Barton W. Stone Christian Messenger Proposes Union with Alexander Campbell on His Terms

Millennial Harbinger #9 Vol II September 1831


Barton W. Stone led a group of Presbyterians to seek physical demonstrations that the Spirit was confirming that they had been elected; such proofs were hard to come by among the Calvinists.  His group called the Christian Church established an organization and a plan to ordain preachers to establish congregations. These were quite charismatic.  At the same time others such as Thomas and Alexander Campbell worked as Reformed Baptists but taught what none of the denominations would accept about the church, baptism and church organization.  Because both groups were popular and Campbell's views were sweeping out Baptists preachers to the point that he was forced out, Barton W. Stone claiming priority, proposed a merget with the Reformers but COULD not "join" with the Reformers views.

The Stoneite views were rejected and the Disciples virtually took over. That does not stop modern agents such as Leroy Garrett and a few disciples from trying to shame churches of Christ into going beyond what the Christian Churches or Churches of Christ ever believed. Churches of Christ would have to IMPOSE musical instruments and REJECT the clear Biblical and historical view that Christ choose water baptism as the time and place to regenerate their spirit by washing away their sins. It is easy to quote the real historic literature to prove that Leroy Garrett is a selective picker of proofs. Therefore, in the interest of honesty we will direct you to the REAL Alexander Campbell's views.

Whatever small groups decided to do in the interest of "union" they were no more official than modern efforts to try to unite two groups which were always fundamentally at odds. Doing joint assemblies or mission projects doeth not a UNION make.

See A believer is a DISCIPLE or LEARNER: most division would go away if we understood that ekklesia or synagogue is A School (only) of the Word (only) of Christ (only."

Here is the HERESY of Leroy Garrett's invention of the Stone-Campbell Movement published in Stone's paper.

Our Review of No. 4 (April 1831). Gentile Baptism, by Archippus (James Fishback), pp. 156-159. From Christian Messenger. 

When these subjects are fully understood, all the difficulties that now seem to present themselves will disappear.

In the next number of the Messenger, I will adduce my proof before its readers, 
        that the New Testament does not authorise the belief,
        that the sins of the Gentiles are remitted in baptism at all.

In the mean time I hope your readers will examine the scriptures with honest and untiring care, by reading the Old and the New Testament, so as to be able to satisfy themselves truly and scripturally, in reference to the subjects on which I have propounded the above questions.

Archippus James Fishback Speaking for Barton W. Stone denies Baptism is for the Gentiles.
Archippus, Fishback, Stone complain that Campbell has misrepresented them.
Alexander Campbell proves from their statement that he was not lying.

On the other hand, Barton W. Stone speaking for himself in 1840--after having to confess that he always believed that baptism was FOR the remission of sins but didn't preach it because it "chilled" the audience. All of the charismatic derangement of preaching and singing invented to try to create proof that one was predestinated failed to work especially among the more literate of North Alabama.  However, when they began to preach baptism the "mothers" much smarter than the preachers and others were baptized in masses and the  hysteria of uncertainty faded away. The Stone preachers became Gospel preachers. 

B E T H A N Y, VA. OCTOBER, 1840. MH Vol IV.NoX

ATONEMENT--No. IV. Barton W. Stone
2. Another design of the death of Jesus was to bring in and establish the New Testament, or to bring in everlasting righteousness to all the nations of the world. Gal. iii. 8-14. "Christ has redeemed us (Jews) from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us, (by dying on the cross)--That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." Now the blessing of Abraham was the gospel, preached to him 430 years before the law; which gospel is, that "in thee and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed."

Before his death he forbade his disciples to preach the gospel to the Gentiles; but after his death and resurrection he gave them a new commission--to go into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. Now "where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force when men are dead, otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. Heb. ix. 16, 17. A man may make his last Will and Testament years before his decease, in which he bequeaths certain portions of his estate to his children; but they have no right to the bequests while the father lives; but as soon as he, the testator dies, every legatee has a full right to the bequeathed inheritance.

So while Jesus the testator lived, the blessings bequeathed in his last Will and Testament to the Gentiles could not be given to them; but after he died every creature of the human family has a right to all the blessings of the everlasting covenant. But, alas! how many, like Esau, sell [467]  their birth-right to such a rich inheritance for one morsel of vanity! Yet let all know that the New Testament is dedicated by blood, and now in full force. 

Barton W. Stone: THE question is going the round of society, and is often proposed to us, Why are not you and the Reformed Baptists one people? or, Why are you not united? We have uniformly answered; In spirit we are united, and that no reason existed on our side to prevent the union in form. It is well known to those brethren, and to the world, that we have always, from the beginning, declared our willingness, and desire to be united with the whole family of God on earth, irrespective of the diversity of opinion among them. The Reformed Baptists have received the doctrine taught by us many years ago. For nearly 30 years we have taught that Sectarianism was antichristian, and that all christians should be united in the one body of Christ--the same they teach. We then and ever since, have taught that authoritative creeds and confessions were the strong props of sectarianism, and should be given to the moles and the bats--they teach the same. We have from that time preached the gospel to every creature to whom we had access, and urged them to believe and obey it--that its own evidence was sufficient to produce faith in all that heard it, that the unrenewed sinner must, and could believe it unto justification and salvation--and that through faith the Holy Spirit of promise, and every other promise of the New Covenant, were given. They proclaim the same doctrine. Many years ago some of us preached baptism as a means, in connexion with faith and repentance, for the remission of sins, and the gift of the Holy Spirit--they preach the same, and extend it farther than we have done. We rejected all names, but Christian--they acknowledge it most proper, but seem to prefer another. We acknowledge a difference of opinion from them on some points. We do not object to their opinions as terms of fellowship between us. But they seriously and honestly object to some of ours as reasons why they cannot unite. These we shall name, and let all duly consider their weight.

