“Blessed are ye when men shall revile you and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you, falsely, for my sake.”—JESUS CHRIST.

In Mark, the phrase “for my sake” is associated with “and the gospel’s.” The two things, Jesus and the gospel, are inseparable. He says that he was sent of God to preach the gospel of the kingdom—Luke 4: 18, 43; Matthew 4: 23; —and Jehovah hath said concerning Jesus, “Hear ye him!”—Matthew 17: 5—and again, “Unto him ye shall hearken. And I will put my words into his mouth; and he shall speak all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall not hearken unto my word which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him”—Deuteronomy 18: 15, 18-19. And Jesus saith, “He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, (the gospel of the kingdom which he preached,) hath that that judgeth him; the word (of the kingdom)—Matthew 13: 19, 23—that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father who sent me, he gave me a commandment what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment (when observed) is life everlasting; whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.” Again he saith, “The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself; but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doth the miracles.” “If a man love me, he will keep my words. He that loveth me not, keepeth not my sayings: and the word (of the kingdom) which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me.” It is evident then, from these declarations, that to be subject to any thing for Christ’s sake, is to be subject to it for the sake of the gospel of the kingdom preached by him. He judgeth of men’s attachment and devotion to his person by their veneration and devotion to the gospel he preached. He associates the not receiving of his words with the rejection of himself, and tells us plainly that a man does not love him who does not keep his sayings. This intimate connection between the preacher and his doctrine is not surprising, in view of his saying that he is himself “the truth.” “I am the truth,” saith he; and says Peter, “Ye have purified your souls in the obeying of the truth.” Hence, where the truth is, Christ is; therefore, Paul says, “God grant that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith.” He, then, that believes “the things concerning God and the name of Jesus Christ,” is the man in whose heart Christ dwells; because the truth dwells there with full assurance of faith and hope. The Bible is the truth in a book; Christ is the truth incarnate; and a Christian is the truth in his heart lovingly obeyed. It is nonsense for a man to talk of “loving the Lord Jesus” while he receives not his words. The Lord thanks no man for a mere lip-love—a love that rejoiceth not in the truth, believeth not all things, and hopeth not all things.

From what hath been said, then, the reader will see that to be spoken evil of for Christ’s sake, is to be spoken evil of on account of the gospel of the kingdom which he preached. Men will bear with you in any thing you may teach, provided you maintain nothing offensive to their self-complacency. They profess to be pious, to be zealous for God, to love the Lord Jesus, to believe the gospel, and to have obeyed it. Take care then how you define Bible things; and see that you do not come to conclusions incompatible with their piety, zeal, love, faith and practice. If you do, then farewell to your good name and standing in the estimation of those under the malevolent influence of their revilings. I speak from twenty years’ experience of the like, and therefore know truly whereof I affirm.

Now the great practical question at issue between me and my contemporaries, is “the gospel of the kingdom of God.” We have seen by our references that the Lord Jesus preached it in obedience to the command of the Father. And besides this, he declared that the gospel which he preached before he was crucified, should be preached for a testimony to all nations. His words are, “And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole habitable—for a testimony to all the nations” of that region. The same gospel then that Jesus preached to the house of Judah and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, was to be preached to the nations of the then civilized world. This the apostles began to do in the name of Jesus, several years after they commenced operations in Jerusalem on Pentecost. The difference between their preaching of the gospel and that of Jesus, was that between promises unfulfilled and promises fulfilled to a very limited extent. So far as the promises were fulfilled in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, as the Son and King anointed of Jehovah, the accomplished facts became the foundation or basis of the conditions, by conformity to which, Jews and Gentiles might become heirs of the promises yet largely unfulfilled. The facts and the doctrine or teaching predicated upon them, constitute “the mystery of the gospel,” or “things concerning the name of Jesus,” and therefore, “the mystery of Christ,” which are not two mysteries, but one. Jesus preached the gospel of the kingdom minus the mystery in his own name, because it was still a hidden mystery, and must have so continued until he was “perfected;” the apostles preached the same gospel with its mystery, because it was no longer hidden, but commanded to be proclaimed.

