The Apostasy Unveiled (1872)

Download: PDF — The Apostasy Unveiled (1872)

The apostacy unveiled

John Thomas, John S. Watt

Harvard College Library

FROM

Pres. C. W. Eliot .

2 , John to THE

APOSTACY UNVEILED:

BEING

A DEBATE

BETWEEN

JOHN THOMAS, M.D.,

A PRESBYTERIAN CLERGYMAN,

THIRTY-FOUR YEARS AGO,

THE POPULAR DOCTRINES OF IMMORTALITY, HEAVEN, HELL, ELECTION, AND KINDRED TOPICS:

ARE THEY SCRIPTURAL?

"Now this is the testimony, that God hath given unto US (the true believers) eternal life; and this life is in His son; he as the Son has this life; he who has not the Son of God, has not this life."—(John v. 12.)

"There is an animal body; for thus it is written, the first man Adam was made a living soul. And there is a spiritual body: for thus it is written, the last Adam was made a vivifying spirit."—PAUL.

"This mortal body must put on immortality."—PAUL.

1872、

LONDON: GEORGE JOHN STEVENSON, PATERNOSTER ROW. NICHOLS, SON AND CO., LONG ACRE.

BIRMINGHAM: ISSUED BY THE CHRISTADELPHIAN PUBLICATION SOCIETY, ATHENEUM ROOMS, TEMPLE ROW, WHERE IT MAY BE OBTAINED OF ROBERT ROBERTS.

12852

C 1363.164

HARWALT CO LEE LIBRARY

APR 8 1913

CAMBRIDGE, MASS.

we b . r. liot PREFACE.

The debate here reproduced was first published in America, in 1838. It was entitled, "A TESTIMONY AGAINST THE APOSTACY; being a report of certain matters set forth in a debate between John S. Watt, a Presbyterian clergyman, and John Thomas, M.D., Editor of the Advocate." It was both printed and published by the Dr. himself, at Liberty, Amelia Co., Va., as a stitched pamphlet of 175 pages, of which very few copies are now extant. Dr. Thomas is the reporter of the debate. He drew the report from notes made at the time, prefacing it with correspondence and explanations which, being of purely local interest, both as to time and place, would now be inappropriate. An exception is made in favour of the following sentences:—

"The importance of the subject-matter of this volume, it is thought, is second to no other hitherto presented to the consideration of the citizens of these United States. If to stir up the people to search the Scriptures for themselves; to excite them to a scrutiny of the pretensions of the multitudinous and contradictory gospels of an anti-christian world; if to arouse them to a sense of their own spiritual rights; if to stimulate them to examine, that they may ascertain what the true 'power of God' for remission and eternal life is; if to unfold to them the 'strong delusion' which darkens their understandings, causing them to 'believe a lie'; if to teach them the true doctrine of life, and the way by which they may attain to 'glory, honour, and immortality'; if these things, we say, be useful, important, and desirable—then will this volume meet with the approbation of all 'good and honest hearts' for the endeavour, at least of its Editor, both in debate and by the press to effectuate such inestimable results. Be his fate, however, prosperous or adverse, he will have the satisfaction of which neither man nor fiend can rob him; namely, that of having done his best in contending earnestly before God and men, in the face of friends and foes, for that 'One Faith,' which was delivered to the saints of the primitive Age by the veritable apostles of the Son of God; to whom be ascribed the language of the prophet—

Jehovah God be praised,

The God of Isra-el,

Who by His power only

Doth wondrous things perform!

His glorious name be praised

For ever, evermore;

May the whole earth His glory

Pervade from shore to shore!—Amen!"

Psalm lxxii. 18, 19.

Great changes have taken place since that time; and none greater, as to the matter in hand, than those affecting the Dr. himself. To the grief of a large circle of benefited readers, he has been compelled to lay down his pen at the summons of the common enemy, not, however, before he witnessed his work fruitful over a large field, and his prophetico-political anticipations signally confirmed.

The progress he made in divine knowledge during a career of nearly forty years, is illustrated in the works he had published since the debate with Mr. Watt. Elpis Israel, in 1849; Eureka (his master piece), Vol. I. (1861), Vol. II. (1865), Vol. III. (1866); Anastasis (1866), and many minor publications, show a steady advance in the path struck in his earlier investigations. This advance was misinterpreted by some as a change; a close examination shows there was no change, but an amplification of principles accepted, though not discerned in their detail in the beginning.

This debate is 84 years old. It cannot, therefore, be expected that the Dr. here will compare with the Dr. in later productions; yet there is less disparity than might be expected. There is herein more than the promise of the bud; it even reaches past the stage of the blossom and shows the fruit already ripening, and this in a form more suited to the necessities of the class for whose benefit it is now published by his sorrowing executors. The greater simplicity of the language adapts it for the purpose of enlightening the ignorant, even better perhaps than more advanced productions. The enquirer after truth will be aided in his search; yet those who have attained the happy prize will not be uninterested in the glimpse herein afforded of the time when the truth was just beginning to struggle out of the darkness, and matters shaping for their present happy issue. God bless and prosper His word to the further enlargement of the number of such as are waiting for the kingdom of God.

ROBERT ROBERTS.

THE APOSTACY UNVEILED.

The volume of controversy now submitted to the public proposes to record substantially certain important matters set forth, and defended in a debate between a Mr. John S. Watt and Dr. Thomas, who, at that time, was editor of a periodical called The Advocate. The discussion was held in Lunenburg County, Virginia. It commenced on the first day of August, 1837, and continued during five days. It originated in a discourse delivered by Dr. Thomas, at the Tussekiah Meeting House, in that county, upon the subject of this passage of Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews: "If the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the polluted, sanctified to the cleansing of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who, through the Eternal Spirit, offered himself without fault to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?"—(ch. ix. 18, 14.) Among the audience, which was large, there was a Presbyterian clergyman, whose name is John S. Watt. This gentleman, after Dr. Thomas had left the county, diligently published his exceptions to the address; which elicited from certain individuals the inquiry—"Why do not some of you learned men answer him?" This provoked a declaration on his part of a willingness to debate. This avowal was communicated to a Mr. Albert Anderson, who immediately sought and effected an interview with Mr. Watt upon the subject.

