tism; but this step he declines to take. Multitudes go as far as this, and here they stop; offering all possible reasons for their neglect of duty. But if they refuse to follow on in the path of obedience, they do it at their own peril, and, if properly instructed, they can attach blame to no one but to themselves. What can the minister do, when his instructions are rejected? What can the church do, when the disciple refuses to come within her pale? Shall the church and the ministers unite to cast aside the laws of heaven, to make way for this disciple to advance in the path of disobedience; and having begun to infringe the divine law, shall they go on to break down the whole fabric of the Christian institution, to make way for every ignorant, fanatical, and misguided disciple, to advance on in the neglect of one commandment, and in the violation of another? Having received such in violation of the divine rule, how can a church expect, that after such a reception, they will walk in conformity to this rule? Or how can a church enforce wholesome discipline in cases of future aberrations? These are serious matters, and require careful consideration.

66

II. "We should receive such persons to our churches, (in opposition to the divine rule,) because we are commanded to." Well, this is a pretty bold assertion; let us examine its validity. But upon what Scripture testimony is the assertion based? Here it is: Receive ye one another, as Christ also received us;" that is, Christ received us in walking contrary to his requirements; therefore, we should receive one another contrary to the divine rule. Here is the passage adduced by Br. Russel to prove his position, and the commentary that justifies his argument. It requires merely to be stated, to be rejected. Again, says he, "He that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations;" that is, let the institutions of the gospel and the order of the churches be changed, altered, varied, and omitted, to suit the notions and opinions of all the weak, the ignorant, and the misguided disciples, who may desire to become members of your churches; and then, when they become members, alter, change, modify, fix, unfix, and refix, everything to suit their narrow minds and prejudiced views, so that there can be no "doubtful disputations" with them. According to this view of the subject, the action of God's ministers, and the order of the church, are to be regulated by the weak faith of the weak-minded disciples, instead of being regulated by the divine rule. And are our ministers and churches prepared to receive such a doctrine as this? I think not. But what seems still more remarkable, is the use Br. Russel makes of Acts xi., 17. Referring to this passage, he says: "Peter tells us, to reject those whom God has received, is to withstand God." But, unfortunately for the argument of Br. Russel, these very persons to whom Peter refers, were, by his direction, initiated into the church by baptism. "Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? and he commanded

them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus;" x., 47, 48. Br. Russel seems to be so hard pushed for Scripture authority to justify his position, that he is compelled to quote one passage of Scripture which absolutely condemns the course he is attempting to justify. And, will the reader believe me, this is all the Scripture authority he has adduced, to prove God has commanded us to receive members into our churches contrary to his own prescribed rule. And these Scripture testimonies prove the position he has assumed, just as much as they prove the world will be destroyed in 1843, and not a whit more.

III. "Such Christians should be received, (in opposition to the divine rule,) because their error is not fundamental." Now, Br. Russel, if this argument be a good one, we had better go to work immediately and revise Christianity, as we do old and antiquated laws, and tell the people what is essential for them to believe and to do, in order that they may be saved, and what they may safely reject and leave undone, as non-essential, and still retain the favor of God. At all events, we can bring this present controversy to a close in a trice-just declare that all church organizations are among the non-essentials of Christianity, and the work is done at once; for then all modes of reception into the church will be equally valueless. I should like to see Br. Russel go to work and parcel out the commandments, the institutions, the precepts, the principles, the laws, the doctrine, the promises, and ⚫ whatever else belongs to the Christian system, and mark and label every part and parcel of it, and assign to each its relative importance; so that we may clearly understand what he would denominate the fundamentals of Christianity. If I am not greatly mistaken, his fundamental Christianity would be a very ragged and ghastly skeleton. Now, I bless God, that all of his word is equally precious to me; I want none of this cutting, and carving, and separating, and labelling, the different parts and parcels of Christianity, for myself. I desire to know the whole will of my heavenly Master concerning myself, and to do my whole duty; and, if I am not greatly mistaken, this is the sincere desire of every true and devout Christian. Besides, what authority has any minister of the gospel to denominate any part of his great commission the non-essentials of Christianity, and thus teach the followers of Christ that they may safely omit that part, and then go on to justify them in living in the open and palpable neglect of the divine will? Is this being faithful to that trust which the great Head of the church has reposed in those whom he has commissioned to preach his gospel? If one minister denominate one part of Christianity non-essential, and a second another part, and a third another part, and a fourth another part, and so on; and then for all to teach that the non-essentials may be safely dispensed with: who does not perceive that, in this way, the whole of Christianity may be entirely cast away, under the fictitious denomination of non-essentials? Let me here

say, that in Christianity there are no non-essentials: every commandment, institution, and precept of the gospel, is essential to Christianity, and should be fully observed; for Christ has laid upon his disciples no unnecessary injunctions. Besides, the Christian connexion never agreed to take the fundamentals of Christianity as the rule of faith and practice; they agreed to take the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible, as the rule of faith and practice. This rule, which Br. Russel now proposes, is one of his own manufacture, to suit this especial case; and if this be admissible, every minister in the connexion may go on manufacturing rules, at will and pleasure, to suit all possible cases, as they arise, throughout the whole body.

