baptises all that come to him with the Holy Ghost and with fire; for so Joni the Baptist, preferring Christ's mission and office before his own, tells the Jews, not Christ's disciples, that Christ shall baptize them with fire and the Holy Spirit; that is, all that come to him, as John the Baptist did with water. For so lies the antithesis. And you may as well conclude that infants must also pass through the fire as through the water. And that we may not think this a trick to elude the pressure of this place, Peter says the same thing. For when he had said that baptism saves us, he adds by way of explication, "Not the washing of the flesh, but the confidence, of a good conscience toward God;" plainly saying that it is not water, or the purifying of the body, but the cleansing of the Spirit, that doth that which is supposed to be the effect of baptism."

Now no one can say that Mr. Brantly decides this question by authority; for none is adduced. Almost all authority is against him. All the Westminster Divines, all the authors of the 39 Articles, all the Catholic Doctors, all antiquity for 400 years, and I believe a majority of every sect of dissenters in christendom. But this with us weighs but little against the canons of sound criticism or fair argument from philological principles; but with them who rely so much upon authority as Mr. B. it is entitled to some respect.

Well, now, what are his arguments and proof. The Spirit and fire in a parallel passage mean the Spirit: ergo, the Spirit and water mean the Spirit. Verily, this is assumption in the superlative degree!

1. It is assumed that the preaching of the immersion of the Spirit, and the immersion in fire preached by John the Immerser, is parallel to the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus. Mr. B's first proof is, therefore, that these places are parallel; but again this needs to be proved; and we think that a bench of Bishops cannot be found from John the Immerser down to my friend Brantly, who will agree with him in this assumption.

2. It is assumed that the phrase immersion in fire and in water mean the same thing; for things that are equal to the same are equal to one another. John's threatening fire, and Christ's preaching water, mean the same thing. What a singular sort of blessing is that which fire and water, in their metaphorical import, equally well represent!! But we must not reason Mr. B. assumes for proof!

3. It is assumed that the phrase like as of fire, in Acts ii. means fire. For the tongues resembling lambent flame are appealed to as proof of the Spirit and fire meaning the same thing. Well now, if fire, and like fire, mean the same thing, what has become of all the dictionaries, grammars, and rules of interpretation?-by one fell swoop all immersed in the flame of sectarian zeal! Suppose, if any one can be so serious as to suppose, that "fire," and "like as of fire," mean the same thing, and what is the version of the "parallel passage?" Matt. The chaff he will like as burn up in like as unquenchable fire;' for "fire," and "like as of fire," mean fire. Can it be possible that Mr. B. thinks there was fire on the heads of the Apostles, or only tongues "like as of fire"!! I know not what he may assume.

But yet he denies in fact, his own assumption in the very passage above quoted. He says, "the water and the Spirit mean the same

thing, and by water is meant the effect of the Spirit." Ergo, the Spirit and the effect of the Spirit mean the same thing, for water means the Spirit and the effect of the Spirit: and things that are equal to the same are equal to one another! What does not the phrase "born of water" mean? It is equal to born of fire, born of like as of fire, born of Spirit, and born of the effects of the Spirit. If such be not Mr. Brantly's meaning, I profess to be ignorant of every principle of criticism. He is, in the passage quoted, fighting with the Paidobaptists; but if he thinks them to be smitten with such logic, he has conceived a most contemptible opinion of their heads as well as of their hearts!

And so Jesus, the Great Teacher, is made to say, for the sake of carrying a point, Except a man be born of the effects of the Spirit and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God! Truly, Mr. Brantly, you have but a poor opinion of him that spake as never man spake!

EDITOR.

CHRONOLOGICAL DIFFICULTY IN DANIEL.

IN the book of Daniel I find a difficulty in reference to the dates, which I wish you to examine carefully, and if it can be satisfactorily answered, I desire you to attend to it either privately or publicly.

In the days of Jehoiakin, Nebuchadnezzar took Jerusalem, and carried away, with others, Daniel and the three Hebrew children, These four persons he required Ashpenaz, the president of the eunuchs, to prepare for the space of three years, that at the end of that time they might stand before the King. Now at the end of three years, it is said, verse 18, ch. i. they were brought before the King, and found to be very wise and were pleasing in his sight. This would seem to be their first interview with the King.

But the second chapter commences by stating that "in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchadnezzar "dreamed dreams;" and as none of the Chaldeans could satisfy the King, he was about to destroy them all. Whereupon Daniel desired to see the King; and chap. ii. verse 16, he went in to the King, which shows that it was after his introduction to the King. After three years of probation, and yet only the second year of the King's reign! How can these things be reconciled?