After somewhat lengthened preliminaries, arrangements were made for the discussion, which duly commenced on August 1, 1837, at "The Fork" Meeting House, Lunenburg, Va.

The Meeting House, though of good dimensions, having been judged too confined for the accommodation of the public, the brethren erected an arbour and stage. The audience was large, and, from the equipages and other concurrent circumstances, quite respectable. The weather during the first three days was favourable; but on the fourth and fifth, rainy. Considerable interest seemed to be excited; and the attention was unexceptionable; the rain, however, cooled the enterprise of many, and correspondingly diminished the bulk of the assembly on the two last days. Yet the house was well filled; and on the Lord's day, being the day after the debate, it was crowded with a most exemplary, patient, and listening multitude.

Arrived on the ground, Dr. Thomas was introduced to "the Reverend" John S. Watt. Having exchanged civilities, they walked aside; when Dr. Thomas observed to Mr. W., that he had come there by invitation to discuss all topics appertaining to the Christian religion as opposed to popular views; that in doing so, he should, no doubt be in his (Mr. Watt's) estimation, severe; but, that he begged him to bear in mind, that his remarks would be against sectarianism, and not personal; that it was impossible that they could be personal, because, until that day, he (Mr. Watt) and Dr. Thomas were perfectly unacquainted; or words to that effect. Mr. Watt acknowledged the distinction, and considered himself equally at liberty to exercise the same freedom with Dr. Thomas' views, without incurring the charge of personality. This was according to the reporter's understanding of the conversation; though Mr. Watt, in the debate, said, that he told Dr. Thomas, that he should consider himself free to impugn his conduct in coming over from England to attack the religion of his (Mr. Watt's) country, or words to that effect. This explanation he gave in consequence of Dr. Thomas objecting to his personalities, as contrary to the agreement made between them in the conversation, the particulars of which he (Dr. T.) stated to the audience.

The moderators having been appointed and the rules read, Mr. Watt stood forward and proposed that the congregation should join with him in prayer upon the occasion. He was preparing to carry into effect the suggestion, when Dr. Thomas arose and said that, of course Mr. Watt was at liberty to do as he pleased as to that matter, and his brethren and friends in the assembly could join him as they judged fit; but that for himself and some others, he would say that they took no part in the act at all.*

Mr. Watt then offered a short 'prayer.' Having finished, he gave out the following text.—"But though we or an angel from heaven, preach any other doctrine unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed!

As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed!—(Gal. i. 8.)

"The Reverend" gentleman commenced by giving his hearers a short sketch of the history of the Baptists in Virginia, and, in effect, divided his exordium into three parts; the first related to the times before the revolt of the American Colonies from the Mother Country; the second, to the times of that political earthquake; and the third, to the times since that event. Under the first head he spoke concerning the labours of the Baptists in Virginia. Their success, which was great, excited the ineffectual opposition of their enemies. Thus they became the subjects of persecution, for the purpose of putting an end to what were regarded as their fanatical labours. They were excluded from houses, and proscribed by law from exercising their ministerial functions. At that time, the yoke of Englishmen was upon our necks; they required all to submit to them, but British intolerance failed to put down the despised and persecuted Baptists. The whole power of the government was combined in vain to divert them from their purpose. They were threatened and imprisoned for preaching the gospel; but all was useless. So mightily grew the word, that their enemies soon found it politic to take Gamaliel's advice—"take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men. Refrain, and let them alone; for if this counsel, or this work, be of men, it will come to nought; but if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God." Persecution is the best way to give the persecuted importance in the opinion of the public. Persecute a people if it is desired to give them consequence. This he considered as illustrated in the case of the Baptists. But they did not owe their success simply to persecution. It was to be ascribed chiefly to the power of God working with them. They were a plain people. They read the Bible, and were not too proud to recognize the work of the Holy Spirit. There were no Millennial Harbinger and Advocate* then to disturb their peace. Their success was owing to the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration, to the oppressiveness of the established order of things, and to the favour they received from the influential of their day. Regeneration by baptism had always been the doctrine of Roman Catholics, and of those who have "a form of godliness, but not the power." The Baptists had the truth on their side: they honoured the Holy Spirit, and therefore, the Holy Spirit honoured them.

Having concluded his remarks under the first head, he proceeded under the second, to speak of the politics of the Baptists. They were republicans from interest and principle; and their influence was great among the people, from that time till now. Thirdly, they had been a powerful and influential people.

There was no reviling of the old Baptist Ministers then; but it can be done here between the Forks of Meherrin; yes, and it has been done. But there are few now entitled to the character of a genuine old Baptist. He illustrated this by an anecdote of an "old Baptist woman," and then spoke of the pollution of the beautiful House of the Forks (an old frame building, neither lathed, plastered nor glazed) which in those days had not been polluted by the feet of strangers.

The occasion of Dr. Thomas' visit to these parts will be found in the following extract from the Apostolic Advocate, page 41, vol. 3.— "The occasion of my journey will be found in the falling to pieces of the Baptist denomination in Lunenberg, Mecklenburg, Nottoway, Prince Edward and Amelia. Several churches in these counties have renounced the traditions of men, and desire to constitute themselves on the basis of the New Testament. I go to afford them my humble but determined assistance. Hannibal swore eternal enmity to the Romans; but I, better disposed to my fellow-men, vow no hatred to their persons, though I have declared a mortal, uncompromising strife against their traditions and tottering institutions." Mr. Watt then descanted on the relationship between himself and Dr. Thomas. Dr. Thomas was a foreigner. He had no objection to a good and virtuous man, but no sooner did he put his foot upon the shores of America than he began to revile our religions. He (Mr.W.) was a Presbyterian and could not bear his religion reviled, a system which he had always recognized as a part of the church of Jesus Christ. James Shelburn has ascended up on high. He did not believe that his spirit rests in the cold sepulchre; and were he here, he would address his flock in the language of the text,—"though we, or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed!"—"If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: for he that biddeth him God speed, is partaker of his evil deeds."—(2 John i. 10, 11). Will it be denied that another gospel has been preached in the Forks of Meherrin? According to Dr. Thomas, nine hundred and ninety-nine out of one thousand must be re-immersed to be properly baptised.