Our contemporaries do not understand this matter: they have lost sight of the gospel of the kingdom; and as a substitute for it, preach a few items of the mystery imperfectly, as the condition of the salvation of what they heathenishly style the immortal soul in kingdoms beyond the skies! Our pulpit orators, who learn their divinity in theological schools and colleges, preach every thing but the gospel of the kingdom. With respect to this, they are in heathen darkness, knowing nothing as they ought to know. Their system of Gentilism is to blame for this. The systems make them what they are, and with grateful and devoted hearts, they uphold and glorify their Alma Maters in return.

My courteous friend, the President of Bethany College, is of this class of orators and orator-makers. So ignorant of the gospel of the kingdom is he, that he can pen the following rhapsody without a blush, as a specimen of the things that play not around the head, but come to the very heart itself!

“Man,” says he, “the most sublime and awful object that man himself or angel ever saw, was predestined and created for a citizenship in the whole universe, and not for any locality in the solar or material realms. God and his whole creation is the patrimonial inheritance of man. God himself is his portion. Therefore all things are man’s, because man is Christ’s, and Christ’s is God’s Son, and the heir of all things.”

Thus, Mr. Campbell gives the lie point blank to God. I do not say he does so willfully; but in effect he does. He says, that “man is not created for any locality in the solar or material realms.” Hear then what Jehovah hath decreed concerning Christ’s inheritance, to whom, according to Mr. C., man belongs. “Thou art my Son; this day (of thy resurrection) I have begotten thee. I will give thee the nations for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.” These are the “all things” of which Jehovah’s anointed King is “the heir”—the nations and the earth. And the saints, his brethren, being “joint heirs with him,” are heirs also of the same. Are not these material realms? “The kingdoms of the world become our Lord and his Anointed’s, and he shall reign in the ages of the ages.” If these realms are not material and located in the solar system, they must be no where!

“Jehovah,” saith the Psalmist, “built his sanctuary like the earth which he hath established for ever.” “The righteous,” saith Solomon, “shall be recompensed in the earth: much more the wicked and the sinner.” “The righteous shall never be removed; but the wicked shall not inherit the earth.” “The heaven, even the heavens are Jehovah’s: but the earth hath he given to the sons of men.” “The earth abideth ever.” “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.” “Thou hast redeemed us by thy blood; and hast made us kings and priests for God; and we shall reign upon the earth.” Do not these passages prove that man is created for terrestrial locality for ever, when he shall have been freed from all present evil? Mr. Campbell says he is not; the Scripture says he is: therefore let God be true, and every man a liar that approves not His sayings.

Banishing man finally from this planet to some transpolar region, Mr. Campbell of course has no great faith in God’s promise to Abraham in regard to his and his Seed’s everlasting possession of the Holy Land. He reduces all these to a deception practiced upon the Friend of God, who died in hope of rising from the dead to possess the land in which he had been a wanderer and sojourner, dwelling in tents upon it, like his descendants, the Ishmaelites, with Isaac and Jacob. Virtually denying these promises, the gospel of the kingdom is to him “an opinion,” “a fable,” “an hypothesis,” “a fiction;” and therefore no bond of union or term of communion.