Objection 1st: That we have fellowship, and commune with unimmersed persons. They contend, (so we understand them) that according to the New Institution, none but the immersed have their sins remitted; and therefore they cannot commune with the unimmersed. 
        On this point we cannot agree with them, and the reason of our disagreement, is,
        that this sentiment, in our view, will exclude millions of the fairest characters,
        for many centuries back, from heaven

For if the immersed only, receive the remission of sins, all those millions that have died, being unimmersed, have died in their sins, or unwashed from their sins. Jesus said, "If ye die in your sins, where God is, you can never come." Of course they are excluded from heaven. Hell, therefore, must be their portion; for Protestants do not believe in a purgatory. Why are they sent to hell? For disobedience to the one command of being immersed. Hear the poor creature's complaint, while suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.. On earth, says he, in obedience to the King, [385] whom I loved, whose laws I loved, whose family I loved, I denied myself took up my cross and followed him.
was taught that it was my duty to be baptized, and that baptism meant to be sprinkled with water; in the humble spirit of obedience 1 submitted, not knowing but that this was the very way the King meant this command to be observed.
But now, alas! for my ignorance of the right way of performing one command, I must be forever banished from God into everlasting punishment. What should we think of an earthly king, if a province of loving subjects, being ignorant of the meaning of a certain law, and yet endeavoring to obey it according to their understanding of it, should by his order be cut off by an excruciating death? Surely, we should reprobate his conduct, and should see in his character that which is less amiable than otherwise. Is it possible to divest ourselves of the same thoughts and conclusion respecting the lovely King of saints? Should we not, by representing his character in this view, expose it to the contempt of a scoffing world?

I know our brethren say, We do not declare that they are excluded from heaven, but only from the kingdom on earth. We leave them in the hand of God. But does not the sentiment lead to that conclusion? We believe, and acknowledge, that Baptism is ordained by the King a means for the remission of sins to penitent believers; but we cannot say, that immersion is the sine qua non, without maintaining the awful consequence above, and without contradicting our own experience. We therefore teach the doctrine, believe, repent, and be immersed for the remission of sins; and we endeavor to convince our hearers of its truth; but we exercise patience and forbearance towards such pious persons as cannot be convinced.

2dly. Another cause or reason why we and they are not united as one people, is, that we have taken different names. They acknowledge the name Christian most appropriate; but because they think this name is disgraced by us who wear it, and that to it may be attached the idea of Unitarian or Trinitarian, they reject it, and have taken the cider name, Disciple. This they have done in order to be distinguished from us. Hence it is concluded that they wish to be a party distinguished from us, and have therefore assumed this name as a party name. This at once bars us from union in the same body, and we cannot but believe it was assumed for this purpose, by some. We should rejoice to believe the contrary. Until a satisfactory explanation be given on this subject, we must view ourselves equally excluded from union, with the congregation of the Disciples, as from any other sectarian establishment. We object not to the scriptural name, Disciple, but to the reasons why our brethren assumed it.

We are ready any moment to meet and unite with those brethren, or any others, who believe in, and obey the Saviour according to their best understanding of his will, on the Bible, but not on opinions of its truth. We cannot with our present views unite on the opinion that unimmersed persons cannot receive the remission of sins, and therefore should be excluded from our fellowship and communion on earth. We cannot conscientiously give up the name Christian, acknowledged by our brethren must appropriate, for any other (as Disciple) less appropriate, and received to avoid the disgrace of being suspected to be a Unitarian or Trinitarian. We cannot thus temporize with divine truth.

We have frequently, and for more than a quarter of a century, contended for the name Christian as that given by divine authority, and designed to supersede all other name's of the Lord's followers. We are sorry that the New translation, purporting to give us that of Dr. Doddridge on the Acts of the Apostles, has rejected his, and given us another of Acts xi. 26. Dr. Doddridge's translation is "And the disciples were by divine appointment first named Christians at Antioch." If this be a correct translation, then the matter is forever put to rest, that the will of God is, that the older name Disciple should cease, and the new name Christian should forever after take place of it. To reject the name Christian for any other is to act in opposition to the [386] will of God; so it appears to us. Doddridge in justification of his translation, observes in a note, "I think with Dr. Benson, that the use of the word Chrematisai (named) implies that it was done by a divine direction. As proof he refers us to Matt. ii. 12, 22. Luke ii. 26. Acts x. 22. Heb. viii. 5-11; vii, 12, 25, where the same word is used. Let us examine every passage in the New Testament where the word Chrematizo (was called) occurs; and, I think, that the translation, were named by divine appointment, will be found correct and true. In Matt. ii. 12, 22, the word is translated, "being warned of God"--or divinely warned. In Luke ii. 26, the word is translated, It was revealed to him by the Holy Ghost. In Acts x. 22, the word is translated, Cornelius "was warned of God by a holy angel to send for thee." In Heb. viii. 5, it is translated "Moses was admonished of God." Heb. xi. 7, it is rendered, "By faith Noah being warned of God." In Heb. xii. 25, "See that ye refuse not him that speaketh; for if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth"--the word spake is translated from the same word Chrematizo, and should, according to the translations above, be rendered, refuse not him that divinely spake, admonishedor warned on earth. It is too plain to deny, that Moses spake by divine authority, and therefore his warnings and admonitions were divine oracles. The same word occurs Rom. viii. 3, "So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress;" that is, she shall be called by divine authority an adulteress. This is the natural meaning, from which none can dissent.

Dr. A. Clark, on the text, (Acts xi. 26) is of the same opinion with Dr. Doddridge with respect to the meaning of Chrematizo; he says, it signifies, in the New Testament, to appoint, warn, or nominate by divine direction. The learned Doctor adds, "A Christian, therefore, is the highest character which any human being can bear on earth; and to receive it from God, as those appear to have done, how glorious the title!"

To confirm this meaning of the word Chrematizo, I will add a few extracts from Josephus, a Classic Greek writer. They are cited by Dr. Parkhurst on the word. "Moses Echrematizeto, was instructed by God in what he desired." "Josephus calling an oracular dream of Jaddus the Highpriest's, to Chrematisthen, what was divinely communicated to him." I think I have referred to every passage of the New Testament where the word occurs, and it is now left with the public to determine whether Dr. Doddridge's translation be not correct, i. e. that the disciples were by divine appointment first named Christians at Antioch.