On page 201, vol. 3, he says, "if ours be the genuine labours of preparation, then is the Baptist Denomination part and parcel of the symbolic Babylonish Empire."—Hence the Baptists must preach a gospel different to Dr. Thomas', and therefore, James Shelburn would condemn it as accursed.

Hear his opinion of the religious meetings of our country. "When I first landed in America, and attended their camp meetings and revivals, I thought I had landed on a New World indeed, whose inhabitants professed a religion entirely different from anything with which I was acquainted. At some of their nocturnal orgies in the woods, I could only figure to myself Bedlam broke loose; so frantic were the cries and agonizings of the poor deluded creatures. 'And, mark Sir, for every effect there must be an adequate cause; but, on these occasions there was none. The 'sermons' preached were of the most childish and pettifogging description—jejune in the extreme. No testimony from the word of God submitted; but in lieu thereof the merest old wives' fables. I refer you to an 'elder' James Fife, now in this city, I believe, for a specimen of this preaching. He will wile away an hour in reciting the most lugubrious death-bed tales his imagination can conjure up; and this he calls preaching the gospel. The tone of his voice, his infernal phraseology, his sobbing enunciations, touch, harrow up, and excite the feelings of the unthinking girls, who begin to manifest an ebullition of feeling corresponding to his cadences. The poor blacks, too, begin to sob and wave to and fro, like the billows of the ocean—till at length a hubbub bursts forth to the tune of 'I'm passing over Jordan, will you come along with me,' which, when well sung, is certainly very exciting. All this is called 'preaching with the Spirit.' This is the crisis: a form is cleared for 'penitents,' who are urged to come forward and kneel down, that 'God's ministers may bear them up in their arms to a throne of grace!' From fifteen to twenty or thirty, may be seen kneeling, sobbing and agonizing. This form is called the 'anxious bench.' I have seen in the West a 'penfold' crowded with men and women promiscuously collected together 'praying,' beating their breasts, shouting and jumping, till at length they have sunk down exhausted, and some fall into convulsions. When they are all tranquillized, which they soon can be by the word of the preacher, some of them profess to have got 'religion' and to have been converted.'" vol. ii. p. 34.—Dr. Thomas can tell us of all the immersed fanatics; and that all will be damned unless immersed into the true faith! In writing of the Baptist preachers, he calls them 'accursed preachers of another, and therefore diabolical gospel.' (Adv. p. 197. vol. 2.) The alternative, therefore is between James Shelburn and Dr. Thomas.

Having advanced thus far, Mr. Watt came to the Tussckiah address.

He observed that he should, perhaps, frequently refer to this.

His (Dr. Thomas') object was to prove, that, as under the Jewish Dispensation, the blood of animals was necessary to cleanse the polluted from the filth of the flesh, so under the Christian, the blood of Jesus was necessary to cleanse the conscience from dead works. He took two hours to prove what none would deny. The first out-of-the-way thing was that of people not going to heaven before they are raised from the dead; another, that baptism is one of the "things in heaven;" another, that the prayers of the unimmersed were of no more value than those of Mahommedans. Our fathers prayed to be delivered out of the hands of their oppressors; he heard them, and did deliver! He also told us that justification by faith alone was an absurdity.

He began by telling us that man was depraved. He gave an orthodox account of Adam and Eve, and of their primitive holiness, but overlooked the whole part the serpent acted in that transaction. What, Dr. Thomas, is your opinion of his Satanic Majesty? Receiving no reply, Mr. Watt continued, that the first objectionable thing was as to the consequence of the Fall. Dr. Thomas believes that Adam had no soul that could die—that he had no immortal soul! But that the sentence referred to his body.

The thing that originated this debate was Dr. Thomas' idea that man had no soul. He discovered that he was a Materialist, which some denied. He might have been mistaken; he had read an article in the Advocate entitled 'no-soul system,' which rendered him yet more doubtful. Dr. Thomas had heard a report that it was believed, that he denied the existence of the soul, and on page 253, vol. III, he says that the report is slanderous and untrue, and that he believes in 'body, soul, and spirit, the whole person.' He had been taunted by his (Dr. Thomas') friends with the question why he did not state his objections to Dr. Thomas' discourse to his face while he was in these parts: this he would now do. He did not know then how willing Dr. Thomas was to admit that he was a Materialist.

Dr. Thomas says, page 219, vol. II: "Man cannot exist without breath or spirit, soul or blood, and body, or an assemblage of organs for the development of functions manifested by the action of air and blood upon them. The how these functions are evolved, especially those of the brain, being inscrutable to the ancients, as to a certain extent it is to us, they infused a ghost into the cavernous sinuses of the body, where they kept it a prisoner until liberated by that veritable kidnapper, death! This is truly Pagan, Papistical, and Protestant; a real tradition of the devil. Having thus tenanted the body with a ghost or spirit, they made him president of the corporeal republic: the immortal shade of a mortal substance! Thus enthroned, all mental, moral, spiritual, or intellectual operations were attributed to him;

all other functions to the body."

Did you ever think you would hear such language in this enlightened age? Again, on page 246, vol. II, he says 'the brutes have 'souls' as well as men.' You start at this; but reflect. The word soul in Greek is psuchee, and signifies the animal life. Now, is not animal life common to men and brutes? Certainly; well then, the soul or animal life, which Moses calls the blood, does not 'distinguish man from the brute creation.' Dr. Thomas continues: "you have heard talk of religion in the soul? Well, the true meaning is fanaticism in the blood. This puts you in possession of the philosophy of the wildfire fanaticism of the day. Do you not know that a man is the most 'religious' when he is most drunk? This is owing to the rapidity of the circulation of the blood. The religion of the blood frenzies the brain and enables the subject to see sights and hear voices, and feel feelings of the most remarkable kind! Reason and Scripture have nothing to do with such religion. To fever the blood is the true secret of getting up a revival!" In a certain Dialogue, he makes Tomaso say: 'As to the immortality of the soul, in the popular sense of that phrase, it is nowhere taught in the Bible.' Mr. Watt did not think it necessary to prove this to his audience who had read the Bible. The immortality of the soul is taught there; and Dr. Thomas knows that he has no right to use this language. The definition of the words of Scripture must be derived from lexicographers. Wherever 'soul' is used, it signifies something separate from the body. This appears from Johnson and Webster. Dr. Thomas says the soul signifies the blood. This is not true: it signifies the separate and independent spirit.