The issue between Mr. Campbell, the supervisor of 300,000 “disciples,” and myself is the gospel. I affirm that he is in heathen darkness concerning it, and utterly devoid of faith in the promises of God. He does not even know what faith is, as appears from these words: “It is a great point gained,” says he, “to know and to appreciate that faith is the belief of facts!” What a wonderful attainment in College divinity! and yet how unscriptural! But Paul denies the supervisor’s definition, and says, “Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the conviction of things unseen.” Things hoped for are not facts, but promises. A scriptural faith is therefore the belief of promises. This was Abraham’s faith, but not Mr. Campbell’s: his is a belief of facts, and hence the difference between the Friend of God and him. Matter-of-fact people are the children of the flesh, who are not the children of God; “but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.” The children of the promise are they who, believing the promises covenanted to Abraham, are constituted “in Isaac,” by induction into Christ by baptism into his name. “In Isaac shall thy seed be called.” “Now, we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of the promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the spirit, even so it is now.” Hence, Messrs. Campbell and Wallis, children of the flesh, like Ishmael of old, having neither reason nor testimony to adduce in defence of their positions, avenge their chafed and troubled souls in speaking evil falsely of him who convicts them of ignorance and sin against the truth. It is only occasionally that I catch a glimpse of their periodicals; but when I do, I find them still at their old work of slaying thrice the slain! No doubt they are gratified, and their readers more strongly walled in by the prejudice they have laboured to create against me. I read their foolishness with a mingled feeling of pity and gratification. I pity the poor men for their folly; yet I am gratified that in reviling me, and saying all manner of evil of me for the gospel’s sake, they are preparing for me the blessedness promised in the text.

In the British Millennial Harbinger for May are two letters republished from the American Millennial Harbinger, with a few comments by editor Wallis. One is from an acquaintance, of mine in Paisley, Scotland, named Matthew Tannehill, a member of the Baptist church in that town, to Dr. R. Richardson, of Bethany College, Virginia. The other letter is from A. Campbell to what he styles the “Church of Christ meeting in Paisley.” Matthew Tannehill, if I mistake not the gentleman, is brother to the Paisley poet of that name. While I sojourned in that town, he was quite friendly and attentive, and very desirous that I should correspond with them on my return to this country. He seemed to be quite interested in my lectures, and very gracious in his behaviour. But the word preached seemed to have its usual effect of disturbing the peace of the carnally minded. Some appear to have received it, but with what degree of intelligence I cannot say. There was no division, or talk of it, while I was there; but from Matthew’s testimony to his “dear brother Richardson,” it would seem that trouble appeared in the camp which was not allayed until a separation ensued. Before the separation the congregation divided upon the question of the gospel, some maintaining this, others that, concerning it. The minority was in favour of its having relation to the kingdom hereafter to be established in the Holy Land. The majority, ever opposed to the truth in all ages, was unconvincingly opposed to “the gospel of the kingdom of God” in the Paisley church. The minority, finding this, could not regret their exclusion from the Baptist church, styled “the Church of Christ” by Mr. Campbell. About thirty “were separated.” As a consequence of this ejection from the synagogue, all agitation about the gospel ceased. So when Paul and his disciples were cast out, the synagogues reverted to their former peaceful ignorance of the truth. The majority had it all their own way. The contention for the faith once delivered to the saints was silenced! and skykingdom glorification of disembodied ghosts resumed its undisturbed sway over Matthew Tannehill and his co-religionists. “I have been,” saith he, “a member of the Paisley church fifteen years, and at no period of its history was it in a more flourishing state than at present, (January 10, 1853;) and for a considerable time past—ever since the disciples of Dr. Thomas left us, or were separated—we have had nothing but peace and prosperity. I think the church has doubled its members, if not more, since that time.” Peace and prosperity evinced by a dead silence respecting the Word of the kingdom preached by Jesus and the apostles; and the consequent doubling of the numbers of the majority! Suppress the truth, Matthew, and the multitude will crowd your meeting-house, and keep the water of your “large pre-pulpit baptistery, so exceedingly convenient,” in constant agitation! Evil and the foolish multitude go hand in hand.