Christianos (g5546)

1Pet. 4:14 If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; 
        for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you:
        on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified.
1Pet. 4:15 But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief,
        or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men’s matters.
1Pet. 4:16 Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed;
        but let him glorify God on this behalf.
A chrisian is a disciple which in the Great Commission means a baptized believer. Paul does not speak of being "saved" as something racist but we are baptized into the Word.  Or we are baptized into the contest or into the school of Christ and His Word. Why would a local name for the disiples take the place of the founder of His Church or His Kingdom. 
1Pet. 4:17 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God:
        and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?
1Pet. 4:18 And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?
1Pet. 4:19 Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls to him in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator.
1Tim. 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Died C. 110 Ignatius to the Ephesians

And if those that corrupt mere human families are condemned to death, how much more shall those suffer everlasting punishment who endeavour to corrupt the Church of Christ, for which the Lord Jesus, the only-begotten Son of God, endured the cross, and submitted to death! Whosoever, "being waxen fat," and "become gross," sets at nought His doctrine, shall go into hell.

In like manner, every one that has received from God the power of distinguishing, and yet follows an unskilful shepherd, and receives a false opinion for the truth, shall be punished.

"What communion hath light with darkness? or Christ with Belial? Or what portion hath he that believeth with an infidel? or the temple of God with idols? " And in like manner say I, what communion hath truth with falsehood? or righteousness with unrighteousness? or true doctrine with that which is false?

Justin Martyr: For we are accused of being Christians, and to hate what is excellent (Chrestian) is unjust. Again, if any of the accused deny the name, and say that he is not a Christian, you acquit him, as having no evidence against him as a wrong-doer; but if any one acknowledge that he is a Christian, you punish him on account of this acknowledgment.

Justin Martyr defined the role of baptism, weekly worship, taking the Lord's Supper, sending the deacons with the supper to "shut-ins," and SPEAKING the Word of God. Logical, since singing as an act was not added until the year 373. 

This translation of Doddridge fully comports with the prophecy of Isaiah, lxii. 2. "And thou shalt he called by a new name, which the mouth of the Lord shall name." Again, liv. 15. the Prophet speaking of the fall, rejection, and overthrow of the Lord's people, the Jews, says, "And ye shall leave your name for a curse unto my chosen; for the Lord God shall slay thee, and call his servants by another name." This new name the ancient fathers believed was Christian. 

Isa 54:5 For thy Maker is thine husband; the Lord of hosts is his name;
        and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel;
        The God of the whole earth shall he be called.
Isa 54:8 In a little wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment;
        but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee, saith the Lord thy Redeemer.

What is the New Testament name of our only Redeemer?
Titus 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
Titus 2:14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.
Isa 54:9 For this is as the waters of Noah unto me: for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth; so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee.
1Pet. 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
1Pet. 3:19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
1Pet. 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

1Pet. 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
1Pet. 3:22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.
Isa 54:10 For the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed; but my kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of my peace be removed, saith the Lord that hath mercy on thee.
Isa 54:11 O thou afflicted, tossed with tempest, and not comforted, behold, I will lay thy stones with fair colours, and lay thy foundations with sapphires.
Isa 54:12 And I will make thy windows of agates, and thy gates of carbuncles, and all thy borders of pleasant stones.
Isa 54:13 And all thy children shall be taught of the Lord
        and great shall be the peace of thy children.
        and thou shalt be called by a new name,
        which the mouth of the LORD shall name

Isa 62:3 Thou shalt also be a crown of glory in the hand of the LORD, and a royal diadem in the hand of thy God.

Isa 62:4 Thou shalt no more be termed Forsaken; neither shall thy land any more be termed Desolate: but thou shalt be called Hephzibah, and thy land Beulah: for the LORD delighteth in thee, and thy land shall be married.

Isa 62:5 For as a young man marrieth a virgin, so shall thy sons marry thee: and as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee.

Isa 62:6 I have set watchmen upon thy walls, O Jerusalem,
        which shall never hold their peace day nor night:
        ye that make mention of the LORD, keep not silence,

Isa 62:7 And give him no rest, till he establish, and till he make Jerusalem a praise in the earth.
Isa 62:8 The LORD hath sworn by his right hand, and by the arm of his strength, Surely I will no more give thy corn to be meat for thine enemies; and the sons of the stranger shall not drink thy wine, for the which thou hast laboured

Eusebius thus speaks of the first converts of christianity: "It is most certain, when as the coming of our Saviour Christ was now fresh in the minds of all men, that a new nation, neither small nor weak, neither such as was conversant and situate in corners of fountains and well-springs, but of all other most populous and most religious, secure as touching danger, and of invincible mind, aided continually by the divine power of God, at certain secret seasons, suddenly appeared; the same, I say, being beautified among all men by the title and name of Christ: the which one of the Prophets foreseeing to come to pass, with the single eye of the Divine Spirit being astonished, spake thus: Who hath heard such things! or who hath spoken after this manner! Hath the earth travailing brought forth in one day! Hath any nation sprung up suddenly and at one time! In another place he hath also signified the same to come to pass, where he saith, They that serve me shall me called after a new name, which shall be blessed on earth. Isaiah 66 and 62. Although presently we plainly appear to be upstarts, and this name of Christians of late to have been notified unto all nations," &c. Lib. 1. ch. 5. [387] In this same chapter Eusebius goes on to show that the saints of old, as Noah, Abraham, and others, were Christians in deed, though not in name, and quotes as proof the 105th psalm--"See that ye touch not my Christs, (that is, anointed,) neither deal perversely with my Prophets." This name Christian was the new name given by the Lord to his people, according to the early fathers, and by which they were called.

It was the name by which the disciples of Christ were peculiarly distinguished after they were called so at Antioch. Agrippa said to Paul, "Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian." Acts xxvi. 28. Peter said, "If any man suffer as a Christian, let him not he ashamed." Peter iv. 15. The Lord commends the church in Pergamos, that "thou boldest fast my name," and the church in Philadelphia, "Thou hast not denied my name." Against the name Christian persecution raged, and thousands suffered martyrdom for it. Had they denied the name, their lives would not have been taken. It is an old argument, yet its antiquity does not make it weak, that as the woman takes the name of her husband--so the bride, the church, should properly be called by that of her husband, Christ. It is believed there are none who deny that Christian is the most appropriate name for the followers of Christ, though many prefer others for various reasons. It is the name which must and will supersede all other denominations, and be a means of uniting the scattered flock.