He came next to the reasons he could adduce to sustain the immortality of the soul. 1.—Materialism is repugnant to common sense, in proof of which, he appealed to the acceptance of the word soul among the illiterate, by whom the doctrine of Materialism was rejected. Hear what Mary says: "My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my saviour." Didn't she believe in the soul? David believed in the soul; for he says: "Why art thou cast down, O, my soul!" Psalm xlii. 5; and Job says "that there is a spirit in man." He could prove that Dr. Thomas believes in a soul. He writes concerning the incorruptible seed in the heart; and what can he mean by heart but the soul or moral sentiments through the intellect; and what is most astonishing, he says that the brain thinks; not the soul, but the brain! 2.—Materialism is contrary to all true philosophy. Lord Brougham has proved this; but Dr. Thomas sneers at Lord Brougham. Is it proper that he should do so? How could the preacher answer a sneer? 3.—Materialism amounts to Atheism. If Dr. Thomas believes there is a God, he believes in Him, as he says the Old Baptists believe in their gospel, without evidence, if he denies the 'immortality of the soul.'

There cannot be a God if there be not an 'immortal soul.' What have Materialists been through all ages? Look at Dr. Priestley. To be consistent, if Dr. Thomas worshipped a God at all, it ought to be a wooden god—a god that he can see with his eyes, that he can hear with his ears, and handle with his hands; for he recognises nothing which is not material. What Dr. Thomas has asserted in his phrenological sayings; everybody knows to be false. Materialism robs man of his dignity and destroys all moral obligation. And here is Dr. Thomas, come all the way from England to teach us illiterate Americans, and he tells us that some are immortal, some mortal, and some neither one nor the other! He addressed himself to the mothers of his audience; spoke of their beautiful infants, their tender offspring, whom Dr. Thomas had consigned to the damnation of annihilation. They would never see them after they had been laid in the grave, for they were all doomed to that damnation! The heathen, too, have been turned over by this new teacher, not to the damnation of hell, but to the damnation of annihilation! And we poor Episcopalians and Presbyterians and Baptists are all to be damned with this damnation, while he and his followers alone will ascend to that heaven which has been purchased by Jesus Christ!"

Dr. Thomas then came forward and in effect said—"Gentlemen and Ladies,—when I was invited to take part in this discussion, it was under the impression that I was to encounter a clergyman of the Presbyterian denomination. I listened very attentively for about two-thirds of my friend's speech, or rather 'sermon,' as he prefers to call it, before I could assure myself that he intended to assume the character which I had been led to suppose he ordinarily sustained—that, I mean, of a Presbyterian 'divine.' Judge of what must have been my surprise when I heard him belaud the Baptists! The panegyric which he has pronounced upon them led me, during its utterance, to conclude that certainly I had been deceived, and that Mr. Watt, instead of being a Presbyterian, must be a Baptist preacher; for thought I to myself, a consistent Presbyterian, and a 'divine' too, could never admit that the Baptists had the truth on their side;' for assuredly, if Baptism be true, Presbyterianism must be false!

But discovering at length that Mr. Watt was indeed a clergyman of the Presbyterian order, and not a Baptist, I began to philosophize upon the probable motive inciting him to such a singular course as he was adopting. I reflected upon the character of the neighbourhood: it is more Baptist in its predilections than otherwise; upon the constitution of the audience, we have the privilege of addressing; it is probably composed of many of the members of Baptist churches, and of the friends of Mr. Shelburn:—it was such ideas as these, that led me to conclude that Mr. Watt, by panegyrising the Baptists, was striving to throw them off their guard, and to enlist their prejudices against his opponent; so that 'seeing they might not perceive, and hearing they might not understand.'

It would have been a great point gained in his favour, could Mr. W. have succeeded in blinding your eyes against any thing we might have to offer to your inspection in reference to the defect or perversions embraced in the popular versions of the Christian religion. Hence we have been favoured this morning with appeals to prejudice both national, religious, and maternal. But such appeals are beneath the dignity of an intelligent mind, and quite extraneous to the attributes of a defender or an inquirer after the truth. It is only the multitude or the unthinking mass, who would condescend to lend an ear to such an insult upon their understandings. The speaker who now addresses you, my friends, has been opprobriously introduced to your notice on account of the land of his nativity. It is true I am an Englishman; a name, which, when compared with those of the rest of nations, certainly suffers no disparagement by the comparison. I am not ashamed of the name, neither do I glory in it. I claim no merit in being an Englishman, for the simple reason that I could not help it. I say that it is a name in which I make no boast; though it is quite possible to do so, without vanity or presumption;—the name in which I glory is the name of Christian. And to sustain this with credit and honour, is the chief object of my aspirations. If merit be due to men because of the national names they bear, certainly those citizens are the most noble and meritorious, who, whether they have been born in Britain, France, or Spain, do voluntarily of their own mind and choice, expatriate themselves from their native homes constitutionally to assume the name and rights of an American citizen. I consider, therefore, if any praise be due to a name, I am entitled to a greater share than my opponent; for I, though born an Englishman, am an American by choice; whereas he is one, because he could not help it! But for myself, I regard not the spot of earth on which a mortal first inhales the vital air; my mind is a foreigner to the national prejudices of the multitude: I regard all men as brethren according to the flesh; but more especially as my fraternal relatives if they be the exemplary members of the body of Christ. Other feelings than these cannot be harboured in the Christian's breast; for the kingdom of heaven is a nation of individuals, chosen by a belief of the truth from all the nations of the world. In my estimation there would be no sight more admirable than to see an assembly of French, British, Spanish, and others, all sitting down at one table to show forth the death of Christ, whose name they should have lawfully assumed on the American soil.