The minority who were striving for intelligence in the “one faith” became a dispersion; and Matthew Tannehill, not understanding God’s dealings with the friends of his truth, “thinks they are near their end.” Had Matthew lived in the days of the apostles, when the Jerusalem mother of all apostolic churches was scattered to the four winds, leaving only the apostles in the Holy City, he would have thought that the dispersed were near their end likewise; for Matthew would have been the same Matthew then as now—doubtless as profound a thinker after the manner of men. But with all his depth, he fails to discern from the examples or the Word, that it is no part of God’s plan for believers of the gospel of the kingdom to be living in peaceful and prosperous communities. When they got “rich, and increased in goods, and said they had need of nothing,” or “in a flourishing state,” as Matthew terms it, he put an end to their ecclesiastical prosperity and peace by scattering them abroad to preach the Word. The kingdom can only be entered through much tribulation, and not through prosperity and peace. Have peace among yourselves, but in the world ye shall have tribulation. Peace and prosperity keep tribulation from Matthew’s door. He and his have found a new course to the kingdom. They have left the stormy regions for the trade-winds of peace and quietness. All sails are spread to the gentle breeze, and the crew of the Paisley bark are lazily extended on the deck, dreaming of “nothing but peace and prosperity!”

The circumstances under which the minority separated were very unfavourable to peace among themselves in the outset. If they could have had some one with them well instructed in the truth to show them at once the way in which they should walk, having the disposition to know and do the will of God, there would have been no scope for disputings. But being only in the beginning of things, and having none to help them, it was only by a mutual expression of their various convictions that the truth could be more fully brought out. This collision of views would naturally have a winnowing effect on the original thirty, so as to “sift them as wheat” till all the chaff would fly away. This sifting process, if Matthew’s testimony be correct, seems to have reduced their number considerably. But there is no help for this. “Many are called” (to God’s kingdom and glory,) but only the “few are chosen;” for the few alone have faith enough to be saved. The agitation so much deprecated by the lovers of “smooth things,” is God’s agency for the taking out of the few for the name of Christ that may be for the time being hid in the churches of the Gentiles. Where there is “nothing but peace and prosperity” there are either none of “the few” to bring out, or they have all been separated, and none but the chaff or tares remain. Let a Baptist or Campbellite, or other church, remain in “nothing but peace and prosperity” undisturbed, and there is no chance of a soul of them coming to the knowledge of the gospel preached by Jesus and his apostles. They remain perfectly shut up in unbelief—shut up to the faith once revealed, but now generally lost sight of. Their pulpiteers cannot teach them, being ignorant themselves; and if their orators, and editors, and college professors, be in outer darkness, what cane the people do? Their case is hopeless. They have the Bible, indeed, but they say the prophets are unintelligible; and if these cannot be understood, it is impossible to understand the apostles; for these only “preached the gospel of God which he had promised before by his prophets in the Holy Scriptures.” The parallel between the Jewish synagogue of old time, and the modern churches of the Gentiles, in regard to their being “shut up to the faith,” is exact. It was only by sending a “pestilent fellow” like Paul among them to agitate their minds, that they could be brought to see into the meaning of the prophets. What he preached threw them into an uproar, turned them into debating societies, caused them to devour each other, and to proceed to the greatest extremities, so that he was himself oftentimes in jeopardy and sore afraid. He “necessarily became repellent” to the unbelieving, who resolved all his reasoning from the Scriptures into mere opinion and speculation. Still it was wisely and benevolently arranged. To agitate the synagogue by introducing new things among them, was God’s plan for “opening their eyes, and turning them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God.” The result of the apostle’s stormy disputes was good. The honest and good hearts of the bystanders received the kingdom, and were at length separated by the apostle from the rest who blasphemed the Word and reproached the speaker. Having accomplished this, the agitation died away, and “nothing but peace and prosperity” prevailed among the unbelieving Jews, after they had expelled that “unfortunate man,” Paul, and his disciples.

