disciples? Certainly he did; but he could not make disciples of Christ. He did prepare a people for him. None could be the disciples of Christ but those who were taught by him or his Apostles, the Christian religion.

M. Well, allow that not having fully known the doctrine of Christ, they could not fully enjoy the remission of sins committed during these twenty-six years, still may it not be said that they were immersed with a special reference to the reception of the Holy Spirit?

A. By no means. There is not a word said about their being immersed for the Holy Spirit. This is also an assumption.

M. Assumption? Why you make every thing an assumption!

A. Yes, every thing that is an assumption. And most certainly this is: for the question was not, 'Have you received the Holy Spirit since you were baptized" but it is, "since you believed?" And I will put you a question here: Suppose they had said yes, think you Paul would have mentioned baptism at all?

M. No. But does not his mentioning immersion show that he associated the gift of the Holy Spirit with that institution?

A. It does not in this connexion of things. They say they had not heard the name of the Holy Spirit mentioned as given. This at once astonished Paul. Why, says he, into what name, not for what gift, VOL. III.

19

were you immersed, seeing you have not heard of the Holy Spirit? I need not repeat their answer. Paul was no longer astonished. He knew the name of the Holy Spirit and of Jesus went together; and that John immersed into no name. He only preached that they should believe in him that was to come after him. Paul explained the subject to them. When they beard this they were immersed into the name of the Lord Jesus. No special purpose stated. They assumed Jesus as their leader; and let me add, it is most obvious they were not immersed for the special purpose of receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit in or after baptism; for they received this gift by imposi-tion of hands. It would be the common sophism of the post hoc for the propter hoc, or making the precedent circumstance always the cause of that which follows it, to say that because after baptism Paul laid his hands on them, they were baptized with special reference to this gift. I need not now say to you that there is no authority for supposing that they did not receive baptism in its full sense; because there is no special exclusion of any one blessing common to others, nor reference to any one blessing as especially to be sought in the institution. No person, I think, has authority to say they were not immersed for the remission of sins, or that they were immersed exclusively for the Holy Spirit; both of which seem to have been taken. for granted by you, friend Matthias. But here comes Rufus; perhaps he may have something to say on this proposition.

Rufus. What, brethren, are you in debate again, or in solemn council met?

Matthias.-I was only, brother Rufus, in your absence, proposing a difficulty on Acts xix. concerning the re-immersion of those Ephesian or Asiatic twelve whom Paul accosted.

R. I am glad to meet you, not only in this place, but upon this subject. I think it militates against the proposition of our friend Alexander, who says that christian immersion cannot be iterated unless in its full sense. It appears that these disciples of John were immersed for the Holy Spirit alone.

M. I begin to waver in that view of it: for now it appears that there was no special reference to the promise of the Spirit, inducing them to be immersed, more than for the remission of sins. But the question whether they had, since they believed, received the Holy Spirit, originated the conversation about immersion, and gave Pauk an opportunity of unfolding to them the meaning of John's immersion as preliminary to the christian institution. This disposed them to be immersed into the name of the Lord Jesus.

R. I felt very confident at first view of this passage that it would be a difficulty insurmountable in making good the proposition; but a greater difficulty to my own side of the question has arisen, which I assure you perplexes me a little. It is this: If I affirm that these twelve men were re-immersed for the Holy Spirit, then it must have been for its miraculous gifts: for no notice is taken of any other in the passage "They spake with tongues and prophesied," after their baptism.

A. Say, Rufus, 'After Paul laid his hands on them.'

R. Well, was it not after this baptism that Paul laid his hands on them?

A. Certainly; but if the miraculous gifts had followed their immersion, then your difficulty would have been much greater; for then it might be argued that the promise of the Holy Spirit after baptism had ceased when miraculous gifts had ceased. But it seems the gifts communicated at this time of a miraculous character came not from baptism; and this saves your views while it removes the objections to my proposition.

K. I will then press it no farther lest I weaken my own citadel rather than impair your castle. But tell me, what do you mean by baptism in its full sense?

A. What do you mean by being born, in its full sense; married, in its full sense; buried, in its full sense? Is not a person when born placed in a new state; under a system of new influences, which is as full in reference to one as it is to all persons in that state? Can any one be born in a less than a full sense into this state? Is not every married female placed in the same state as respects her husband? The law makes no difference-reason, religion make no difference. Two persons may be once married in its full sense; but the same two persons cannot a second time enter into that state. If they are married at all, it is in the full sense--name, family, friends, property, all go together. A woman cannot be married to a husband the second time for sake of the property, nor for sake of the name, or family, or any one thing by itself, Buried, a person cannot be, unless in its full sense-cut off from this present world in all its influences, connexions, pursuits, &c. We speak not of the mode, form, or ceremony, by which these actions are performed; but of the meaning of them. Every one who receives Jesus as the Saviour sent from God, and who is immersed into his name once, in like manner cannot a second time be immersed for any special benefit. If immersed again, it must be in the full sense; that is, for all the purposes for which the institution exists. He must come to it as a heathen, a Jew, or an infidel approached it in the days of the Apostles. All who go down into the water, as all those who go down into the grave, descend into it alike dead to their former state, character, and pursuits. If a man lived twenty-six years a Jew, an infidel, a pagan, or a sectarian professor of christianity, a proselyte of Luther, of Calvin, of Wesley, when he is buried in this grave he enters it as a dead man, and leaves in it his former profession.