The momentous and stirring principles of the Christian's hope bury all national feuds and prejudices in the oblivion they deserve; and I cannot but conclude, that the man in whose breast such sentiments hold a place, is a stranger both to the spirit of Christ, and to the generous sympathies of an enlightened mind.

Suppose such appeals as you have heard this morning had been responded to by the Jews and Gentiles of the apostolic age, where now would have been the Christian religion? It would have been confined to the few who first professed it, with but a singularly small addition to their sect; or, at most, to the land of Palestine. It is probable, that we should all be sitting now in a valley of the shadow of death, our hopes being bounded by the chambers of the dead. The apostles were all Jews; and Paul, the author of our friend's text, a Hebrew of the Hebrews. His Master appointed him to the high office of ambassador from heaven to the nations. He proclaimed to them the manifesto of a Jewish king. Now, my friends, if all our race had been like our opponent, there would have been a universal clamour against 'this new teacher,' who had come all the way from Judea to teach us illiterate Gentiles; and who was reviling our religion, saying that our gods were no gods, and consigning us all, not to the damnation of Tartarus, but to the damnation of an everlasting destruction from the presence of his king! But, my friends, I cannot believe that you will respond to so insensate a cry.

As to his appeal to the Baptist portion of your assembly, what does it amount to? If he is honestly convinced of what he avers, he is certainly egregiously inconsistent, and truant to his own weal, in not becoming a Baptist;—but if he is merely complimenting your prejudices, then indeed he is playing the courtier to your self-esteem; which I should suppose, as intelligent people, would be judged an artifice calculated only to defeat itself.

We come now to our friend's text. It is true, he has taken a text, and a very important one too;—a text, indeed, to which you would do well all to take heed: but, orthodox-like, he has failed to expound it! He has preached from his text, truly; but it must be obvious to you all that he has not stuck to it. As far as his labours are concerned, we are all as uninformed concerning its import as though the apostle had never penned it! We have heard the text once only in the whole course of the 'sermon'; and that, not by way of exposition, but for the purpose of applying it to a case, which, according to our conception of the matter, was most extraneous; unless it can be shown by our friend that the Apostle had James Shelburn and John Thomas in his eye when he wrote it!

It is to be regretted that Mr. Watt should have preached a whole hour from a text, and yet have left his hearers as much in the dark as to its signification, as if he had never condescended to name or allude to it.

I cannot, therefore, my friends, permit so important an omission to pass unrepaired. Mr. Watt, having failed to preach his sermon from his text, I will endeavour to do it for him. I will then briefly illustrate it, by way of showing how completely it anathematizes the order to which my opponent belongs; and not only so, but by way of introduction to the examination of those things which will probably be brought forward in this debate.

In studying the epistolary writings of the New Testament, there are a few considerations which should never be lost sight of. Among these are the following: Who is the writer? and what facts are there in his history calculated to throw light upon what he has written? To whom does he write, and what circumstances are of note in relation to them? What are the things, or the subject-matter of his epistles? and so forth. The Epistle before us was written by one named Paul to certain persons in Galatia; a province of Roman Asia. Who was this Paul? He says that he was 'an apostle,' or a messenger: From whom? 'Not from men,' he continues, 'neither (constituted such) by man; but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father.' How do we in this remote age, know that he avers the truth? Some of us believe that whatever the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament contain, is faithfully and truly recorded; upon the testimony of these, then we believe he writes the truth. We depend not upon that portion of the word which Paul himself wrote, but on the collateral testimony of his contemporaries, among whom were apostles and evangelists; who, had he been an impostor, would not have admitted him to share with them in the apostleship and evangelical office. Peter acknowledges the genuineness of his character, and Luke records the wonderful works which God performed by his hand. Allow me here to press upon your attention, that none have any right to the character of apostles, or of 'successors of apostles,' or of persons "called and sent of God," unless they can produce in support of their pretensions "the signs of Apostles." This is the criterion of the genuineness or counterfeiture of those "who say they are apostles, but do lie." To this criterion, Jesus and Paul appealed for the truth of their pretensions; and the appeal was considered, as it ought to be, satisfactory by thousands of mankind. "We know," says Nicodemus, "that you are a teacher come from God; for no man can do these miracles which you do unless God be with him." When therefore, my friends, any gentleman presents himself to your notice "as a teacher called and sent of God," I counsel you not to receive him except he produces before you such credentials as such a high functionary is authorized and qualified to do. These few remarks we submit to the consideration of our clerical friend.

But, under this head, is there nothing else worthy of recollection in the life of the apostle to the Gentiles? Yes, there is; it is that of his conviction and conversion.

Of what was he convinced? Of the great truth that Jesus was the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world, according to the proclamation of John the Baptist, which was notorious among all the Jews. How was he convinced of the truth of this? By seeing Jesus on his road to Damascus. This ocular demonstration was overwhelming proof to the persecuting and Nazarene-reviling Saul, that the apostles were right in maintaining that the crucified Jesus had been raised by the power of God from the dead. Thus convinced, when and how was he converted? Arrived at Damascus, he put up at the house of one Judas. He remained there fasting for three days. Upon the third, Jesus sent a disciple, not a clergyman, but a layman named Ananias to the man of Tarsus. "Brother Saul," said he, "look up! The God of our fathers has chosen you to know His will, and to see that righteous person, and to hear a voice from his mouth; because you shall be his witness to all men, of those things which you have seen and heard.—And now, why do you delay? Arise and be baptised, and wash away your sins, invoking his name."—(Acts xxii. 14). Such was the conversion of Paul. You perceive from this the subject-matter of his belief, and what he did to obtain the remission of sins: he believed the truth, and obeyed it; and, as you will find by reading the Scriptures, he went everywhere proclaiming it. He was an honest man He practised and taught the things he believed and had himself obeyed. He did not pretend to be a Pagan while he hated their superstitions, and was doing all in his power to destroy it. He was straightforward and above board; and were he now in the midst of this assembly, and called upon to address it, he would not assume the guise of a Baptist if he were really a Presbyterian divine!