It is said that “History is ever reproducing itself.” It seems to be so to some extent in the history of my career for a few years past. Jesus sent Paul to agitate the peaceful synagogues; I am invited by peaceful societies to come and lay before them my views. I go, and expound to them what I see written in the Scriptures. I go to speak what I believe is the truth, not to ascertain what they believe, and then repeat it. It matters not to me what the society believes; I go to tell them what the Scriptures teach. This is all that I or they need care to know. I speak it without circumlocution or apology, in an open and straightforward manner, and leave it with them for their consideration. It would be strange if the Word rightly divided in this cloudy and dark day did not agitate men’s minds. It is a good sign when such an effect is produced. Where it is not, it argues a hard-hearted insensibility to “the deep things of God.” Intelligent, thoughtful minds must be agitated when they find that God’s way is not theirs. They express their views of what has been shown them. They begin to think it must be so. Their brethren are alarmed for the old creed, and become suddenly filled with zeal, and speak evil of the “new doctrine.” Finding their position unsustainable by Scripture, they resort to clamour, to reproach, to the exercise of authority, and at length to expulsion of the “perverted.” Their peace has been disturbed, indeed, but the agitation has proved a benefit—it has separated the wheat from the chaff, which having been thoroughly cleaned, is preserved until the time arrives to remove the chaff out of the way. Like the “pestilent” Paul, I have the honour to be reproached by the enemy, who naturally entertains no good will towards the disturber of his peace. He speaks “all manner of evil of me falsely,” I am happy to know, and charges me with views and practices which have no existence save in the malevolence of his own fleshly mind. The following tirade is a specimen of this sort of thing from the pen of President Campbell. It forms three paragraphs of his letter “to the Church of Christ in Paisley, with its bishops and deacons;” which appears to have been elicited by Matthew Tannehill’s epistle to Dr. Richardson; a morsel of gossip too precious not to be magnified into a more formal condemnation of myself and friends. The following are his words: —

“Doctors of theology, as such—doctors of medicine—doctors of philosophy—doctors of opinions (to which learned class Doctor Thomas belongs)—have no moral chairs or moral authority, no ecclesiastical power, no prescriptive rights over the understanding, the conscience, or the hearts of the citizens of Messiah’s spiritual empire. There is no spiritual nourishment in mere opinion, or in human science, falsely so called. These play round the head, but come not to the heart.

“Opinions and speculative views on any subject—human depravity, divine grace, election, the fall of man, the millennium, the essences of things, divine or human—flatter pride, feed the imagination, centre in self-esteem, and terminate in schism.

“The history of this unfortunate man is a monument of its fatal tendencies. With respectable talents, a medium education, a decent diction, and many good opportunities, he has only bewildered himself and a few disciples; and by his own puffing, has puffed them up into a bloated self-esteem, and a supreme contempt for all who will not do homage to the idol which he has set up. A speculative, self-confident neologist, on any subject, with some fervour and fluency, may bewilder a few unstable souls, and lead them captive at his will. But the spell soon passes away. The human mind demands a more substantial bill of fare. Ephraim became lean while he fed upon the wind, but when joined to his idols, the oracle commanded to let him alone. To reason against dogmatism, is as hopeless as to reason with a spiritual rapper of the present day, or as it was with a second Adventist in the year FORTY-SEVEN. It is a wise and benevolent arrangement, that such theorists necessarily become repellent, and like some of the pests of ancient times, devour each other and annihilate themselves.”