Q.

ANSWER.-Nebuchadnezzar reigned two years before his father's death. The second year of his reigning alone was, therefore, the fourth of the captivity of Daniel. Nabopolassar, the father of Nebuchadnezzar, invested him with the title of King, and sent him with an army to reduce Phenicia and Coelasyria, which provinces had revolted from him. In the third year from this appointment Nabopolassar died, and Nebuchadnezzar then reigned alone over the dominions of his father. Calmet, in his Dictionary of the Bible, thus explains these matters:-The Babylonish Captivity commenced A. M. 3398. Their return was in the year of the world, 3468-about 536 years before the Christian Era. EDITOR.

SUMMARY OF NEWS-May 31, 1832.

THE Church of Christ in Richmond now consists of 75 persons. Their harmony among themselves, and mild and clement demeanor to their opponents, with the ancient gospel in their hands and hearts, cannot fail to commend the truth to the reception of their fellow-citizens. The additions to the brethren at the Great Crossings, Scott county, Ky. under the labors of brother Johnson, are almost as frequent as their stated meetings. To-day's mail informs us, that on the 18th of May 12 persons were added to them, 8 recently immersed, and 4 of the Regulars who resolved to subscribe to the New Testament alone. That congregation now numbers more than 70.— Brother Johnson immersed 4 in Dry Run! on the 10th inst. The excision of brother Jacob has not prevented other members of the same church from uniting with the disciples. "Campbellism" is dying fast in Kentucky, and will soon be extinct, as the disciples acknowledge no leader but the Messiah. At Monticello, in Wayne county, Ky.Ja congregation, amounting to 40, has lately been organized. Bro her Smith's last visit there issued in the immersion of 21 persons; also, 9 persons at Crab Orchard. The brethren at Monticello have appointed brethren J. S. Frisbe and Francis P. Stone to labor among them and preside over them-the former, a member of the Medical Faculty; the latter, a member of the Bar, who was saved from scepticism by the debate with Robert Owen. We thought some time ago of publishing a letter from him to that effect, received some months since, but have hitherto postponed it. The congregation in Cincinnati, Ohio, amongst whom brother Scott now labors, reports 240 members. May the disciples every where grow in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour, and in favor with God and man!

Some

It would be desirable to have a statement of the churches which do actually meet every Lord's day to keep all the ordinances of our King. None else can we, with regard to truth, call the churches of Jesus Christ. It is necessary to have this for the sake of those who wish to visit the brethren, as well as for their co-operation in the work of the Lord, and for various purposes. are opposed to an enumeration of the members of churches or of the churches, because of abuses; but such may remember that Luke was not straitened as they are, nor any of the Apostles: they tell us the names and the number of the first assemblage of disciples afterwards called Apostles. Luke tells us of the number of names in Jerusalem before the day of Pentecost, and counts up 3000 enrolled that day in the army of the faith, and again tells us of 5000, &c. And eldes in Jerusalem could tell Paul, (Acts xxi.) that "many myriads of the Jews belied." Let the brethren who travel among the congregations ascertain these matters, and if they will forward to us their respective lists, we will be at the pains to arrange the geographically. It is not the churches which are called disciples, or christians, or reformers; but those who meet weekly for the purposes specified, from which we desire information. EDITOR.

THE CHOLERA.

THIS pestilence is spreading in England and France. From its first appearance in England in November last, up to the 31st March, 8707 cases are reported, and more than 3000 deaths. Latterly the deaths are in a greater proportion to the whole number of cases, being generally more than one half. In the province of Ghillan, in Persia, out of a population of 300.000, there have survived the plague and the cholera only 60,000 men and 40,000 women-twothirds of the whole inhabitants being swept off!

MORE than 100 preachers in England, with about the same number in Ireland, aided by several periodicals, are now proclaiming the literal coming of Christ, and the literal resurrection of the saints at the commencement of the Millennium.

REFORMATION is now preached from all the signs of the times; but if men will not hear Jesus and the Apostles, they will not be persuaded though one rose from the dead. During the outpouring of some of the vials, it is sa that the subjects of these vials of vengeance repented not of their deeds, but blasphemed the God of heaven.

THE MILLENNIAL HARBINGER.

No. 7.

BETHANY, VIRGINIA:
MONDAY, JULY 2, 1832.

Vol. III.