Who were these Galatians? They were inhabitants of Aisa Minor, among whom the apostles laboured for some time, discipling and teaching. In chapter iv. he tells that he declared the gospel to them; and that they received him as a messenger from God; and not only so, but that they obeyed the gospel: for Paul reminds them that they were all the sons of God through the faith; and that they had put on Christ by being baptised into him. These Galatians, then were certain Asiatics who had become the sons of God, by believing and obeying the gospel Paul preached; hence they were the 'brethren' of the apostle, by believing and obeying the same thing.

From these circumstances connected with the apostle and these Christians of Galatia, we have arrived at a knowledge of the things they believed and obeyed, or practised. Together, they made up the faith and the obedience of faith; or 'the gospel declared' and 'the gospel received' by them. Now concerning this gospel, which, in his epistle to the Ephesians, Paul terms the "ONE FAITH," he is exceedingly jealous.

He says, in his epistle to the Romans, that it is "THE POWER OF GOD FOR SALVATION," and that it is the rule by which "God will judge the hidden things of men;" and in the second chapter of the epistle before us, he says "that man is not justified by works of law (that is the Mosaic Law,) but ONLY through the faith (or gospel) of Jesus Christ." Now, if this be so, you cannot wonder at his sensitiveness when he learned that some of the Judaising teachers, the clergymen of his day, had crept in among the Galatians and were "perverting the gospel of Christ," and so turning it into "another gospel,"—a sort of Presbyterianism, perhaps, which however, he declared most solemnly "is not another," that is, it is spurious. Now concerning these "other gospels" as substitutes for The Gospel which he preached, and which the Galatians had believed and obeyed, and on account of which they had received the Spirit, he writes pronouncing the anathema in my friend's text, namely—"If even we, or an angel from heaven declare a gospel to you, different from what we have declared to you, let him be accursed." He emphasizes the curse upon the clergymen, and makes assurance doubly sure by telling these Galatians that the gospel he declared to them was the gospel they had received; therefore he imprecates again, and says, "As we said before, so now I say again, if any one declare a gospel to you different from what you have received, let him be accursed."

Now, the question crowds upon our attention, "Is the gospel according to Presbyterianism the gospel preached by Paul to the Galatians and others?" The identity between those notorious proclamations will depend upon the affirmative of another inquiry—are things which are different, equal to the same? If they are, then the two gospels are in truth one; but, if things different cannot be equal to the same, then the gospel according to John Calvin and John Knox, in other words Presbyterianism, is not the gospel Paul declared, and the Galatians received; and therefore, all and each of those who preach and teach it, are under the awful anathema of God's ambassador to the Gentiles! Do we avoid the question in its full extent? No; we affirm and truly believe, upon the strength of our friend's text, that there is no exception to this anathema. Be the preacher Presbyterian, Methodist, Episcopalian, Baptist, Campbellite, or whatever else you please to call him, if he is the teacher or preacher of any other than the Ancient Apostolic Gospel, he is obnoxious to the curse.

But Presbyterianism, what is it? It is an ecclesiastical system of about 300 years old. Save the presbyteries or elderships of the Churches of Christ (in regard to which I am free to confess myself a believer), there is in the New Testament no allusion to Presbyterianism, except as a part of the great apostacy that was to overspread the nations. Even the presbyteries of Presbyterianism resemble those of the Churches of Christ only in name. It is an unscriptural system, because its type is

not to be found in the sacred Word.

The Presbyterianism of the sixteenth century was Geneva Popery Calvinized; that of the seventeenth century was this Calvinistic Divinity which had previously been nationalized in Scotland, and authorized in England to oblige the Scotch; who upon condition of its establishment in the room of Episcopacy, agreed to supply the Long Parliament with troops to put down the unfortunate Charles the First. In this precious volume, my friend called "The Confession of Faith," we have the system in theory: if you want to become acquainted with it in practice, you must read the history of this ambitious system at home and abroad. We have often heard of that stale saying of Chillingworth, that "the Bible, the Bible alone is the religion of Protestants"—if this libel upon truth were so, what need would there be for such symbols as this. The Confession of Faith is far more essential to Presbyterian Protestantism than the Bible: take this away, but leave the Confession, and Presbyterianism may yet exist, in them at least; but destroy the Confession, and preserve the Bible, and Presbyterianism must ultimately perish for ever. Did you ever hear the great men of that Church quarrel and divide concerning the commands of God? But, at this time, they are combating about their Confession of Faith! The mere traditions of men, made orthodox in England by the Act of an Erastian Parliament! A parliament composed of men who regarded the government and orders of the church as things undetermined by God, and therefore matters of indifference! Presbyterianism is an anti-scriptural system. It is founded on a violation of the plain words of Christ, who said, "My kingdom is not of this world," and "he that takes the sword shall perish by the sword." His kingdom was never stained by the blood of his enemies shed by the hands of its citizens; but Presbyterianism is founded and baptized in human gore!

We have this morning been informed that the Baptists are a simple people, that they read the Scriptures, that they had the truth, that they honoured the Holy Spirit and therefore the Holy Spirit honoured them. Now if this be true, what must the Presbyterians be? The Baptists hold with adult immersion; and they used to consider in the times alluded to, that infant sprinkling was a dogma of Antichrist. We have heard our friend this morning, and himself being judge, say the Baptists are right in their sentence concerning this Presbyterian practice; for says Mr. Watt "they have the truth on their side!"

But why all this about the Baptists? Simply I conceive for the sake of instituting an invidious comparison between them and us. If they are simple, we must be compound; if they read the Scriptures, it is insinuated we do not; if they have the truth, we have error; if they honour the Holy Spirit, we do not; therefore the Holy Spirit has honoured them, while he is supposed to have heaped contumely upon us, as we and the Baptists are not one people; if they are all that, we must be all this.

But we plead 'Not guilty' to these criminations. We do read the Scriptures; they are our delight, and to them we make our appeal in all things, but we take exception to the judgment. We do not believe that a Presbyterian divine is competent to determine (if his theory in the confession be believed by him, which as things are is difficult to say) whether we have the truth or not; and that we are a straightforward and openfaced class of people, let those determine who know us best.