IV. "Such Christians should not be rejected, (for refusing to comply with the divine rule,) because, to do so, would be a radical departure from the first principles of the connexion." What are the first principles of the connexion? They are these: "The Bible is our only creed, and Jesus the only acknowledged Head and Lawgiver to his church." Our creed, then, is written, and the great Head and Lawgiver of the church has prescribed to her a rule of conduct which she has no right to violate. All that she or her minister can do, is to observe the rule, and see that others, under her jurisdiction, never violate it by her consent. The true import of the rule is not now a question; this has already been stated and settled, to which Br. Russel has given his consent. Why, then, may not the church require its observance? Indeed, the church has no discretion in the case allowed her. If she be composed of honest and sincere Christians, they must walk by the same rule, and mind the same things; and she must take care and see that there is no violation of the divine laws, by her consent and approbation. Nearly all which Br. Russel has said, under this head, is the mere echo of our most bitter enemies and persecutors. He has fallen into their strain of reasoning, and done little more than to repeat their words. Our churches are, indeed, in a most melancholy state, if they have no authority from the word of God to exercise the wholesome discipline of the gospel, and to enforce an observance of the laws of God, by the application of a Christian remedy, in cases of moral obliquity. And I would here ask, are the members of a church, for doing this, to be called "sectarian,' to be branded with "dishonesty," and to be called upon to renounce the "Christian name?" Strange language! But more of this hereafter.

V. "We cannot consistently reject acknowledged Christians, on account of a difference on baptism, because such persons have been, and still are, received among us as good brethren. When the first Christian church was organized in Lyndon, Vermont, baptism was not a test of membership." This church, to which Br. Russel refers, was organized in 1801, so far as it ever had any scriptural organization. We have an account of it in the life of Elder Jones,

by his son, in the following words: "From the first, he announced his determination to stand alone, and acknowledge the authority of no church, or set of men. He and about a dozen others, laymen, and residents of Lyndon, covenanted together, in church form, and called themselves Christians; rejecting all party and sectional names, and leaving each other free to cherish such speculative views of theology as the Scriptures might plainly seem to them to teach. This was, probably, the first free Christian church ever established in New England;" p. 49. At this time, Elder Jones was not an ordained minister of the gospel; he received ordination on the last day of November, 1802. This organization was informal, having been done wholly by laymen, and without the sanction of a minister of the gospel, who alone is authorized to plant churches; and I am not a little surprised, that Br. Russel should have referred to this church as an example of gospel order. Upon the same authority, he may entirely do away the Christian ministry, and sustain the doctrine of lay-organization of all churches.

But what was the opinion of Elder Jones, respecting the meaning of the divine rule, on this subject? It is the following: "The second thing that I took into view, was the manner in which Baptists organized churches, which they declared to be apostolical. The manner of organizing Baptist churches was then, and is now, I believe, as follows, viz: 1. They must find a certain number of believers in Christ. 2. They must be baptized, burying them in the water, in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Thus far they agree with the New Testament;" p. 28. And again: "To baptism and regeneration, as they were then and are still held, by the denomination in which he was brought up, (viz: the Baptists,) he ever held with most pertinacious attachment. With all his toleration, he could never speak charitably of "sprinkling ;" and he could never allow that a man had any reason to believe himself to be a Christian, unless he was "converted" according to his peculiar views of conversion;" p. 36. We have here clearly laid down, the unqualified assent of Elder Jones to the truth of the doctrine, for which we have contended in our "Strictures on Elder Hawley's pamphlet;" a doctrine which he embraced in early life, and which he maintained till the day of his death.

But Br. Russel says, "When the churches were first organized in the south and west, they were believers in sprinkling, and continued to practice it, until convinced of a more excellent way." Very well; what of that? St. Paul says: "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things." In the infancy of our society, many of our ministers did not fully understand the Scriptures, on every point of doctrine and church discipline, which they adopted as the rule of faith and practice, by which to regulate all things; but as fast as they came to a clear sight and a full understanding of this divine rule, they reduced it to practice.

And this was especially their course on the subject of baptism. At first, they practised sprinkling for baptism; but as soon as they ascertained that this practice was not in accordance with the doctrine of the Bible, it was laid aside for a more excellent way. And, from that time to the present period, believer's baptism has been universally practised in the western states in the Christian connexion. But Br. Russel contends that, because our brethren in the west, in the infancy of the church, started with a wrong practice, but have since been set right by subsequent inquiries, therefore, this wrong practice should be continued in all our churches, notwithstanding we may all be fully satisfied, that our practice is wholly unsustained by the word of God; and yet, at the same time, we are to maintain that the Bible is our only rule of faith and practice, when we are continually setting at defiance this very rule. This, to me, I must confess, is strange logic, and I am not prepared to give to it my assent. Br. Russel also says, "The Christian churches in North Carolina, and a part of Virginia, now believe in and practise infant sprinkling for baptism." If this be the fact, they need "to be taught the way of the Lord more perfectly;" but it can be no argument for us, who know better, to adopt their unscriptural practices.

Thus, I have freely answered all the arguments which Br. Russel has advanced, to justify a violation of that divine rule, by which we profess to regulate both our faith and our practice. I shall now proceed to consider one other question, to which, as a last resort, multitudes flee, to justify the church in unscriptural practices. It is the right of private judgment. And this seems to be the fortress which Br. Russel holds in reserve, and to which he intends to flee, in case he should be hard pressed.

The true question, properly stated, is this: Are the rules and the order of the church to be regulated by the private judgment of her individual members, or by the collective wisdom and understanding of the body? To this question, I answer: The rules and order of the church are to be regulated by the collective wisdom and understanding of the body, and not by the private judgment of her individual members. Here is a very important distinction-a distinction fraught with the most fearful consequences to the prosperity and happiness of all our churches, and even to their very existence. A mistake here is fatal, and has been the means of plunging many of our churches into anarchy and confusion, and finally of blotting out their very existence.

All churches must have some general plan, some general order, and some general regulations, expressed or implied, written or unwritten, by which the body is to be regulated in her movements; and no church can prosper, for any length of time, without such general regulations. This springs up out of the necessity of the case, just as civil government springs up out of the frame and constitution of man. Men cannot live in a social state without civil