Our brethren, the Disciples, ask us, How can you grant the privileges of the kingdom to such as have not been immersed, when it is plain that by immersion only they are born or made members of the kingdom? How can you commune with such at the Lord's table? I answer, that there are many things done under the New Institution or Covenant which were divinely instituted before that Covenant was fully confirmed and declared; yet these things were designed to be perpetuated to the end of time. 

Thus prayer, praise, thanksgiving, teaching, preaching, and even the Lord's supper, were divinely instituted before Jesus died, was buried, and rose again; consequently, before the foundation of the New Institution was fully laid, and, of course, before any were built upon it. John's baptism brought none into the new kingdom. The disciples, and the rest of the 120 on Pentecost, were therefore not inducted into this new kingdom by immersion; yet they prayed, praised, and communed with those in it, and these divine acts were reciprocated. As well might we forbid unimmersed persons to pray, to praise, to teach, as to forbid them to commune. These privileges were enjoyed before the kingdom was established and before the New Institution took place, and we dare not say they are now taken from them! It was not done at Pentecost. It has not been divinely done at any period since. What authority have we for inviting or debarring any pious, holy believer from the Lord's table? Though it is done by many, we see no divine authority for it. The King's will is, that his friends do this in remembrance of him--and all that his law expressed on the subject, is, "Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat and drink." If he eat and drink unworthily, he eats and drinks damnation to himself, [not to others,] not discerning the Lord's body. He has no where established a court of inquisition to fence his table, nor to prevent any from praying, praising, or worshipping him unless they have been immersed. We confess we cannot see why so much more importance should be attached to the Lord's supper, than to the other divine commands. We have long feared that the feast of love has been made by designing men an occasion of discord and division among the saints. We have seen many unimmersed possess the spirit of the kingdom; and we have seen many immersed destitute of it. To receive the latter, and to reject the former, we cannot view divine.

If we philosophize on religion, we may amuse the intelligent, but are unprofitable to all. Nothing but truth--truth felt, truth preached in the spirit, and truth copied in our lives, will arrest the attention, and gain and fix the heart of a drowsy, dying world. [388]

I have long thought, and seriously thought, whether a formal union on the Bible, without possessing the spirit of that book, would be a blessing or a curse to society--whether it would be better than faith without works, or than a body without the spirit--whether it would not rather be a stumbling block, a delusive snare to the world. O, my brethren! let us repent and do our first works--let us seek for more holiness, rather than trouble ourselves and others with schemes and plans of union. The love of God shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost given unto us, will more effectually unite than all the wisdom of the world combined. Endeavor to walk in peace and love with all. Then shall we feel a reviving from the presence of the Lord, and see flowing to the Lord, weeping penitents, pleading for mercy, and praising aloud for mercy received through our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.


IN speaking or writing on this subject of Union more than on most others, we deceive ourselves and one another, without knowing or intending it. The want of precision in the meaning attached to our terms may be the cause of this. It might appear hypercritical, or perhaps something worse, to ask the worthy editor of the Christian Messenger what he means by "union in form?

Does he mean a formal confederation of all preachers and people called "Christians," with all those whom he calls Reformed Baptists? (rather reforming, than reformed;) or (as he represents them as prefering for a sectarian purpose the name) disciples. If so, what shall be the articles of confederation, and in what form shall they be ministered or adopted? Shall it be in one general convention of messengers from all the societies of "christians" and "disciples," or one general assembly of the whole aggregate of both people? Shall the articles of agreement be drawn up in writing like the articles of the "General Union" amongst the different sects of Baptists in Kentucky?

Has there been such an incident in ecclesiastical history of a whole people formally and in good faith uniting with another whole people without such a formal confederation? Or does he expect a "union in form" without any form of effecting it? If he do not, then it is out of order to complain of the want of a formal union until a proposition made to that effect shall have been submitted by the complainant, and rejected by the defendant. But such a proposition has not, as we have heard, been tendered; nor have we heard of any general meeting among the Christians to deliberate upon the terms and conditions. Or does he think that one or two individuals, of and from themselves, should propose and effect a formal union among the hundreds of congregations scattered over this continent, called christians or disciples, without calling upon the different congregations to express an opinion or a wish upon the subject?

It is, too, a question with some weak consciences, whether there can, in spirit and in truth, under Jesus Christ, in existing circumstances, be such a thing as some might denominate a wholesale union between two whole societies as such. Men, we know, grouped in whole states, can confederate for political purposes; but it is for [389] temporal and temporary objects, in which other principles are supreme, than those refined sensibilities springing from faith in Jesus and love to the saints, which constitute, if not the bond, the concentrating principle of union, among the faithful followers of Jesus Christ. These are questions which we only propose without a discussion or an answer. We solicit the most definitive view of brother Stone on these topics.

We discover, or think we discover, a squinting at some sort of precedency or priority in the claims of the writer of the above article, which are perhaps only in appearance, and not in reality; but if in appearance only, he will prevent us or any reader from concluding unfavorably by explaining himself more in detail than he has done. He says, "The reformed Baptists have received the doctrine taught by us many years ago." "For nearly thirty years ago we taught," &c. &c. From what source or principle these sayings proceeded, we do not pronounce sentence; but if they are mere words of course, and he intended to plead nothing from them, we would suggest the propriety of qualifying them in such a way as to prevent mistake.

I am, as at present advised, far from thinking that the present advocates of reformation are only pleading, or at all pleading, for what was plead in Kentucky thirty years ago, after the dissolution of the Springfield Presbytery. If such be the conceptions of brother Stone, I am greatly mistaken. That he, with others, did at that time oppose authoritative creeds, and some articles in them as terms of communion, and some other abuses, we are not uninformed; but so did some others who set out with him

And as he would not consider them as now pleading the cause which he now pleads, so we cannot think that the cause which we plead was plead either by him or any one else twenty years ago. Many persons both in Europe and America, have inveighed against sects, creeds, confessions, councils, and human dogmas, during the last two centuries, and some even before Luther's time; but what have these to do with the present proposed reformation? That is only the work of a pioneer: it is clearing the forests, girdling the trees, and burning the brush.