And as to the Baptists honouring the Holy Spirit, if I had their history at hand, I should be at no loss to show that in this country, at least, they had burlesqued, instead of honoured Him, by the most tumultuous fanaticism. As to the work of the Holy Spirit, we believe it to its fullest extent. It is a work which has been elaborated on a most magnificent scale. All nature around is a part of His stupendous work. By Him was a place appointed for the sun, the moon, and the stars; by Him were the heavens constituted, and peopled by the hosts thereof; by Him, man lives and enjoys the life that is; to Him, is he indebted for all: for it is by God, who is Spirit, that we are saved with a temporal and an eternal salvation.

The judgment, however, of Presbyterian clergymen upon this matter is of very passing consideration. We must again except to their competency to teach the religion of Jesus Christ. They are not agreed among themselves. Their rabbis, who rule the church, instead of all teaching the same thing, are split into divers factions, and for want of matters of sterner import to engage their minds, are killing time by slaying the orthodox standing of their rivals. I hold a paper in my hand called The Presbyterian. It is the organ of a party in the Presbyterian republic, which is construing The Confession of Faith according to its most obvious signification. This faction is termed the Old School, and claims to be orthodox; its rival is termed the New School, and though it also pretends to orthodoxy, the "true blues" regard them as heterodox. A rabbi of the new school thus sums up the dogmas of the old; which the Presbyterian acknowledges "substantially to convey the true doctrine on this subject:"—1. That man has no ability of any kind to obey God's commands or to do his duty. 2. That ability to comply with God's commands is not necessary to constitute obligation. 3. That God may justly require of man the performance of what he has no ability in his fallen state to perform, and may justly punish him for not performing it. 4. That all the powers of man for the performance of duty have been destroyed by the fall. "It is most true," says the Presbyterian, "that man has no independent ability of any kind to obey God's commands; it is also true that his obligation to obedience is not in the slightest degree impaired by the want of this ability; it is furthermore true that God may rigidly exact the obedience, which man, by his fall, has lost his ability to render; and finally, it is true, that the powers of man have been so affected by the fall, that he cannot himself, spiritually and acceptably perform his duty.

They who deny these positions, have but slender pretensions to Calvinistic orthodoxy, &c." Such is a specimen of the monstrous absurdity of orthodox Presbyterianism! I know not to which school my opponent belongs; nor does it matter in an examination of his religion; for Presbyterianism, whether new or old, is Presbyterianism still; though indeed the editor of this paper says, "If New Schoolism, the real object of which is revolution, should prevail, Presbyterianism would soon exist only in name." If he is of the Old School, then his religion is orthodox Calvinism of a genuine Servetus-burning spirit; for we conceive that none but such a spirit could interpret God's dealing with men so barbarously as set forth in the four preceding propositions; but if he avows his allegiance to the New School, then he is a revolutionist and a heretic, the general assembly of the Presbyterian church being his judge. Now, is it not obvious, that Mr. Watt has enough to do at home, without presenting himself to your notice as a corrector of my alleged heresies? "Physician! heal the disease which is preying upon the vitals of your own church before you pretend to cure others," is the prescription best suited to his unfortunate condition.

Now you will observe the tendency of these Presbyterian dogmata. If man has no ability to obey God's commands, it is necessary that God should operate upon him in some physical manner by His Holy Spirit, in order to enable him to believe; and if this be received, the machine can work comfortably enough. For God commands men to obey Him; but they cannot unless He enables them; it is therefore, not man's fault if he continues in disobedience; for he is willing, but unable to do his duty. Hence God is made responsible for the disobedience of every one who does not obey Him. Again, some men want to be saved; the clergy are also anxious that they should be saved, because it will increase their flocks and so enlarge the fleece; they therefore besiege heaven with their prayers: but some of these are not saved—why? Because God has not given them His Holy Spirit to enable them to obey, and therefore, it is God's fault, and not the clergy's, that sinners are not converted. This is the gospel according to Presbyterianism. Orthodox it may be in that church, but it is "another gospel" to that Paul preached, and therefore, spurious. If Presbyterian divines have nothing better or more rational than this to present to the people, the less they talk about the work of the Holy Spirit, or of Spirit-honouring Baptists, the better for their credit with the intelligent; for certainly a greater libel upon the character of God cannot be perpetrated than to maintain in effect that He is the author of sin. Sure we are, from the

fruits of Presbyterianism, that the Holy Spirit had never anything to do with such an unholy church, nor do we believe that he ever called or sent, or constituted Presbyterian "divines" as the expounders of his revelation to men.

We except, therefore, to their judgment in the case, and unhesitatingly reject their views of the work of the Holy Spirit as unworthy of reception.

But, my friends, as I said before, so now I reiterate, that though I reject the traditions of men concerning the work of the Holy Spirit, yet I do most heartily believe in the Scripture account thereof. And here permit me to observe that you should always make a distinction between things that differ—between the opinions of a thing, and the thing itself. The work of the Holy Spirit is the thing; Presbyterian and popular views of this work are the opinions of the thing. Now the self-complacent critics of orthodox communities anathematize us, because we do not agree with them in their opinions of this work; and denounce us blasphemers of the Spirit; thus making our rejection of their dogmata tantamount to a rejection of the Holy One Himself. But this is not to be wondered at, for it has been the spirit of Antichrist through all ages; and it was this spirit of proscription which conferred the crown of martyrdom upon the victim of Geneva tyranny.

For myself, I believe that the Holy Spirit is the only authoritative, infallible, efficient, and sufficient teacher of the Christian religion, in all its parts. If I be asked what is the manner in which he teaches this religion, I reply in the same way that all teachers convey instruction to their pupils; by words, either spoken or written. Hence, it is by the sacred Scriptures that he convinces men of sin, righteousness, and judgment to come in these times, and indeed, in all the times subsequent to the apostolic age. God is simple in all His plans. He appears never to use intricate means, when the end to be effected can be produced by simple ones. Simplicity is the characteristic of all that he performs. He rules the heavens, he regulates the seasons, and he saves men upon few, but powerful principles. If one means is able to make man wise, we need not expect to find any other institution than that one to effect the same end. Now Paul, the author of my friend's text, says that the sacred Scriptures are able to make us wise to salvation, by the faith (or gospel) which is through Christ Jesus. What more do we want than wisdom in relation to this matter? If the sacred Scriptures are able to make us wise, we need no other instrumentality. The Holy Spirit by the word, without infusing a single idea into it more than it actually and ordinarily contains, and without any collateral influence, teaches us all wisdom and knowledge that is necessary. It instructs man concerning his origin, his constitution, his sinful state, and how he may, though mortal, absolutely and unqualifiedly mortal, yet attain to life and incorruptibility; it informs him concerning the attributes of God, the creation, and the destiny of the earth and the race by which it is inhabited.