This extract is a sketch of the original as it appears to the limner through the haze of his own prejudices and misconceptions. All things with friend Campbell are “opinions and speculative views,” which are not comprehended in his limited matter-of-fact creed. He very carefully keeps out of sight “the gospel of the kingdom,” which is the real ground of difference between me and all others who oppose. This is not one of his “facts,” and therefore rejected as an opinion. What he calls my opinions and speculative views, I am prepared to show are the things revealed in the Word of God for faith. My full assurance of their truth, and earnest expression of it, he styles “dogmatism;” and the gospel of the kingdom, the idol I have set up for all to worship! He perceives, however, that any attempt on his part to reason successfully against the things I advocate, is hopeless. It is; for he must bring not only reason, but God’s testimony, to bear against me. This he is incompetent to do, dwelling in outer darkness as far as intelligence in the “sure word of prophecy” is concerned. “This unfortunate man,” as he styles me, “is a monument” of strong men being prostrated by God’s weakness in modern times. God has ever chosen persons despised by their contemporaries to bring to nothing the theology of the schools. He does not use the wise in their own conceit, professors and presidents of divinity establishments, to enlighten the people. He leaves them in their solemn foolishness as blind to lead the blind; and takes fishermen, and carpenters, and tentmakers, and healers of the sick, &c., to reduce their “wisdom” to absurdity, “that no flesh should glory in his presence.” This is very mortifying to the founder of Bethany College, who “desires to fit and furnish men for church and state, as well as for the physical, the intellectual, the moral, the spiritual, and the eternal universe.” But God will not accept his services in this work; for the simple reason, that he is unqualified for it. One thing thou lackest—understanding and faith in the promises of God. Without this, thy desires are vanity and vexation of soul.

When a great dog bays the moon, all the little village curs must take a turn. This is often annoying to the weary traveller, who would rather sleep than count the hours of the steeple clock. But experience teaches the expediency of letting the dogs bark until they perceive that the great dog sees no more in the moon to bay. It is no use giving chase to them with wrath. The exercise would be too fatiguing, and bootless withal; for bark they will until there is no more bark in them. Paul appears to have been a good deal annoyed by dogs; therefore he cautions all who follow his track to “beware of dogs.” I apprehend it was not the barking dogs he cared so much for, as about those sneaking, grinning, snarling curs, which Isaiah describes as “dumb dogs that cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber; greedy dogs that can never have enough,” and when they come upon you they would as soon “bite and devour” you, as seize upon a bone. “Give not things holy unto dogs,” saith Jesus; for “it is not fit to take the children’s meat and to throw it unto dogs.” There are no dogs in the Holy City. This is constituted of Christ’s sheep; and all “the dogs are without.”

But to return from this digression about the dogs, or “blind and ignorant watchmen,” to editor Wallis of the British Millennial Harbinger by a reference to whom I was about to conclude this article. His great exemplar, my friend the Bethanian President, having bayed “this unfortunate man,” whom he styles “moon-stricken,” to his heart’s content, the small gentleman of Peck Lane seizes the opportunity of bow-wowing approbation of the great growl generated by Matthew Tannehill’s piquant allusion to “Dr. Thomas’ disciples,” and echoed in the epistolary extract above recited. “Elder” James Wallis thus delivers himself in a note appended to the president-professor’s letter to the Paisley “Church of Christ.”

“Any theory of religion, or speculation of the human mind, that causes division among those who are united together in Christian fellowship, on the principles of one body, one spirit, one hope—one Lord, one faith, one immersion—one God and Father of all, who is above all, through all, and in all disciples of Christ—is not from God. The union produced by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of believers, is that which springs from love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, fidelity, meekness, temperance, for against such there is no law. ‘And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh, with the affections and lusts.’ Since, then, we are made alive by the Spirit, let us also walk in and by his directions. Let us not be vainglorious, provoking one another, envying one another, because of the different gifts and temporal blessings conferred upon any, and of which we may not ourselves be partakers. So far as our knowledge and observation extend, no novel theorist or bold materialist has caused more divisions and unfruitfulness of soul among his associates, than the celebrated Dr. Thomas, to whom the above letter refers.”