R. Did I, in my second immersion, renounce all my former prayers, professions, and religious works, just as Paul did his anathemas and persecutions against the christians?

A. Most certainly you did, Yes, you too, Rufus, buried your christian works and your sins in the same grave! If christian works you had, you could not be buried half dead and half alive.

R. This, indeed, makes it appear a graver matter than I was at all aware.

M. The bell chimes. I promised to hear Mr. S. preach. Will you accompany me to his church.

A. Yes, we shall go and hear him. [le is sometimes interesting. EDITOR.

Extract from the Baptist Weekly Journal, of March 2d, 1832, printed in Cincinnati, Ohio.

PROGRESS OF TRUTH.

A LETTER to the Editor of the Christian Index gives an account of the recent baptism of William Hooper, one of the professors in the University of North Carolina, &c.

A letter from Elder B. Allen, of Morgan county, Ohio, dated 12 miles from Pittsburg, December 20th, 1831, contains a passage, which we insert in connexion with the above. After being received it was mislaid for some weeks. Elder Allen says-"Since I left home on my mission for the Convention, I have travelled about 350 miles, and principally in those sections of country where the sentiments of A. Campbell were once increasing and seemed to swallow up all others; but now I believe those errors are rapidly decreasing. Many who have been bewildered by the doctrine of (mere) historic faith and water regeneration, are coming out of modern Babylon, and appearing glad to receive (what is truly) the ancient order of things.

"In several places the Lord is evidently working by the influences of the Holy Spirit The sentiments of the Regular Baptists are gaining ground very rapidly. A few weeks since I baptized an Elder of the Presbyterian church, who is in the 64th year of his age. On that day a large concourse of people had assembled, many of whom had seldom seen the administration of baptism," &c.

Brother Campbell,

Being but a young disciple, and not well skilled in mysteries, will you be good enough to tell me (if you know) what Elder Allen means by the terms "mere historic faith?" Does he mean the belief of facts spoken of by historians relative to the climate, soil, productions, governments, manners, and customs of the different nations of whom they write? Or does he allude to the facts of which Moses, the Prophets, the Evangelists, and the Apostles give us information in their writings? If the former be his meaning I am not surprised that he speaks disrespectfully of that kind of faith (as relating to religion.) But if the latter be his meaning, I understand him to say that the Regular Baptists hold the belief of those facts on such testimony to be erroneous. If so, the Apostle John must have been a zealous propagator of error; for he expressly declares that he wrote for the purpose of producing belief in the readers of his writings, that they might have life, &c.

Elder Allen also speaks of water regeneration as being erroneous; but says, that, but a few weeks before, he had used water in the regener

ation of a Presbyterian Elder, and that many who witnessed it had seldom seen the administration of baptism, (in water, I suppose.) This circumstance, I imagine, did not take place in that part of the country where the erroneous sentiment of water regeneration had been propagated.

Perhaps, brother Campbell, you can tell what Elder Allen meant. If so, I should like to hear from you on the subject; and, perhaps, many of the readers of that publication may be as ignorant as I am, and you might benefit them as well as me, by publishing his meaning in the Harbinger.

Yours, in the search of truth,

M. W.

PHILADELPHIA PREACHERS AND CHURCHES.

Dear brother Campbell,

PHILADELPHIA, 3d March, 1832.

I HAVE taken up my pen two or three times to fulfil my promise of writing you from this city. I now think I will try and get through with it; not that you may infer from this that I have regarded it as a task; but the fact was, I found in sketching the things which have passed under my notice, I had, or thought I had, given too strong a coloring to the picture, and therefore threw aside my half finished letter, to allow a little longer time for the scenery to become more familiarized to my mind; as it is always my desire to "set down nothing in malice, or aught extenuate," but to hold the picture (if not to nature) at least to the reality. A person would naturally suppose, upon visiting a city so celebrated as this is for literature, science, and religion, that here he would find all matters connected with these subjects unfolded in a manner clear and comprehensive to the most common capacity. How far this has been the case with me, a short detail of what has passed under my notice on one of these subjects (religion) will best unfold. On the subject of religion one would readily suppose that an inquirer after the way of eternal life could be easily satisfied as to what he must do in order to be saved, if he would once attend "church" in this city; or there can be no use in paying men expressly for instruction upon that all-important topic, from one to two or three thousand dollars annually-at least I think one of our "hill country" folks would think it was money but poorly spent if one of their preachers could not tell in one or two discourses how folks were saved in the days of primitive christianity. Supposing myself ignorant of what the Scriptures taught, judge you from the following how that ignorance would be removed after hearing some of their "great Divines." On the first Lord's day after my arrival I attended with, and at the request of a friend, Mr. "Skinner's Church,” as they call it here. In my readings of the Bible, I never read of Paul's Church, Peter's, John's, nor even of "my church;" but I always read "the church of God," "church of Christ;" but here they have "the Rev. Mr. Skinner's church," "the Rev. Doctor Finnare's church," "the Rev. Mr. Brantly's church," &c. &c.-but in this great city