I am not ashamed to own that the greatest heretics in christendom have inveighed against creeds, councils, and human dogmas. And every man who has been persecuted rightfully or wrongfully, has denounced the creed and the council which decreed him to the stake. Our opponents tell us of all this; and if Satan, even Satan tell the truth, he ought to be believed. But this admitted neither makes their cause who oppose us the better, nor ours the worse.

Both friends and foes of the cause which we now plead, seem to be agreed that not the anti-creed, and anti-council, and anti-sectarian questions, but what may be denominated the questions of "the ancient gospel and ancient order of things," distinguish it most easily from every other cause plead on this continent or in Europe since the great apostacy. Not, indeed, because it has not some things in common with other causes; but because when all the common things are taken into the account, it presents what some of our opponents call a new [390] religion--an exhibit of christianity as different from the sectarian as Protestantism differs from Popery; and if I were to give my opinion, I would say, much more different.

I trust our brother Editor will not think that we are merely disputing his claims to priority, as it is not assumed by us that he has set up such a claim; but only that in appearance it squints that way: but that he will consider us as endeavoring to prevent the confounding of the ancient gospel and ancient order of things with the anti-creed, or anti-council, or anti-sectarian cause. Sorry would I be to think that any would be so indiscriminating as to identify the principles of this reformation with the principles of any other reformation preached since Luther was born.

Catholics oppose sects as much as the Editors of the Messenger and Harbinger. Methodists oppose hypercalvinism as much as either of us; and all heretics oppose authoritative creeds which condemn their opinions. So far I am a Catholic, a Methodist, and a heretic. But many great and good men have opposed these evils as much as either Catholics, Methodists, or heretics.

Our eagle-eyed opponents plainly see the difference between the radical and differential attributes of this reformation, which they ignorantly call a deformation, and any other cause, however unpopular, plead in the land. 

"The Christians" in some places, nay, in many places, are quite respectable in the eyes of those who contemn "the disciples" as unfit for good society. And I think the amiable editor of the Christian Messenger himself told me last winter, that even he and some of his brethren were considered by the orthodox as degrading themselves because they associated with us most "unworthy disciples?' 

Indeed, it was no mean proof of his christian spirit to see him so condescending to persons of such low degree in the estimation of the noble christians of the land. His willingness to fraternize with us in despite of the odium theologicum attached to our ancient gospel, I must ever regard as an additional proof of his unfeigned regard to the authority of Jesus as Lord, and his love to all them who esteem the reproach of the Messiah greater riches than all the treasures of Egypt.

For our part, we might be honored much by a union formal and public, with a society so large and so respectable as the Christian denomination; but if our union with them, though so advantageous to us, would merge "the ancient gospel and ancient order of things" in the long vexed question of simple anti-trinitarianism, anti-creedism, or anti-sectarianism, I should be ashamed of myself in the presence of him whose "well done, good and faithful servant," is worth the universe to me. We all could have had honorable alliances with honorable sectaries, many years since, had this been our object.

These remarks have all grown out of the seeming identification of the cause we plead with that plead in Kentucky some 25 or 30 years ago. Had not these appeared in the preceding article, there would have been no occasion for saying a word on this subject.

Our good brother Stone has not been himself when he wrote the [391] above article, as we are not ourselves when we read it. He says, 

"We do not object to their opinions as terms of fellowship between us 
but they seriously and honestly object to some of ours.

This fails not in christian courtesy to our honesty and sincerity; but in argument it fails: for when he proceeds to state his opinions, which are supposed to be our reasons why we cannot unite in form with them, these reasons and opinions are comprehended in a unit, and that happens to be not an opinion, but a practice. It is called "Objection 1st." (but I cannot find the 2d.) and reads in the following words:--"That we have fellowship and commune with unimmersed persons."

This is the only objection which is alleged in the whole article as lying in the way of our uniting with them. It is, then, the practice of setting aside a divine institution, not in the judgment of the person received, but in the judgment of those who receive him.

It was not through design, but I think through oversight, that our worthy brother then turns the attention of his reader from this practice to the meaning of baptism for remission of sins: for it is not because of our views of the meaning of immersion, (in which he seems to agree with us,) but because the "Christians" now make immersion of non-effect by receiving persons into the kingdom of Jesus, so called, irrespective of their being legitimately born; or, in brief, regardless of the command, "Be baptized every one of you."

Thus he loses sight of our objection altogether; and we find him lamenting the fate of some poor Paidobaptist, not in Hades, not in Purgatory; but, as he says, literally and truly in Hell, praying for himself because he had simply mistaken his road.

The words which our brother Stone has put into the mouth of this mistaken Paidobaptist, suffering the vengeance of an eternal fire, are not exactly in point. It was, indeed, kind to make this imaginary Paido tell as good a story of himself as possible: "In the humble spirit of obedience I submitted to be sprinkled." But I do not know how this Paidobaptist could, even in torment, so far forget himself as to say that "in the humble spirit of obedience he submitted to be sprinkled," when in fact he was, when a crying babe, sprinkled in his father's arms. And to be in point, such must have been the fact; for it is not fair to take any other than a common case to sustain a common practice.

But in this whole case there is an entire mistake of the whole question. It assumes a principle inadmissible, viz. That God's rule or principle of rewarding men hereafter, is to be, as near as we can guess at it, the rule of our conduct to them in receiving them into his kingdom on earth, and in treating them as members of it. 

I will undertake, without fee or reward, to plead the cause of every soul in torment, and guaranty his release, or prevent his condemnation to it, on the principles embraced in the prayer of this unfortunate Paidobaptist. 