The writer of the above assumes for an acknowledged truth, what he, or any one else connected with him, has never proved, namely, that those communities he styles churches of Christ are congregations of true believers. Nothing is from God that divides a genuine Christian church; and that is an offence of which I am entirely guiltless. The things I have brought out from the prophets and apostles have divided churches of Campbellite and Millerite “disciples;” but never a church of Christ. A church of Christ is not so easily divided; because it is composed of people who have intelligently obeyed the gospel of the kingdom; and such are not to be turned about by every wind of doctrine that happens to blow. The members of such a church have “full assurance of faith and hope,” and are not to be turned from their steadfastness by “any theory of religion, or speculation of the human mind.” The divisions I am accused of making have been produced by some embracing “the testimony of God” declared. Mr. Wallis errs in stating that “those” he refers to “are united together in Christian fellowship on the principles of” the unities he quotes from Paul. The Campbellite body is not the “One Body.” It is infidel of the “One hope of the calling.” Its faith is not the “One Faith,” but a mere belief of facts; and its immersion is not the “One Baptism,” because it is not predicated on the one faith of the things hoped for and unseen. From the one faith, hope, and baptism, it is as alien as any of its sister sects. Campbellite churches profess indeed to be united together on the principle indicated; but we have learned to know that “profession is not principle” in this world of hypocrisy and sham. Paul was “bound with a chain” for the one hope, which he tells us is “Israel’s hope,” but one which the Campbellite “disciples” ridicule as a mere carnal and Jewish idea, beneath the regard of a Christian! There is no “indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of” such believers; for the Holy Spirit dwells not with scoffers at “that good thing which Jehovah hath promised to the house of Israel and the house of Judah:” he dwells not in hearts which are strangers to the promises; nor is he the author of Campbellite “union, love, joy, peace, &c.” These result from mere partisanship, as I know by hard-earned experience. Cease to glorify the president of Bethany College; show that he and his preaching associates are now and have been for years constituting themselves transgressors by building up again the things they laboured to destroy; testify in behalf of the neglected and despised prophetic writings; plead for the gospel of the kingdom of God, &c., and you will soon hear the cry raised, “This fellow is not one of us! He is a sower of discord among brethren, a dogmatist, a schismatic, a disturber of the peace wherever he goes, a bold materialist;” with many other epithets of a like complimentary character. All their love, joy, peace, and gentleness are gone; but every evil work remains. They condemn in others what they glorify in themselves. Look at their Supervisor! He writes to the Baptist church in Paisley, styling it “the Church of Christ” there. Now, if that be a church of Christ, so are all the others of that denomination in fellowship with it. Where, I ask, is the man that has created more schisms in such churches of Christ than A. Campbell? He acknowledges them to be churches of Christ, and their members Christians; and yet has set them all by the ears, has destroyed many of them root and branch, and made them a standing jest in word and deed! Yet this is the man with his associates that speak evil of me; because, in “reasoning with the people out of the Scriptures,” communities which I do not acknowledge are Christ’s are agitated, and sometimes divided by the majority casting out the few who may respond to the testimony presented! But why is Mr. Campbell so changed as by his present practice to convict himself of sin, of defiling the temple of God, and therefore himself obnoxious to destruction? Why does he now condemn others for doing what he once gloried to do? In answer to the former inquiry, I reply that he has grown vainglorious in his old age. He seeks that sort of glory in which other men of the world delight—that of being the founder of a college, which, being endowed, shall place him in the estimation of posterity among the great men of their antiquity! When engaged in creating schisms among the Presbyterians and Baptists of former years, and denouncing schools and colleges, Bible and Missionary Societies, he was small in his own eyes; had not then been puffed up by the fulsome flattery of the ignorant multitude; and had not apostatised from the mottoes of his “Christian Baptist,” to the imposition of his own presidential and professional authority upon a confederacy of churches from a theological throne. Having matured his sectarian and collegiate speculations, and incurred heavy responsibilities in carrying them out, the mammon of unrighteousness is greatly in demand; and more is needed than can be extracted from his own flock. He finds it necessary therefore to