I saw another messenger flying through the midst of heaven, having everlasting good news to proclaim to the inhabitants of the earth, even to every nation and tribe, and tongue, and people-saying with a loud voice, Fear God and give glory to him, for the hour of his judgments is come: and worship him who made heaven, and earth, and sea, and the fountains of water.-JoHN. Great is the truth and mighty above all things, and will prevail.

To the Editor of the Millennial Harbinger, concerning the Ancient Gospel.

Dear Sir,

LETTER 1.

1 HAVE been a constant reader of your works, from your Sermon on the Law, 1816, to the 4th number, vol. 3, of the Millennial Harbinger. I have always, when I heard you attacked by an opponent, defended you; and when I have met with a warm friend, who seemed over zealous in defence of all you wrote, I took occasion to question the correctness of certain of your views. I have kept my mind uncommitted, and, as much as possible, in suspense on all your "novelties;" neither approving nor disapproving but according to evidence. I cannot say that I am wholly without prejudice in your favor or against you; but I feel myself authorized to say that I allow it not, and do flatter myself that I am as impartial a reader of your writings as can be found.

I

After this introduction of myself to your notice and that of your readers, permit me now to state to you and them my object in requesting a hearing in your periodica!. It may be necessary to state that I am a preacher of the gospel, in the popular sense of the word preacher; but while I preach the gospel, which I think is not only the ancient but the original gospel, I differ from most of those who preach the ancient gospel in its popular acceptation. Having read all that has been written against you, with the exception of the writings of that now generally acknowledged impostor Lawrence Greatrake, who I perceive is now published as an impostor by the very persons who defended him while he wrote against you; I must also say, that I have no prejudice in favor of their views nor against them; and therefore I hear them as I hear you-with all impartiality.

Possessed, as I am, of all the lights elicited by this very interesting controversy, I flatter myself that I have come to some maturity of judgment, and own that I feel a confidence in myself to speak of these great matters which I did not formerly feel.

Permit me, then, to say, that while I agree with you in your views of faith, repentance, baptism, and perhaps of the Holy Spirit also, I am constrained to dissent from you in calling these views the ancient gospel, and also from the manner in which the ancient gospel has been preached by yourself and some others of reputation whom I have heard preach it. As you have taught me to call no man master, and as Dr. George Campbell long ago taught me to sacrifice every thing to truth and truth to nothing, I know you will bear with me in thinking for myself, and gladly hear me stating my objections to any thing you may have said or written on this much controverted theme. But there are other subjects than these on which I wish to be heard; but as this is most fundamental, I choose to begin with it. And let me add, while I hope to keep myself equidistant from the flattery of your admirers and the acrimony of your opposers, I will, with all candor, so far as I can, fearlessly and uncompromisingly state my objections and tender my reasons, and will expect with the same measure in which I mete to you, to have measured to me again.

The first

1. I object to the name "ancient gospel," because it is vague and indeterminate. In proof of this I will first adduce its acceptation amongst those called "Reformers." I find, even in your own writings, that it does not now mean what it meant nine years ago. piece of writing in reference to which I find this phrase used, appeared almost nine years ago, and from your own pen. The article which you in the index to vol. 1, C. B. called "the Primary Intention of the Ancient Gospel," was written by a correspondent and signed T. W. This is the only article which defines the phrase as then understood by you. There are two other articles in the same volume, designated, the one "The Rapid Spread of the Ancient Gospel," and the other, "The Means of the Universal Spread of the Ancient Gospel." But neither of these define in the least what you meant by the "ancient gospel." The only article which defines your views of the ancient gospel, is that which first obtained from you the name. This is dated September 1st, 1823. 1 therefore take this to be a fair expose of what, in your judgment, at that time, constituted the ancient gospel, It is true you call that article only the primary intention of the ancient gospel; but must we not thence infer what you understood to be the ancient gospel. The writer of that excellent essay (for 1 esteem it to be one of the most excellent essays on that subject which has appeared,) modestly enough calls it "the proper and primary intention of the gospel, and its proper and immediate effects." He affixes no epithet to it, but you "christen" it in your index, "the Ancient Gospel." Now, my good sir, what is the purport of that essay? Its author contends that the gospel is divinely called "the word of reconciliation," and regards it simply in the light of "a gracious proclamation of pardon to every one that received the testimony of the Apostles concerning Jesus, repented, and was baptized." With your permission I will quote from that essay pretty liberally; and as it was the first intimation to me of what was in the mind of the Editor of the Christian Baptist when he undertook that work, which, perhaps, few