Every sincere Mussulman, Pagan, Infidel, Jew, Deist, Atheist, under Heaven, may convert Hell into a Purgatory, if you will give validity and prevalence to this plea. And as for the insincere, we shall find for them a good plea of another sort. But the question [392] is. Are we authorized to make the sincerity and honesty of a person's mind a rule of our conduct? 'Tis God alone who is judge of this, and surely he would not require us to act by a rule which we can never apply to the case. Neither, perhaps, is it a fair position to assume that any man's sincerity in opinion or belief will have any weight in the final judgment; but whether or not, it cannot be a rule of our proceeding in any case. 

We judge from actions--God judges the heart; and, therefore, we look for visible obedience; and when we are assured that the Lord has commanded every man to confess him, or to profess the faith and be immersed into his name, we can never justify ourselves before God or man in presuming in our "judgment of charity" to set aside his commandment, and in accepting for it a human substitute. 

We do not recollect that we have ever argued out the merits of this "free and open communion system." But one remark we must offer in passing, that we must regard it as one of the weakest and most vulnerable causes ever plead; and that the "great" Mr. Hall, as he is called, has, in his defence of the practice, made it appear worse than before. In attempting to make it reasonable, he has only proved how unreasonable and unscriptural it is.

But of the following sentence we complain:--

"We cannot, with our present views, unite on the opinion that unimmersed persons cannot receive the remission of sins." 

This is not the question at all. And long before a word was said about baptism for remission, our friend plead for dispensing with it, because, in his judgment, it ought to be no term of communion. But we shall dismiss this topic, and when our friend Stone shall think good to reconsider his remarks, we shall more in extenso exhibit the true merits of this objection.

An attempt is made by our friend to draw out of a remark on the appropriation of the name Christian, vol. 1, p. 373, a second objection urged by the friends of reform against union with the Christians. But I must confess I never heard that any advocate of the ancient gospel asked any person to give up the name "Christian" and to substitute for it the name Disciple. Yet he says, ""We cannot conscientiously give up the name "Christian," acknowledged by our brethren most appropriate, for any other (as disciple) less appropriate, and received (assumed) to avoid the disgrace of being suspected to be a Unitarian or Trinitarian. We cannot thus temporize with divine truth." 

Well, brother Stone, do not temporise with divine ordinances by substituting sincere sprinkling for sincere obedience, or for immersion. But, really, I confess ignorance on the whole subject of this requisition to abandon the name Christian. I only wish, for my part, that we were worthy of it. It is easy to assume a good name, but how hard to deserve it! I am not prepared, either, to say Amen to all the criticism offered to prove that we must, by divine authority, be called Christians, whether we deserve it or not.

The controversy about the name by which we shall be called, is, and must necessarily be, one of subordinate importance. We could not in good conscience substitute the opinion of Dr. Doddridge for the [393] literal import of the word (chrematizo.) We must always in interpreting distinguish between the opinion of a translator and the meaning of the word. Every body knows that there are no words in the Greek corresponding to "divine appointment." And if ever chrematizo signifies to name or call by divine authority, it is most certainly from accident or from circumstances, and not from the import of the term for it means no such thing. The root of the word is chrema, business; and because it was usual to designate or name persons from their business, as Smith, Taylor, Baker, Clark, &c. so the word chrematizo, formed from chrema, came actively to signify, to name, or to call, and passively to be named or called.

When brother Stone was quoting the 4th meaning of the word from Parkhurst, it would have been well for him to have let his readers know the mind of this same Mr. Parkhurst. He says, "Wetstein on Rom. vii. 3. has abundantly proved that the verb frequently signified in the Greek writers to be named or called. But Doddridge thinks that chrematisai, Acts ii. 26. denotes to be named by divine appointment or direction. I cannot, however, find that the verb ever has this signification. The passages of scripture to which the Doctor refers in proof of his interpretation, do by no means come up to his point." With this opinion of Parkhurst I do most sincerely concur, and when it becomes necessary I will go into the details.

Our worthy friend has been too precipitate also in quoting Adam Clarke on this passage. Adam Clarke begins the section from which he quotes with an if--"If, therefore, the name was given by divine appointment." He enters not decisively into the matter.

That the word sometimes signifies to warn, admonish, or appoint, whether by God, angels, or men, is abundantly evident, and occurs sometimes in this acceptation in the New Testament. In this we agree with Adam Clarke. But with Dr. Campbell we agree that chrematizo does not necessarily imply from God more than the word warning does. This is evident from the reference which, both in sacred authors and in classical, it often has to inferior agents. He condemns Dr. Doddridge's version of Acts ii. 26. (See his note on Math. ii. 12.) I any bold to affirm, in the face of all criticism, that there is not the least authority, in the word here used, for concluding that the name Christian came from God, any more than from Antiochus Epiphanes! This may be too strong, for some who contend that the name Christian is of divine authority; but let them put me to the proof.

That it was given neither by dream, oracle, angel, nor apostle, is, in my judgment, by far the more probable opinion. If it had been given by the authority of the Lord it would not have been delayed for ten years after the day of Pentecost, nor reserved for the city of Antioch to be the place of its origin. 'The disciples were first named Christians in Antioch, A. D. 43.' 

But some person may say that the disciples had not become Christians till 43, and that the conferring of the name at Antioch was because it was the first time the disciples deserved it. It is true the term disciple is a much more humble name [394] than the name Christian, 

and that persons may be found worthy of the name disciple, who are not worthy of the name Christian. To be a Christian is to be a follower of Jesus Christ, and a disciple is a learner, a scholar. One who wishes to be a Christian may he called a disciple; 

but every disciple of Plato, Pythagoras, or Christ, is not worthy to be called a Platonist, a Pythagorean, nor a Christian. 

But there is a loose, as well as a strict use of words; and there is a national and sectarian, as well as a literal and philological usage of them. Hence every citizen of the United States is a Christian in Algiers, in India, or Japan. 

But not to lose sight of the subject before us; with us it is a strong argument, that had the disciples been first called Christians by divine appointment at Antioch, then the Apostles would, from that time forth, have addressed the disciples by this divinely appointed name. 

But this they did not so much as once in any public document which has come down to us. The Antiochians called the disciples first Christians; Agrippa used the term once in reference to himself; and Peter said, that if any man was endited as a Christian, or, "if any man suffered as a Christian, let him not be ashamed;" which argues that it was under this name their enemies persecuted and traduced them. But no document has come down to us authorising us to think that this name Christian was regarded by arty of the Apostles as of divine appointment. 