milk the goats; and as the Baptists were once goats and treated as such, it became necessary to propitiate them! His policy is to cajole them now, and to preach up union and communion for the sake of the loaves and fishes they may be persuaded to contribute to the carrying out of his schemes. In reply to the latter inquiry, he condemns others for being remote causes of divisions, because it disturbs his schemes. Having worked things up to their present stagnation, he deprecates all agitation of his waters, lest they should be lashed into a storm, and mar his pride of life. Foolish and blind is he! Sowing to the wind with the certainty, if he live long enough, of reaping the whirlwind. Blind, and unable to see, not afar off, but objects near at hand! He is labouring to endow a college for his sect, that shall continue for ages; and cannot see that the Judge is actually standing at the door, and exclaiming, “Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garment, that he walk not naked, and that they see not his shame!” A pretty educator of youth for the church is this! Cannot discern the signs of the times; and yet pretends to “prescriptive rights over the understanding, the conscience, and the hearts of the citizens of Messiah’s spiritual empire;” of which he has no more scriptural conception than the tiara adorned prophet of “Eternal Rome!” We must look beyond the examples found in Messrs. Campbell and Wallis, for those who have “crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.” Enjoying the fat things of the present evil world, and as much of its honours and wealth as they can grasp, they are the last men who should taunt me with neglect of the Christian duty. They have been labouring for years for what this world affords, and they have obtained it. They are rich in this world’s stuff. They can count up their thousands of mammon; their flocks and herds; their broad acres and coal fields; endowments and houses, and fashionable goods. But of all these things “the unfortunate man” they revile and speak evil of falsely is almost as destitute of as the Great Founder of Christianity himself. I have not laboured for these things, and therefore have not acquired them. While they have been covering themselves with fatness, I have been labouring without hire, and trusting to Providence for supplies, in the work of opening the blind eyes, and of turning men from Gentilism to the intelligent belief of the knowledge of God as revealed in the old and new Scriptures. The things set forth in these writings are doubtless “novel theories” to Mr. Wallis, whose mental vision is bounded by the horizon of the Bethanian theology. The greater part of God’s word is a novelty to this: as much as perhaps the “new doctrine” introduced into Athens was to the Epicureans and Stoics of old. I must not therefore be angry with Mr. Wallis for styling me “a novel theorist;” but rather accept it as a compliment to my industry and independence of research, that notwithstanding so many thousands are professedly studying the Scriptures with all the aids that college learning can afford them, and fail to bring out any thing more than a fancied demonstration of the articles of faith bequeathed by the fathers of Protestantism; I, under no obligation to their theologies, have become celebrated for the new things I have extracted from the divine treasury, causing less of the soul-fruitfulness approved by the world’s wise men, than any other. But Mr. W. does not intend the epithet as a compliment. I will not, however, quarrel with him for this. I plead guilty to the indictment. I have theorised new things from God’s Word. That is, I have brought out God’s theory, which is new to my contemporaries. It is the divine plan or system yet subsisting only in the mind of Jehovah, revealed in the Bible—a purpose, not yet an accomplished fact, but a matter of promise, and propounded to the heirs of promise, for their faith. In bringing out this novelty to Messrs. Campbell, Wallis and Co., I have done no more than every student of the Word ought to do, though it has, indeed, been very offensive to them, who have proved themselves incompetent to do likewise. Be not angry at me, my friends, for this thing; for it is commendable before God. “Every Scribe,” saith Jesus, “instructed for the kingdom of the heavens is like to a man who is master of a house, that bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.” Ye style me “a novel theorist and bold materialist” for this; but Jesus, you perceive, regards the bringer-forth of new things as one “instructed for the kingdom.” How different this judgement to yours! The soul-unfruitfulness of my associates consists in their not yielding fruit agreeable to your depraved tastes. But who in their right mind would care to be approved by you, seeing that your judgment is so diverse from His who spake not as man, but as the oracle of God? Suffer ye then this word of reproof; and be ye awakened by it to the conviction, that it is high time to awake from our daydreams to the stern realities of that great and terrible day which is stealing upon the world.

EDITOR.

* * *