Why, then, my friends, can we not be content with the means within the grasp of every one who owns the volume of inspiration? If the ecclesiastical world were content to learn the truth from "the Bible alone," and it honestly desired to obey the Messiah, there would soon be an end to Presbyterian and every other ism, by which "Christendom" as it is called, or "anti-Christendom," as it should be termed, has been for ages desolated. But the world loves not the truth; because therefore, they have "not embraced the love of the truth that they might be saved, God has sent them strong delusion that they might believe a lie; that all might be condemned who have not obeyed the truth." The sacred Scriptures are not a dead letter, as the clergy teach you; they are "living and powerful, and sharper than a two-edged sword:" this is Paul's testimony, and ought therefore to be received as true by all believers.

Mr. WATT then came forward. He observed that his friend had warned him that an effort would be made to turn the debate into a personal attack. He was drawn into this discussion rather against his will, and, as he thought, without provoking it. He then stated the circumstances which originated it—he had heard Dr. Thomas advance some of his strange notions in a sermon, and on speaking of them to some gentlemen, was asked "why don't some of you learned men answer him?" He intimated that he was not afraid to do so. Being desirous of ascertaining something more of his belief, he made inquisition concerning it of one of Dr. Thomas's friends, and was advised to call upon Mr. Anderson, a preacher of the same faith. He sent a message to Mr. Anderson to the purpose that he would be pleased to have some conversation with him, which Mr. Anderson, interpreted as a challenge to engage in debate, and wrote a note saying that he had received his challenge, and desired a conference to settle the preliminaries. Dr. Thomas had also published an advertisement in his paper, in which he says that "the challenge had been given by the reverend gentleman." Now this was not the case. He had expressed his willingness, but did not give a challenge. Dr. Thomas ought to have known that he did not give the challenge; it was Mr. Anderson who gave it in the note which he had sent to him, and which he understood to be an invitation to debate. In reply to this note he had answered, that he intended no such thing as a challenge to debate, but he was willing to have some conversation with him. He would read a copy of the letter he had sent to Mr. A.—(This will be found at the end of the debate, to which we refer the reader). In consequence of this he had an interview with Mr. Anderson at Mr. Arvin's, and in the conversation between them he stated his willingness to preach a sermon in reply to the one he had heard from Dr. Thomas, and Mr. Anderson could defend it if he pleased.

But Mr. A. did not fall in with this proposal, alleging as a reason that he disagreed with Dr. Thomas in some of his opinions, but that Dr. Thomas would defend his own opinions. It was therefore agreed that he might do so, and thus the debate commenced. He was sorry he was put forth as the challenger, as he did not intend to challenge; as he had said in his reply to Mr. Anderson, that "he did not feel completely at liberty to challenge anyone to a public debate;" and that "as to the title of reverend," which Dr. Thomas had printed in his advertisement in quotation, he would say, that they (his order) did not claim the title of reverend; but, if people choose to give it to them as a mark of respect, he did not know that any harm was done.

He was sorry to see the course which Dr. Thomas had pursued. Dr. Thomas had dwelt much upon what he said about his being an Englishman; but he did not appeal to natural prejudices only in favour of the Christian religion. Dr. Thomas was a foreigner, and he had come here to our country, and he still thought he had not spoken as respectfully of the ministers of the gospel of America as he ought to have done. He thanked Dr. Thomas for preaching from his text; he had told them a great deal about the divisions in the Presbyterian Church, but he did not think they had anything to do with the differences in that Church. He thought it would be more interesting to know something about the immortal soul! That's what they wanted to know. Had man a soul that could never die? that was the question. Did Dr. Thomas believe that? The immortal soul, Dr. Thomas, is the thing we want you, sir, to tell us about! It was not about the misunderstandings among the Presbyterians, who, though they might differ, were not in the custom of unchristianising one another. Abram and Lot differed, and their servants strove together, but they agreed to differ, and separated by consent. So it was with Presbyterians, who, he denied, had any object to effect in the State. They were republicans, and had shed their blood on the side of liberty. It was not doctrine, but slavery, that was the true cause of separation between Presbyterians of the North and South. Presbyterians were well-disposed to all denominations of Christians. Had they not invited all of every name to eat with them at the Lord's table? They were ready to receive all who would unite with them, and he would ask, was it any new thing for Presbyterians to be liberal? This was undeniable, and also true that Presbyterians had, from time immemorial, stood upon the foundation of Jesus Christ.

Among other things Dr. Thomas had found out a new meaning for Baptism.

He says, it means to die with the dying of God. And that unless men are baptised into the true faith, they will all be damned. Did the moderators think that this debate would ultimate in any good? He did not. He was prepared to prove that the immortality of the soul was taught in the Scriptures. He was not accustomed to address so large an assembly as that before him; and when unanimated, he could not speak at all. He did not pretend to be a very great man, though he had been charged with presumption in venturing to encounter the great Dr. Thomas. One of his followers had told him before the debate began, "to stand up to the rack, fodder or no fodder," and another had said, he did not know whether he had a soul or not. What was the use of religion without an immortal soul? If there was no immortal soul, there was no God; he was willing, therefore, to take Dr. Thomas on the ground of the tendency of his opinions to Atheism.

Dr. Thomas says that Eternal Life is conditional; and that its conditionality is the doctrine of Scripture. Eternal Life is a phrase used to signify all that God has to bestow in the world to come; but Dr. Thomas makes it refer to nothing but the perpetuation of existence for ever. What else does it signify but every thing God has to bestow, where it says—"In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt die?" It denotes that, as God is a God of truth, the soul must die: it must be deprived of all happiness; though the body should not die; for Adam's body did not die on that day when he eat of the fruit; therefore it must have been his soul.

…