If Paul, in any of his letters--if Peter, James, or John, had only once said, "To the Christians in Rome, Corinth, Galatia, Greece Asia, Judea," or any where else; then, indeed, there might have been some ground to think that they regarded it as of divine appointment! And recollect it was 50 years and more from the time they were first called Christians, before all the New Testament was written. They are called disciples, saints, believers, the called, sanctified, in the Acts and in the Epistles; but never once addressed under the name Christians.

Now let it be remembered, that we have no objection to the name Christian if we only deserve it; nor predilection for the name disciple, except for its antiquity and modesty: but when it is plead for as of divine authority, and as the only or most fitting name which can be adopted, we must lift up our voice against the imposition, and contend for our liberty, where the Lord has left us free. Would to God that all professors could be addressed as saints, faithful brethren, disciples indeed, christians.

Our brother of the Messenger has called for these remarks, which are offered in the same candor in which he appears always to write. We have very high respect for him and the brethren who are with him. Many of them with whom we are acquainted we love as brethren; and we can, in all good conscience, unite with them in spirit and form, in public or in private, in all acts of social worship.

We do not conceive that we have adverted to every thing in the preceding article worthy of our attention. We have reserved some items for another occasion; but the chief points are noticed directly or indirectly in the preceding observations. We should like to have [395] a very free, familiar, and affectionate correspondence with brother Stone on these subjects which he has introduced through the medium of the press. As I have copied his communication into these pages, I doubt not but he will copy these remarks in reply into his. And indeed I think the question of union and co-operation is one which deserves the attention of all them who believe the ancient gospel and desire to see the ancient order of things restored. EDITOR.    

No. 9 (September 1831).

Review of Archippus.--No. VI., by Alexander Campbell, pp. 404-408. Signed "Editor."


HAVING now published every thing in Archippus' essays directly bearing on his peculiarity, I will close my review of his premises and reasonings by more formally attending to a favorite retreat from some of the plainest passages in the book. It is customary to elude such strong sayings as "wash away your sins," "baptism saves us," "the washing of regeneration," &c, 

by telling us gravely that these are figurative expressions; that baptism is but a sign, a figure, &c. A few words on these figurative expressions, and we have done with Archippus for the present:--

Is baptism a sign and seal of any thing? Those who contend that it just fills up the place of circumcision, argue that it is a sign and seal in the full sense of circumcision. For our part, let it be noted here, that we consider that analogies do not constitute substitutes. That there is a resemblance between circumcision and baptism we never doubted either as a Baptist, or as a Paidobaptist: but the discovery of an analogy between any two persons or institutions does not compel us to substitute the one for the other. There is an analogy between Adam and Christ, between Moses and Jesus; but we cannot thence infer that Christ stands in the room of Adam, nor in the place of Moses as a substitute or successor. There is an analogy between the redemption of Israel from Egyptian tyranny and the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. There is an analogy between the immersion of Moses and the Jews in the cloud and sea, and the immersion of Jesus and his disciples; but they are not of the same import, nor is the latter a substitute for the former. There is an analogy between the Jewish Sabbath and the Lord's Day--between the Passover and the Lord's Supper--between the Year of Jubilee and the Reign of Grace--between the City of Refuge and Zion the City o the Lord. But we cannot, in good reason, nor in accordance with what is written by the Apostles, substitute one of these for the other. The weakness of even strong men, as well as of weak men, is most apparent in riding metaphors to death, in running parables out of breath, and in converting analogies into substitutes. 

Of this we have the most illustrious proofs in the thousand fruitless attempts which have been made to prove infant baptism from infant [404] circumcision; to make the circumcision of infant males, by their own mothers, on the eighth day, and of male servants because of their political relation to Abraham, a law and a precedent for sprinkling infants, male and female, on any day, by a Priest too, but not of male or female servants, nor of any person, adult or infant, on account of political relation to a son of Abraham.

But to the question again: "Is baptism a sign and seal of any thing?" Our best creeds answer the question in the affirmative. The Westminster speaks for most of the orthodox. It says, 

"Baptism is a sign and seal of the covenant of grace; of engrafting into Christ; of remission of sins," &c To be orthodox, then, we must say that "baptism is a sign and seal of remission of sins." So far I am a Presbyterian, a Methodist, an Episcopalian, and a Roman Catholic. So far is Archippus orthodox also.

Let us, then, see what we mean by saying "Baptism is a sign and seal of remission." 
        A sign and seal that our sins are remitted before we were baptized? 
        Or is it a sign and seal that they will hereafter be remitted?

'These are the two great questions. None of our opponents maintain the latter. Hence the question is, Is baptism a sign and seal of past remission? "Of past remission," says Archippus; of accompanying remission, say we. Now for the argument. 

Are, then, we ask, the blessings stipulated in any covenant conveyed before it is sealed? or are they conveyed at the time of sealing? Doubtless not before, but at the time of sealing. One may stipulate, propose, and promise blessings in word or writing, and another may hear and believe the ability and faithfulness of him that proposes; but neither party is bound until the covenant is ratified. 

        If, then, baptism be a seal of remission, or of a promise or covenant concerning remission, 
        that promise, or blessing, or covenant cannot be received, nor secured, nor enjoyed until it be sealed. 

        And just in the act of signing and sealing it is confirmed. If, then,
        baptism be a seal of remission, then no person is in fact pardoned until baptized.

Now Archippus and our opponents, one and all, maintain, as far as we are informed, that baptism is a seal of remission of sins; consequently, they virtually, and in fact, contend that no person has secured to him, can receive or enjoy the remission of his sins, until he is baptized

But this is not the first time, nor the only time in which even the ingenuous are constrained to admit and adopt principles and premises subversive of their own prejudices and conclusions. It is as hard to be consistent in defending error as it is to kick against the spurs without inflicting wounds upon ourselves.

But it is a sign of remission as well as a seal. Now it must be a sign the same point of time in which it becomes a seal. It cannot be an sign of the past and a seal of the present. It must he a sign and seal in the same tense. And hence the propriety of the sign. 

Water is the cleansing element; and next to its refreshing influence when drunk, is its purifying efficacy on that which is polluted. It is applied not to the clean but to the polluted, when applied either literally or figuratively.

As it cannot be the means of literally cleansing what [405] is not polluted, so it cannot be the sign of cleansing any thing which is already clean.

Its figurative truth depends upon its being applied to that which is figuratively polluted. It cannot be the sign of remission when applied to one who has received pardon; for in that case it would be a falsehood in a figure--it would be the sign of that which exists not. If, then, it be a sign of remission,

no person conscious of being morally cleansed can rationally receive it. 

Its meaning and its truth both require that the subject of this sign he considered as not cleansed, as not washed, as not pardoned. If, then, baptism be a sign and seal of remission of sins, it is clear that the pardon of sins is not previous to, but attendant on, submission to it.

See Leroy Garrett trying to resurrect the Stone- movement by twisting all of Campbell's truth.

There are two passages in the New Testament on which Archippus and his brethren are not a little perplexed. The first is, that in which Paul is commanded by the authority of the Lord "to wash away his sins." This, say they, is a figurative expression. So say we. But wherein is the figure? In the water of baptism. In submitting to immersion he washed away his sins. 

If before his immersion he had received literal remission, in immersion he could not be figuratively remitted. To suppose the contrary is to destroy the figure: for a figure implies something corresponding which is real. If there was no correspondence, there was no figure. If there was no real washing away of previous sins at that time, there could he no figurative washing of sins in that ordinance. 

Leroy Garrett: In saying Paul was really saved when he believed and formally saved when he was baptized, Campbell too searched out illustrations. The marriage ceremony was his favorite. The couple is really one when they give their hearts to each other, but they are not legally or formally one until the ceremony. The ceremony does not change their love and commitment to each other, but it does change their legal status.

However, ole Leroy messes up every time.

I am as much astonished at their want of reflection as they are perplexed in evading these decisive testimonies of the sacred scriptures. 
        Archippus might say that Paul received a real remission through faith, 
        and a figurative remission in baptism,
        provided he could show that remission was not granted through faith only when accompanied by baptism.

But to argue that Paul was literally forgiven three days before by faith, destroys the possibility that he was figuratively remitted in immersion.

We shall seek an analogy in a parallel case. Suppose, for example, that a controversy had arisen among us moderns on what constitutes marriage, or rather on what gives a woman a right to the name, honors, fortunes, and relations of a husband. 

All parties agree that three things are necessary to a true and proper marriage--the head, the heart
        and the hand; or, to speak plainly, 
        the belief of the professed affection of the suitor, the yielding of the affections, 
        and the giving of the right hand in the forms prescribed by law, 
        as a public pledge of devotion to that person. 

But while all parties agree in each and every one of these as necessary to a full and perfect marriage, a question arises among the curious whether in law or reason it is the first or last act that secures to the woman the name, the honors, the fortunes, and the relations of her suitor. 

One party contends that the moment she believes the professed affection of her suitor, she is married and has all the rights of a wife: but at the same time admits that this is a very peculiar sort of faith, and implies in it or attaches to it both the giving of the affections and the tendering of the hand according to law. 

The other contends that although faith and affection are in the order of things necessary antecedents, yet it is not one or [406] both of these, but the actual giving the right hand before witnesses, and as prescribed by law, which gives her any right, title, or interest in the name, honor., fortune, and relatives of the suitor.

In the course of these wordy strifes and debates on this question, one of the parties finds a document in the writings of certain political sages, whom all parties allow to be paramount authority in the case, and reads it in evidence of the justness of his position. 

He quotes one of these sages as saying to a certain eminent lady, "Arise--why do you tarry? give your hand, and become the wife of David, calling him your husband." 

His respondent says she was in reality his wife before, and this giving of the hand was but a figure: before this she had a right to the name, honors, fortunes, and friends of David; but this was only a figurative way of showing it forth publicly. 

But, replies his friend, why does the sage use words indicative that the relation was not yet formed: and this is not all, for on your own admission that giving the hand was but a sign or figure, let me ask, was it a figure of what had formerly been done, or a figure of what was to be done at the time of performing the act commanded? The parallelism for which we contend must be apparent to all; and I shall leave it to my friend Archippus to say whether the above words do not, when fairly interpreted, imply that she was not married until her hand was given, and therefore could have no right to the name, fortune, &c. of her suitor? And is not the giving of the hand a figure of the giving up the person whose hand it is, at that instant in which the hand is extended, and not a commemoration of some previous transaction between the parties? This we shall leave to his candor.

The second passage to which we refer is that in 1 Peter iii. 21. "To which water, the antitype immersion, (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God) now saves us also through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." 

These printed letters are the antitypes of the types which formed them. The type exists for the sake of the antitype. The deluge, then, in Peter's wisdom, was a type of immersion, and saves us by the resurrection of Jesus. Water saved Noah by an ark, while it drowned all who had not faith to enter the ark. 

The allusion to the Jewish washings, shows that the water of baptism is more effectual than the water which only sanctified to the purifying of the flesh. The Jewish washings did not make them who submitted to them perfect as respects the conscience. But by this institution understood, the answer of a good conscience is obtained. This answer of a good conscience is the difficulty with our friend Archippus. He would have the water of baptism only to take away the filth of the flesh or to have some commemorative retrospect to a good conscience obtained by faith. 

But Peter declares that immersion now saves us through the resurrection of Jesus. As this was a strong expression, Peter explains by saying it is baptism not for putting away the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience. This as certainly implies remission of sins as did the command from this same Peter (the preacher of water!) on Pentecost. 

Baptized for the answer of a good [407] conscience, or for the remission of sins, are phrases metonymically equipotent. He that obtains the answer of a good conscience through immersion, obtains the remission of sins.

But he that does not, either mistook baptism or himself.

Having now attended to all the reasonings of our friend Archippus, we shall hear him assign what reasons he has to offer why sentence of heresy should not now be passed upon him. EDITOR.

Home Page
Restoration Movement Index
Baptism Index
Musical Worship Index